Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands

in U.S.-Japan Relations

American Strategy, Japanese Territory, and the Islanders In-Between

Marine Corps University Press

Quantico, Virginia

Robert D. Eldridge
The views expressed in this book are solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the 

opinions of the organizations for which they work, Marine Corps University, the U.S. Marine Corps, 

the Department of the Navy, or the U.S. government.

Marine Corps University Press

3078 Upshur Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5103

1st Printing, 2014

PCN10600009600

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Eldridge, Robert D.

  Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S.-Japan relations : American strategy, Japanese territory, and 

the islanders in-between / Robert D. Eldridge.

       pages cm

  Includes bibliographical references.

 1.  United States--Foreign relations--Japan. 2.  Japan--Foreign relations--United States. 3.  Iwo 

Jima (Volcano Islands, Japan)--History--20th century. 4.  Bonin Islands ( Japan)--History--20th 

century. 5.  Japan--Territories and possessions--History--20th century. 6.  Iwo Jima (Volcano Islands, Japan)--Strategic aspects. 7.  Bonin Islands ( Japan)--History--Strategic aspects. 8.  Island 

people--Japan--Iwo Jima (Volcano Islands)--History--20th century. 9.  Island people--Japan--

Bonin Islands--History--20th century. 10.  United States--Foreign relations--1945-1989.  I. Title. 

II. Title: Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in United States-Japan relations.

  E183.8.J3E44 2014

  327.73052--dc23

2013050872
Contents

Preface v

Acknowledgments x

Introduction

The Bonin (Ogasawara) and Volcano (Kazan) Islands ........................................ 1

Chapter 1

History of the Islands to the Pacific War .......................................................... 11

Chapter 2

The War and the Battle of Iwo Jima ................................................................. 52

Chapter 3

The Bonin Islands During the War................................................................. 103

Chapter 4

The Peace Treaty and Island Disposition ........................................................ 134

Chapter 5

Naval Administration and Chichi Jima Life, 1945–68.................................... 192

Chapter 6

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57................................ 234

Chapter 7

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67 ........................ 310

Chapter 8

The Reversion, 1967–68 .................................................................................. 374

Conclusion

End of an Era ................................................................................................. 452

Appendix A • The Ogasawara Reversion Agreement.............................................463

Appendix B • Statement on Mt. Suribachi Memorial ...........................................466

Appendix C • Draft Text on Nuclear Weapons Storage, 21 March 1968..............467

Appendix D • List of Island Appeals and Petitions, 1947–64 ...............................468

Bibliography • Primary Sources.......................................................................471

INDEX .......................................................................................................................507

v

Preface

This is the book I never planned to write. My research on the Bonin Islands—I kept telling 

myself and friends—was supposed to end with an article or two and perhaps a few public 

presentations. My main field was U.S.-Japan relations and Okinawa, not the small and 

insignificant group of islands known by historians as the Bonins but administratively and 

officially known today as the Ogasawara Islands.1

Or so I thought.

The opportunities to introduce my research findings grew exponentially, as did the number of trips to Chichi Jima, Haha Jima, and Iwo Jima,2

 and I found my interest in the subject expanding, too. Having completed books on Okinawa at the time of the peace treaty 

with Japan and the reversion of the Amami Islands, and successfully helped organize symposiums in Chichi Jima and published one book on the Bonins (edited by Daniel Long), 

it became apparent that a similar, in-depth study of the reversion of the Bonin Islands was 

necessary.

It was necessary both to complete the trilogy, so to speak, that I found myself doing—

Okinawa, Amami, and now the Bonins—all groups of islands that the United States administered in one form or another and for different lengths of time in the postwar period, 

as well as to fill the curious void in the literature on U.S.-Japan relations and the postwar 

history of the Bonin Islands. (Friend and socio-linguist Danny Long’s occasional prodding, 

including telling Nanpo Shinsha, our Japanese publisher, to expect a book from me, did not 

help my resolve not to publish.) And so, after much reconsideration, I came to the conclusion that a study like this was indeed necessary.

Like my two other books about security and territorial issues in the U.S.-Japan relationship, The Origins of the Bilateral Okinawa Problem: Okinawa in U.S.-Japan Relations, 

1945-19523

 and The Return of the Amami Islands: The Reversion Movement and U.S.-Japan 

Relations,

4

 this is first and foremost a study on the “intra-alliance” dynamics in which one 

country, the United States, continued to occupy and administer islands that were recognized as Japanese territory but, for a number of reasons, the United States and its wartime 

allies felt necessary to continue to administer. The longer this control continued, the more 

unnecessary it was seen by increasingly larger segments of the public and government of 

both countries due to the political erosion of the relationship caused by this friction. The 

question for policy makers and political leaders was finding the balance between security 

concerns, reversion demands, and national sentiment (in both countries), particularly as 

it related to the memory and sacrifices at Iwo Jima, in an effort to maintain friendly and 

cooperative relations. Eventually, the U.S. government agreed to Japanese requests to return the islands and this was done on 26 June 1968, a full four years prior to the even more 

problematic, but strategically important, Okinawa.
vi

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

I first started to take a strong interest in the Bonin Islands in the fall of 1999 after I had 

completed my doctoral dissertation at Kobe University’s Graduate School of Law (under 

the care of diplomatic historian Dr. Iokibe Makoto) and submitted it for publication (it appeared as The Origins of the Bilateral Okinawa Problem, mentioned above, in 2001). I learned 

of an American scholar and long-time resident of Japan, Dr. Daniel Long, who was looking 

at language use in the Bonin Islands, mixed as it is between Japanese and English. Dr. Long 

had compiled a helpful bibliography and numerous documents on the islands.5

 He had 

recently moved from Osaka to Tokyo, but he kindly responded to my initial inquiry and 

eventually took the lead in organizing a successful interdisciplinary symposium I proposed 

in Chichi Jima the following year, which resulted in a nine-chapter book he edited entitled 

Ogasawaragaku Koto Hajime (An Introduction to Ogasawara Studies).6

 After that he put 

together another conference, as well as two research groups (of which I was asked to join) 

studying diversity in the islands, in addition to numerous other projects on coexistence and 

language usage. It is not only scholars who are indebted to him, but the large number of 

tourists who make the 26-hour journey to the islands on the 6,700-ton Ogasawara Maru—

he coauthored the popular Ogasawara Handbook (Nanpo Shinsha, 2004) complete with 

many colorful photos and brief discussions of the places, history, tropical life, and other 

encounters waiting there. He also coedited the Ogasawara Kotoba Shaberu Jiten (Talking 

Dictionary of the Bonin Islands Language) with Hashimoto Naoyuki, also by Nanpo Shinsha (2005), and published English on the Bonin (Ogasawara) Islands in 2007.7

 As the above 

work suggests, his contribution alone to Bonins (and Japan) studies has been huge.

I began presenting my findings on the Bonin Islands around the time of our first symposium in Chichi Jima in August 2000 and continued to do so at numerous seminars 

and conferences, including at the PhD Kenkyukai at the International House, Tokyo, in 

November 2000; the U.S.-Japan Relations Study Group (Nichibei Kankei no Renzokusei/

Hirenzokusei Kenkyukai) at Doshisha University, chaired by Professor Hosoya Masahiro, in 

January 2001; Professor Roger Dingman’s international history seminar at the University 

of Southern California in June 2001; and a subsequent symposium in Chichi Jima in late 

August 2002 before I was interrupted with other projects. These included getting the Okinawa book ready for publication in Japan, and Japanese and English versions of my book 

on the reversion of the Amami Islands, all three of which came out in a six-month period 

between the summer of 2003 and early 2004. Fortunately, I was able to continue with my 

Bonins research somewhat when Danny organized an interdisciplinary study group on the 

islands and received funding from the Japanese Ministry of Education and Science. For 

that project, I examined the U.S. naval administration of the islands, which forms the basis 

of chapter 5 in this study. We presented our findings at the Asian Studies Conference at 

Sophia University in Tokyo in June 2003 and published our collective work in Ogasawara 

Kenkyu (Ogasawara Research), a journal published by the Ogasawara Research Committee of Tokyo Metropolitan University (Shuto Daigaku Tokyo Ogasawara Kenkyu Iinkai).8

 I 

was also fortunate enough to present a paper on the secret nuclear weapons agreements in 

both the Bonin and Okinawa reversions at the annual conference of the Society for the 

Historians of American Foreign Policy in northern Virginia in June 2007,9

 which was 

subsequently published in The Journal of American-East Asian Relations.

10 Also, I had the 

opportunity to present about the Bonins, Okinawa, and the Amami Islands and the influ-
vii

ence of the Cold War before the Slavic Research Center at Hokkaido University during my 

time there in the summer of 2008 as a visiting associate professor. Finally, upon moving to 

Okinawa in September 2009, I discussed a comparative history of the reversion processes of 

both Ogasawara and Okinawa at the 23d public lecture of the Okinawa Hosei Kenkyusho 

(Okinawa Institute of Law and Politics) of Okinawa Kokusai Daigaku (Okinawa International University) on 22 December 2009.

In addition to Chichi Jima and Haha Jima, my interest in Iwo Jima, farther to the south, 

began to grow when I had the rare privilege, in March 2003, of attending the commemoration ceremony marking the 58th anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima on the island, flying 

with U.S. Marines and some Ground Self-Defense Force personnel from Okinawa on a 

military transport plane out of Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, Ginowan City, Okinawa. The ceremony was dignified and moving, a true “Reunion of Honor.”11 With this, I 

began to think how I could incorporate the story of the Battle of Iwo Jima—the place that 

most vividly symbolized the clash of strategic interests and sacrifice—with the overall bilateral history of the Ogasawara Islands. A subsequent visit to Iwo Jima in April 2007, again 

with U.S. Marines (as part of 1st Marine Aircraft Wing’s Professional Military Education 

program) from Okinawa, deepened my understanding of that horrific battle, as did two 

additional trips in February and March 2010 as part of the 65th anniversary of the battle 

and the accompanying bilateral Reunion of Honor. Meeting with U.S. Iwo Jima veterans 

over the years helped me to learn what the island meant to them and to my country. While 

there were several veterans who had opposed the return of Iwo Jima to Japan in 1968, most 

of them thought it was not only inevitable but also the right thing to do. They truly were 

the “greatest generation.” Keeping in mind the bravery shown by Japanese forces on that 

isolated island, the same could be said of many on the Japanese side as well.

My interest in Iwo Jima only continued to grow after I had the opportunity to do a sabbatical as a scholar-in-residence at the headquarters of U.S. Marine Corps Forces, Pacific, 

at Camp H. M. Smith in Oahu, Hawaii, from September 2004 to August 2005, then under 

the command of Lieutenant General Wallace C. Gregson. While there, I learned more of 

the importance of Iwo Jima for the Marines, and was befriended by Alice and Sefton B. 

Clark, chairpersons of the Pacific War Memorial Association (PWMA) in Hawaii. I joined 

the association’s board in 2005, and traveled that August to Camp Tarawa on the Big Island, 

which served as the critical training location for the 5th Marine Division in preparing to 

take Iwo Jima.12 An incredible bonus came when the unpublished diary of a Navy corpsman attached to the 28th Marines of the 5th Marine Division was donated to the PWMA 

before Memorial Day 2005 and I was given the opportunity to transcribe it and use it for 

my research.13 Alice and I published a portion of it in the Marine Corps Gazette the following spring.14 Through Alice, I met the late Major General Fred E. Haynes, mentioned in the 

acknowledgments, who was a Marine captain in the Battle of Iwo Jima and served on the 

association’s board with us until his passing in March 2010. Later, I got to know a member 

of the 5th Division, Iwo veteran Charles W. Tatum, who served as an 18-year-old machine 

gunner in the 1st Battalion, 27th Marines, and was in the battle’s first assault wave. He and 

I later coedited and published the memoirs of the late Imperial Japanese Army major, Horie 

Yoshitaka.15

Preface
viii

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Over the years, I have been fortuitous enough not only to visit many of the places I was 

writing about, as well as to travel to nearby locations such as Hawaii, Guam, and Saipan to 

examine the comparative Pacific island cultures, but also to interview many of the policy 

makers and military and civilian officials involved in implementing that policy, as well as 

others who were involved in the history in one way or another.

This book, therefore, is a product of the above experiences. When beginning, I initially 

was interested in examining five questions: How and why did the United States come to 

occupy and administer the islands? What was the Navy’s administration like for the islands? How did the Japanese government feel about the islands being under U.S. control? 

How and when did the United States decide to return the islands? How were the negotiations over the reversion agreement handled?

The more I studied the postwar period, the more I became interested in the prewar 

and wartime history to better understand the islands’ background as well as their political, 

diplomatic, commercial, military, and strategic importance. I eventually decided to look not 

only at the postwar period but to include several chapters on the prewar as well. In doing so, 

I discovered that the story of the Bonins and Iwo Jima is not only a bilateral U.S.-Japan history, but an international one as well. Namely, the islands were first discovered by European 

sailors, explored by Japanese, settled by people of Western descent, claimed by Japan, occupied (in the postwar) by the United States, and then returned to Japan. In other words, the 

islands are at the center of Western—in particular American (and British)—interactions 

with Japan and the Pacific. As mentioned earlier, the Battle of Iwo Jima in 1945 perhaps 

best symbolizes the strategic clash of American and Japanese interests. At the same time, its 

return in 1968 also symbolized the degree to which the diplomatic and political partnership 

had matured. The structure of the book seeks to capture this interplay and the development 

of the bilateral relationship.

There will undoubtedly be different opinions and feelings with regard to that history, 

especially as they relate to the Battle of Iwo Jima, something I have felt over the course of 

numerous interviews with veterans of both sides and their supporters. It is also something 

that was captured in a published interview with Nishi Yasunori, the eldest son of Baron 

Nishi Takeichi, a 1932 Olympic equestrian gold medalist, and a tank commander at Iwo: 

“Japanese and Americans feel entirely differently about Iwo Jima. For us Japanese, it is an 

island mourning the dead. For the Americans, it is an island for glorifying their victory.”16

Moreover, for many Japanese, the Battle of Iwo Jima is not yet over: only about one-third 

of the remains of Japanese soldiers and sailors have been recovered and thus many more still 

need to be found.17 The author is American, but I sympathize with the Japanese families 

who have, for a variety of reasons, not been able to recover the remains of their loved ones 

and pray that they have found some repose. The same can be said of the U.S. side as well—

thousands did not return alive from that battle and approximately 250 are listed as missing 

in action.18

This book is an attempt to both bridge the gap—and show the similarities—in understanding this issue on both sides, as well as to examine the dynamics of the interplay 

between the United States and Japan over the destiny of the islands, mentioned above. It 

is not only a historical study of U.S.-Japan relations and Japanese political and diplomatic 

history but is also an attempt to contribute to Bonin- and Iwo Jima-related studies.
ix

I realize that readers come from different backgrounds and academic disciplines, but I 

hope you are satisfied with the results.

On a final note, this book was first published in Japanese in August 2008, and in preparing it for publication in English, I have continued to gather materials and conduct 

interviews as well as present my findings at gatherings in Tokyo, Kyoto, Hokkaido, and 

Okinawa. I have also since resigned from Osaka University to join the U.S. Civil Service, 

serving proudly as the deputy assistant chief of staff, G-5, at U.S. Marine Corps Base, Japan 

(now known as G-7, Marine Corps Installations Pacific), in Okinawa. The views expressed 

in this book are those of the author alone and do not represent those of the command to 

which I belong.

Robert D. Eldridge

Futami Bay, Chichi Jima, Japan

26 June 2008 (40th anniversary of reversion)

Chatan, Okinawa, Japan

19 February 2012 (67th anniversary of start of battle)

Preface
x

Acknowledgments

Over the many years doing this research, I have been helped by a number of people. I wish 

to acknowledge them here.

As always, I wish to express my indebtedness to my mentor, Professor Iokibe Makoto, 

currently president of the National Defense Academy in Yokosuka, Japan, who served as 

my advisor at the Graduate School of Law, Kobe University. Always generous with praise, 

he is equally willing to share his insights into the dynamics of the relationship that brought 

our two countries together and which make them interact the way they do.

Second, thanks go to my “compass in life,” my wife Emiko, and to my children, Ami 

Mary and Kennan Thomas, who did not complain when I went on trips to the Bonin Islands (known in Japan as the Ogasawara Islands), Iwo Jima, and my many other research 

journeys around Japan and the United States. I only wish I could have taken them on all 

of my travels.

Third, my gratitude to Dr. Daniel “Danny” Long of Tokyo Metropolitan University, for 

his friendship and mentoring on Bonin studies and for the introductions made and hundreds of documents and articles shared with me over the years. Through Dr. Long, I was 

able to become a visiting researcher at the Ogasawara Research Committee of the same 

university from 2007–8, which provided a stimulating research environment, particularly 

at its facility on the islands. Moreover, Danny invited me to participate in two multidisciplinary research projects on the Bonin Islands, one from 2002 to 2004, and the other from 

2007 to the time of this writing, funded by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, 

Grant-in Aide for Scientific Research, B1 #14390043, and a Suntory Foundation Humanities and Social Science Grant respectively.

Fourth, I wish to thank retired Marine Corps Lieutenant Generals Wallace C. Gregson 

and George J. Trautman, who both kindly arranged for me to visit the usually off-limits 

Iwo Jima in March 2003 and April 2007, respectively, as part of the research for this book 

and to expand my understanding of the United States Marine Corps. As discussed in the 

preface, both trips were very special experiences, made all the more special due to the ability 

to travel with them and their Marines. Retired Colonel Dan L. Melton—who served as the 

Marine attaché at the U.S. embassy in Tokyo (2006–8) and now works for the Joint Pacific 

Accounting Command in Hawaii, visited Iwo Jima a number of times including with the 

first-ever mission of the Joint Prisoners of War/Missing in Action Command in July 2007, 

and himself lost a great-uncle in the battle—kindly shared his insights into the history of 

the battle and complicated dynamics of Iwo Jima’s position in U.S.-Japan relations.

Fifth, I wish to thank the many individuals from or living on the Bonin Islands who 

have assisted my research over the years through the granting of interviews, the provision of 

documents and photos, the personal tours of specific sites, and hosting me for both formal 

and informal functions there. Ohira Rance provided several fun evenings and many insights 
xi

during conversations at his Yankee Town bar, as did his friends who were back visiting for 

the summer. The dive shop, Kaizin, provided equally exciting marine experiences. Speaking 

of maritime experiences, Murata Tokushiro personally led me on tours of wartime sites and 

weaponry along the sea in his boat and into the caves of the island over two full days. But 

especially, I wish to thank Shimada Kinuko and Savory Takashi ( Jonathon Savory) of the 

Ogasawara Board of Education for their generosity.

Sixth and similarly, I wish to thank the many former U.S. and Japanese officials and 

military personnel (including the families of these individuals), librarians, writers, and 

scholars, who have assisted me in this study through interviews, the provision of photos 

and documents, and introductions to others familiar with the period or issue at hand. These 

men and women are introduced in the respective footnotes throughout the text. I am particularly grateful to Robert D. Shaffer, who was a major by the end of the World War II 

and shared his firsthand insights into the postwar occupation of Chichi Jima; Charles W. 

Tatum, who was in the Battle of Iwo Jima and with whom I coedited a translation of the 

memoirs of Major Horie Yoshitaka.19 The late Colonel Charles H. Waterhouse, who also 

served in the battle and who later captured that and other battles through his paintings and 

artwork; Major General Fred Haynes, who passed away but chronicled the battle before he 

died in The Lions of Iwo Jima;

20 Colonel James L. Tinsley Jr., the son of the first commanding officer on Chichi Jima; Horie Yoshibumi, the son of Major Horie who gave permission to translate and publish his father’s memoirs and supplied us with many photos and 

stories; Ota Masakatsu, the award-winning journalist at Kyodo News Agency; Haraguchi 

Kunihiro and Hamai Kazufumi of the Diplomatic Records Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Watanabe Takashi, director of the Japan-America Society, Tokyo; Wada Seiji, 

formerly with the Japan-America Society and currently with the Yoshida Shigeru International Foundation; and Taniguchi Haru of the Asiatic Society of Japan for their friendship 

and support in my research. Ed Packard, a graduate student at the London School of Economics, came through with documents from the British Public Records Office in an extremely timely and efficient manner. I wish him luck in his own future research and career.

Seventh, I wish to thank the staffs at the numerous archives I have visited over the 

years, including the U.S. National Archives at College Park, Washington National Records 

Center, U.S. Naval Operational Archives, Chester M. Nimitz Library at the U.S. Naval 

Academy in Annapolis, Marine Corps History Division, Harry S. Truman Presidential 

Library, Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library, John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, Richard B. Russell Library at the University 

of Georgia, Princeton University’s Seeley G. Mudd Library, Virginia Historical Society, 

Pusey Library at Harvard, State Library of Massachusetts, Minneapolis Historical Society, 

Okinawa Kyokai (Okinawa Association), and the Institute for Okinawa Studies, Hosei 

University. I would also like to thank retired U.S. Marine Corps Colonel Richard Camp, 

formerly with Marine Corps History Division and now vice president of the Marine Corps 

Heritage Foundation, for his active assistance.

Eighth, I am grateful to the staff at Osaka University’s School of International Public Policy, my former employers, especially the staff of the school’s support office, including Murashita Akiko, Kameda Sachiyo, Takuwa Yukari, Shimizu Chika, and Kawamura 

Acknowledgments
xii

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Noriko, as well as Matsumoto Tadashi of the OSIPP Network Center for their assistance 

over the years.

Ninth, I am appreciative for the numerous opportunities to present my findings at academic conferences and various seminars and symposiums and for the comments and criticisms generated by the fellow panelists, discussants, and audiences.

Tenth, I wish to acknowledge Mukohara Takashi, the publisher of the Japanese version 

of this book, which appeared prior to the English one. Mukohara, who was dissatisfied 

with the fact that most Japanese publishing houses are concentrated in Tokyo, took a dream 

more than 15 years ago—the desire to publish quality books on regional and local issues in 

Japan from a provincial area (in this case, his hometown of Kagoshima)—and built it into 

a successful publishing firm, Nanpo Shinsha. Mukohara published our first book on the 

Bonin Islands (Daniel Long, ed., Ogasawaragaku Koto Hajime [An Introduction to Ogasawara Studies], Nanpo Shinsha, 2002) and the Japanese edition of my book on Amami 

(Amami Henkan to Nichibei Kankei [The Reversion of Amami and U.S.-Japan Relations], 

Nanpo Shinsha, 2003), and even attended the 2002 symposium in Chichi Jima. He has 

since created an “Ogasawara Series,” the Japanese version of this book being the fifth in it. 

Congratulations Mukohara-san for realizing your dream, and thank you for helping us to 

realize some of ours.

Finally, I wish to thank the director and staff at the Marine Corps University Press for 

the interest they showed in making this book a reality and for the dedication and professionalism they showed throughout the project.
1

Introduction

The Bonin (Ogasawara)

and Volcano (Kazan) Islands

The moral of the story of the Bonin Islands is plain for all to see.

Mutual Anglo-American mistrust and petty jealousies were responsible for 

handing over the Bonin Islands to the Japanese.

—Robert Standish, Bonin: A Novel

The Bonin Islands, known in Japanese as the Ogasawara Islands, are comprised of four 

groups of islands—the Muko Jima (5 islands, 2.6 sq. mi.) group, the Chichi Jima (10 islands, 15.2 sq. mi.) group, the Haha Jima (9 islands, 10.6 sq. mi.) group, and the Volcano 

(Kazan) Island group (3 islands, 10.8 sq. mi)—and three separate and quite isolated islands,21 for a total of about 30 islands, most of which are uninhabited. Together, the islands 

comprise a land area of approximately 40 sq. mi.

The Bonin Islands, the largest of which are Chichi Jima (9.47 sq. mi.) and Haha Jima 

(8.2 sq. mi.), lie between latitude 27°45’ and 26°30’ north (at longitude 145°18’ east), which 

means they are about 600 miles south-southeast from Tokyo (536 miles in the case of 

Chichi Jima). The Volcano Islands, the largest of which is Iwo Jima,22 lie a farther 125 

miles southwest of the Bonin group (Iwo Jima is 147 miles from Chichi Jima). They are included in the Bonin (officially, Ogasawara) Islands for administrative purposes and extend 

from latitude 25°26’ to 24°14’ north (longitude 141°18’ east). Marcus Island, also known as 

Minami Tori Jima and Weeks Island, lies 669 miles east of Chichi Jima and is located at 

latitude 24°17’ north and longitude 153°58’ east.23

The name “Bonin” is believed to derive from a misreading of the Chinese characters for 

the Japanese name of the islands, “Mujin,” which evolved into “Bujin” and then “Bunin,” all 

of which mean “no man” or uninhabited.24 The Bonin Islands, of which Chichi Jima and 

Haha Jima are now inhabited, are accessible only by boat (a journey that takes about 26 

hours). The 6,700-ton Ogasawara Maru, with a capacity for 1,043 passengers, runs about 

once a week between Tokyo and Chichi Jima, and the Haha Jima Maru, a smaller vessel, 

runs between Chichi Jima and Haha Jima daily. Irregular freighters, such as the Kyosho 

Maru, also take passengers to Chichi Jima. In emergencies, a seaplane, such as those operated by the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Forces ( JMSDF) and the Japanese Coast Guard 

( JCG) can be mobilized to transport patients. Although Iwo Jima has an airfield, its use is 

essentially limited to military aircraft and the occasional charter flight for commemoration 

events. While JMSDF personnel and base workers stay on the island for extended periods 

of time, no civilians permanently live there today.
2

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

As seen in figure 1, the Bonin and Volcano Islands form two of the three larger groupings of islands (retto) making up the Nanpo Shoto island chain that runs southward from 

Tokyo Bay to within 300 miles of the Mariana Islands. The first group is the Izu Shoto, 

where many of the Bonin islanders, displaced during and after World War II, would eventually settle. This study concerns the latter two groups, the Bonin and Volcano Islands, 

which were administratively separated from the Japanese mainland during the occupation 

of Japan (1945–52) until 1968, when the islands were returned to Japan.25

The numerous islands making up these groups, having been discovered (and “rediscovered”) and settled by Westerners but also explored and later settled by Japanese as well, over 

time came to possess several names.26 Figure 2 provides a comparative list of the different 

names for the same places.

Figure 1. Map of Bonin and Volcano Islands
3

The sovereignty and settlement of Iwo Jima were never really contentious international 

issues in the prewar period, so the author generally uses “Iwo Jima” and “Volcano Islands,” 

unless discussing their initial discovery and naming by Western explorers and sailors, at 

which time Iwo Jima was called “Sulphur Island.” Of course, as discussed earlier, the Japanese government recently decided to officially recognize the old appellations used by the islanders, renaming Iwo Jima, Kita Iwo Jima, and Minami Iwo Jima as Iwo (Io) To, Kita Iwo 

(Io) To, and Minami Iwo (Io) To. It is uncertain how long it will take for the reemergence 

of their old names to be used popularly again, as most people, on both sides of the Pacific, 

are more familiar with the reading “Iwo Jima” and may have never known that it was also 

pronounced “Iwo (Io) To” in the past.

Muko Jima Retto (Parry Group)

Kitano Jima (北の島, literally: Northern Island)

Muko Jima (聟島, literally: Bridegroom Island; also called Harrau)

Nakodo Jima or Nakadachi Jima (仲人島, literally: Go-between Island)

Yome Jima (嫁島, literally: Bride Island; also called Kater Island)

Chichi Jima Group (Beechey Group)

Otōto Jima (弟島, literally: Younger Brother Island; also called Stapleton Island, 

North Island, and Nord Island)

Ani Jima (兄島, literally: Elder Brother Island; also called Buckland Island and Hog 

Island)

Chichi Jima (父島, literally: Father Island; also called Peel Island)

Haha Jima Group (Bailey Group; also called Coffin Group)

Haha Jima (母島, literally: Mother Island; also called Hillsboro Island, Coffin Island)

Ane Jima (姉島, literally: Elder Sister Island; also called Perry Island)

Imōto Jima (妹島, literally: Younger Sister Island; also called Kelly Island)

Kazan Group (Volcano Group)

Kita Iwo Jima (北硫黄島, literally: North Sulphur Island; also called San Alessandro 

Island)

Iwo Jima (硫黄島, literally: Sulphur Island; also called Naka Iwo To and Io Shima)

Minami Iwo Jima (南硫黄島, literally: South Sulphur Island; also called San Augustino Island)

Introduction

Figure 2. English and Japanese names for individual islands and groups in the Bonin Islands
4

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Lying within range of the warm Japan Current/Stream (otherwise known as the Nihon 

Kairyu or Kuroshio) and having a subtropical marine climate, the Bonin Islands are a lush 

green group of islands with fresh drinking water. While the Bonins are volcanic in origin, 

having been formed in the Eocene epoch and ending before the Miocene by successive lava 

flows from submarine volcanoes,27 the soil is quite fertile (made up of andesitic lava called 

“Boninite,” sedimentary agglomerate tufaceous rocks, and layers of coral limestone28), and 

the annual mean temperature is in the mid-70s (Fahrenheit), 73 degrees in the case of 

Chichi Jima and 78 for Haha Jima, 32 miles farther south. The hot season, from April to 

November, raises the temperature into the 80s. Rainfall averages about 62 inches per year.29

The Volcano Islands, on the other hand, as the name implies, are an actual volcano with 

sulphur springs and other thermal activity. The shape of the island continues to change annually, and rise in height. These islands fall in the tropical zone. They are actually comprised 

of three islands, two of which—Iwo Jima and Kita Iwo Jima—were inhabited prewar. Iwo 

Jima, which serves today as the JMSDF base (with occasional use by the U.S. military for 

the U.S. Navy carrier air wing’s field carrier landing practice and other purposes), is the 

main one of the group, at 4.5 miles in length and 2.5 miles in width at its widest point (8 

sq. mi.). The second largest island is Kita Iwo Jima, 40 miles north of Iwo Jima. It is approximately 2 sq. mi. in area. The third is Minami Iwo Jima, 36 miles southwest of Iwo 

Jima, with an area of 1 sq. mi.

Iwo Jima’s most famous natural feature, found in the southernmost part of the island, 

is its partially active volcano, the 556-feet-high Suribachiyama, or Mt. Suribachi. Being a 

volcano, Iwo Jima is sulphuric, with a grayish-black volcanic sand covering much of the 

island, making it difficult (but not impossible) to farm or even live. Indeed, a productive 

community emerged there as the soil was suitable for the production of sugar cane and 

sulphur mining grew as an industry. Other crops, however, would have difficulty growing 

and it would probably be difficult to support a large community.

Nevertheless, people started to travel and live on the islands in 1875, about 50 years after 

Chichi Jima was originally settled by Westerners and around the same time that the Bonins 

were being settled by Japanese. With drinking water scarce, prewar settlers relied primarily 

on rain water. Sixty inches of rain falls annually.30 Temperatures range from 63 to 70 degrees Fahrenheit from December to April, and 73 to 80 degrees between May and November. In the height of the summer, temperatures sometimes go as high as 95 degrees.31 One 

famous quote, “Iwo did not need the battle to be Hell,” said by numerous Marine veterans, 

captures the environment perfectly.

The islands are believed to have been formed 10 to 40 million years ago. Despite being 

so old, it is only in the last 170-plus years that people have been living there, although some 

excavations in Kita Iwo Jima, Chichi Jima, and Haha Jima suggest that people, likely from 

the nearby Marianas Islands, had at least visited at one point during the Stone Age.32

The later-named (or misnamed) Bonin Islands were sighted in 1639 by Dutch sailors 

(Spanish explorers had discovered the nearby Volcano Islands in 1543), and investigated by 

Japanese authorities in 1675. However, the islands were not settled, and did not become of 

interest internationally until the second quarter of the 1800s when American and British 
5

whalers began stopping for refuge and supplies. They would next gain international attention when Iwo Jima became the site of one of the most horrific battles in World War II.

The Bonin and Volcano groups have been a part of Japanese territory officially and 

without incident since 1876, except for two decades after World War II when they were 

administered by the United States. And, even during that time, Japan still retained “residual 

sovereignty” over the islands.33 The discovery and exploration of these two groups of islands, particularly the Bonins group, is a complicated tale and intertwined between foreign 

discoverers and settlers and Japanese explorations and claims. The islands were first sighted 

by foreigners, first explored by Japanese, first settled by foreigners, and then later first successfully claimed and annexed by Japan. One writer would later lament that “the moral of 

the story of the Bonin Islands is plain for all to see. Mutual Anglo-American mistrust and 

petty jealousies were responsible for handing over the Bonin Islands to the Japanese. So 

anxious were Britons that the islands should not be American, and vice versa, that both 

contributed much to make the Japanese claim appear valid.”34

Chapter 1 examines this international history, describing the discovery, exploration, 

settlement, ownership, and development of the islands to provide the setting for why one 

of the fiercest battles in World War II took place, and why the United States believed it 

necessary to occupy the islands for 23 years after the war. Being for the most part not easily 

accessible, then and now, several myths and legends have evolved over the centuries about 

the islands. However, based on the writings of subsequent historians, anthropologists, and 

other scholars (who, too, more often than not have differed factually in several places), and 

several trips to the islands and elsewhere for research and interviews, the author has tried 

to recreate the history of the islands’ discovery and settlement, including that of Iwo Jima. 

This book is not so much a social history as it is one about the diplomacy surrounding the 

islands and the people who have shaped that history. Because of this, the author chose not 

to describe in detail the daily lives of the people living on the islands, with the exception of 

how their lives were impacted by the various international dynamics, including the coming 

of war, their subsequent evacuations, and the long-term occupation of the islands.35

Chapter 2 looks at Iwo Jima and the war in the Pacific, discussing not only the horrific 

battle and the American planning and strategy behind taking it (as well as Japanese plans 

to defend Iwo), but also at the supreme irony of the island being commanded by Lieutenant 

General Kuribayashi Tadamichi, an officer educated abroad who had long argued against 

the folly of war with the United States. It also looks at how on the battlefield the two sides 

came to view, and sometimes respect, one another amid the fighting and how both sides 

now look at the battle.

Chapter 3 moves 180 miles to the north to see how the Bonins, in particular Chichi 

Jima, was affected by the war and looks at the tragedy of downed U.S. pilots who were 

abused, murdered, and eaten by some of their sadistic Japanese captors. This chapter contrasts the leadership of Kuribayashi on Iwo, who has earned some respect in both Japan and 

the United States, with that of the local commanding general, Lieutenant General Tachibana Yoshio, later sentenced and executed for war crimes, and highlights the careful work 

of the U.S. commander, Marine Colonel Presley M. Rixey, and his staff in uncovering what 

he called the camouflage by “old Tachi.” It includes primary documents from the investiIntroduction
6

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

gation, including a two-day interview conducted by the author with the lead investigator, 

then-Marine Major Robert D. Shaffer, and a review of his extensive collection of personal 

papers.

Chapter 4 examines the disposition of the Bonin and Volcano Islands at the time of 

the 1951 San Francisco Treaty and the competing views of the U.S. military and the State 

Department on their handling. It also looks at how the Japanese government, led by Prime 

Minister Yoshida Shigeru, tried to respond to the prospect of losing control and perhaps 

sovereignty itself over the islands, despite Japan’s not having diplomatic rights at the time.

Chapter 5 explores the U.S. Navy’s occupation and administration of the islands, and 

life on Chichi Jima, for the initial 126 islanders of Western descent who were allowed to 

return in October 1946 after having been evacuated in the summer of 1944 by the Imperial 

Japanese government.36 In addition to looking at how islanders interacted with U.S. Navy 

authorities and personnel, the chapter examines their efforts to seek U.S. citizenship and, by 

at least some of them, to prevent the return of the former inhabitants of Japanese descent 

(which, as I uncovered for the first time, appears to have been done at the instigation of 

Navy authorities), as well as the concerns they had as a result of the decision to revert the 

islands.

Chapters 6 and 7 discuss the bilateral issues that emerged following the Treaty of Peace 

with Japan going into effect on 28 April 1952, looking first at the question of reversion, followed by that of repatriation for the approximate 7,700 islanders of Japanese descent who 

were not being permitted to return to Chichi Jima, Haha Jima, Iwo Jima, and Kita Iwo 

Jima. When neither reversion nor repatriation was possible, the U.S. and Japanese governments agreed to a compensation package for the islanders who could not return. Another 

demand—that of visiting the graves of ancestors located on the islands—would also be an 

issue, taking many years to resolve. Moreover, this chapter discusses the failed efforts by 

Japanese families and other representatives to locate the remains of fallen Japanese soldiers 

on Iwo Jima, more than 40 years after the return of the island.

Chapter 8 focuses on the bilateral discussions leading to the decision to return the 

islands and the negotiations for the reversion agreement of April 1968, including the assumption of regional defense commitments by Japan, and examines in detail the two major 

bilateral problems with the reversion—nuclear weapons storage rights and the status of the 

Iwo Jima memorial on Mt. Suribachi.

The concluding chapter describes the end of the era and the significance of the return 

of the islands, looking at the official reversion ceremony on 26 June 1968, held on Chichi 

Jima, the smaller one on Iwo Jima, and the celebratory events in Tokyo, and also briefly 

looks at Japanese and U.S. efforts to ease the transition of the islands and islanders back to 

Japan.
7

Notes

1

I have chosen to use the historic name of the islands (i.e. the Bonins or the Bonin Islands) throughout most of the text unless there are specific reasons to use “Ogasawara,” such as when it is used in 

the title of a book or document, an office, or as part of a particular discussion.

2

As I was writing this book, the Japanese Geographical Survey Institute (Kokudo Chiri In) announced 

on 18 June 2007, that the name of Iwo Jima was going to be changed to Iwo (or Io) To, with maps 

using the revised name to go on sale on 1 September. In addition, Kita Iwo Jima became Kita Iwo 

(Io) To, and Minami Iwo Jima became Minami Iwo (Io) To. The name changes were done at the 

request of Ogasawara municipal government and made after studying the issue in the Coordinating 

Committee for Unifying Geographical Names (Chimeito no Toitsu ni Kansuru Renraku Kyogikai), 

which is comprised of the above institute and the Japanese Coast Guard’s Maritime Information 

Directorate (Kaijo Hoancho Kaiyo Johobu). For more, see “Iwojima, Site of Fierce Battle, is Officially 

Renamed Iwoto,” Japan Times, 19 June 2007. According to the Ogasawara village government, former inhabitants of the islands had used Iwo To, and had long requested that the name be changed 

back to Iwo To, as Iwo Jima had become so widely and commonly used. In March 2007, the village 

assembly passed a resolution calling for the name change and this resolution was sent to the Geographical Survey Institute for its review. For more, see the village government’s announcement at 

http://www.vill.ogasawara.tokyo.jp/topics/information_000057.html. For an informative discussion 

on the historic name of the island, see Takeichi Ginjiro, Iwoto: Kyokugen no Senjo ni Kakomareta 

Nihonjin no Tamashii [Iwo To: The Spirit of the Japanese Captured in This Extreme Battleground] 

(Tokyo: Omura Shoten, 2001), 12. I have chosen to use the more common name of the islands, i.e., 

Iwo Jima, throughout most of the book unless “Iwoto” or “Ioto” is specifically used.

3

Robert D. Eldridge, The Origins of the Bilateral Okinawa Problem: Okinawa in U.S.-Japan Relations, 

1945–1952 (New York: Routledge, 2001).

4

Robert D. Eldridge, The Return of the Amami Islands: The Reversion Movement and U.S.-Japan Relations (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2004).

5

The bibliography is available on his website at http://nihongo.human.metro-u.ac.jp/~long/default.

html.

6

Daniel Long, ed., Ogasawaragaku Koto Hajime [An Introduction to the Ogasawara Islands] (Kagoshima: Nanpo Shinsha, 2002).

7

Daniel Long, English on the Bonin (Ogasawara) Islands (Durham: Duke University Press, 2007).

8

See Robert D. Eldridge, Daniel Long, Junko Konishi, Paul A. Cunningham, and John C. Maher, 

“Exploring the Rich History and Culture of the Ogasawara (Bonin) Islands,” Ogasawara Kenkyu, no. 

29 (March 2004), 93–179.

9

Robert D. Eldridge, “Prelude to Okinawa: Nuclear Agreements and the Return of the Ogasawara 

Islands to Japan,” 2007 SHAFR Conference, http://www.h-net.org/~diplo/reports/SHAFR2007

/SHAFR2007-Panel39-Eldridge-Paper.pdf.

10See Robert D. Eldridge, “Prelude to Okinawa: Nuclear Agreements and the Return of the Ogasawara Islands to Japan,” The Journal of American-East Asian Relations, vol. 15 (2008): 5–24.

11For more on this trip, see Robert D. Eldridge, “Honoring the Dead: A Trip to Iwo Jima,” Kansai 

Time Out, no. 316 ( June 2003). The annual ceremony known as the “Reunion of Honor” officially 

began in 1985 through the sponsorship of the 3d, 4th, and 5th Division Associations of the United 

Introduction
8

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

States Marine Corps and the Iwo Jima Association (Iwo Jima Kyokai), based in Yokosuka, Japan. 

For the 1985 reunion, see “The Return to Iwo Jima: ‘You Can Almost Feel the Ghosts’,” Pacific Stars 

and Stripes, 21 February 1985; and Peter Carlson, “Forty Years After the Battle, 200 Marines Make 

a Return Trip to the Sands of Iwo Jima,” People Magazine, 11 March 1985, 99–100, 105. According 

to the authors of Ogasawara Heidan no Saigo [The Tragic End of the Soldiers Sent to Ogasawara], 

the president of the 5th Marine Division, Charles Early, had called for a reunion of the veterans 

of both sides to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the battle, but opinion in Japan was heavily 

divided, particularly over the question of whether survivors and those captured in the battle should 

be considered heroes or not. In the end, the Japanese side did not participate in previous attempts 

to meet. See Ogasawara Senyukai, ed., Ogasawara Heidan no Saigo [The Tragic End of the Soldiers 

Sent to Ogasawara] (Tokyo: Hara Shobo, 1969), 119. However, on 19 February 1970, survivors 

of the battle on both sides did in fact meet on the top of Mt. Suribachi. See “Iwo Jima de 25 Nen 

Buri Saikai: Nichibei Ikinokori Shohei ga Godo Ireisai” [Meeting Again After 25 Years: Japanese 

and American Survivors Conduct Joint Memorial Ceremony], Asahi Shimbun, 20 February 1970. It 

appears that the next large ceremony was not held until 1985. After 1985, it was not held again for 

some time but was subsequently restarted in 1993. See Kamisaka Fuyuko, Iwo Jima Imada Gyokusai 

Sezu [Iwo Jima Has Yet to Perish] (Tokyo: Bungei Shunju, 1993), 242. Also see Eldridge and Tatum, 

eds., Fighting Spirit, particularly the editors’ preface, for more on Major Horie’s efforts and promoting these exchanges.

12For more on the PWMA, see http://www.pacificwarmemorial.org/.

13“War Chronicle: A Lieutenant’s Journal about the Battle of Iwo Jima Makes its Way to an Isle 

Group,” Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 5 June 2005.

14Alice W. Clark and Robert D. Eldridge, “Heroes of Iwo Jima,” Marine Corps Gazette, vol. 90, no. 3 

(March 2006): 71–72.

15Robert D. Eldridge and Charles W. Tatum, eds., Fighting Spirit: The Memoirs of Major Yoshitaka 

Horie and the Battle of Iwo Jima (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2011).

16“Japan and U.S. Have Distant Views of Iwo Jima,” Asahi Shimbun, 17 March 2005. Also see Paul 

D. Scott, “Flagging Battles,” Kansai Time Out, no. 360 (February 2007), 65, for a discussion on the 

cinematic views of Iwo Jima, in which he discusses the two recent movies, Flags of Our Fathers and 

Letters from Iwo Jima, which provide different perspectives on the battle.

17Interviews with Endo Kiyoshi, president of the Iwo Jima Association, 18 July 2007, Yokosuka,

Japan, and Ogawa Chikaku, the daughter of the founder of the same association, the late Wachi Tsunezo, 5 June 2008, Kunitachi City, Tokyo, Japan. Chapter 7 discusses the early efforts (late 

1940s–1960s) to recover the remains of those on the Japanese side who died on Iwo Jima. For 

an accounting of the postreversion recovery efforts of the remains, see Iwo Jima Ikotsu Shushu 

Kirokushi Hensan Iinkai, ed., Iwo Jima Ikotsu Shushu Kirokushi [A Record of Recovering Remains 

on Iwo Jima] (Chichi Jima: Ogasawara Village, 1999); and Ogasawara Shoto Henkan 30 Shunen 

Kigyo Jikko Iinkai, ed., Ogasawara Shoto Henkan 30 Shunen Kinenshi: Kako to Genzai to Mirai o Tenbo 

Suru [Publication on the Occasion of the 30th Anniversary of the Reversion of the Ogasawara Islands: Looking to the Future from the Past and Present] (Ogasawara: Ogasawara Shoto Henkan 

30 Shunen Kigyo Jikko Iinkai, 1998), 287. As of 1997, some 8,027 remains were recovered, but 

only a handful were identified. According to a Japanese government report, by the middle of 2010, 

8,715 remains had been returned, based on 77 official searches of 1,158 locations. See “Iwoto kara 

no Ikotsu Kikan no tame no Tokumei Chiimu Chukan Torimatome [Interim Report by Special 

Team to Return Remains from Iwoto], 26 August 2010. These remains included those of a Japanese 

soldier killed on Iwo Jima who was identified in December 2009 using DNA testing. It was the first 
9

positive match since DNA testing began in fiscal year 2003. See “Iwo Jima Soldier Identified/DNA 

Test Confirms For 1st Time ID of Remains Found Outside Siberia,” Daily Yomiuri, 12 December 

2009. In early August 2010, the new Japanese prime minister, Kan Naoto, who had served more 

than a decade earlier as the minister of Health and Welfare, the agency in charge of the recovery 

of remains, established a special government team mentioned above called the Iwoto kara no Ikotsu 

Kikan no tame no Tokumei Chiimu. Using documentation from the United States National Archives 

and other sources, the Japanese government’s special team was able to locate the site of mass “enemy 

cemeteries” near the airfield that currently is used by the Self-Defense Forces. See “U.S. Archives 

Document Mass Graves on Iwoto,” Daily Yomiuri, 1 August 2010; “New U.S. Documents Pinpoint 

Sites of Iwojima Burials,” Japan Times, 19 August 2010; “Kan Takes in Iwojima Graves Hunt,” Japan 

Times, 15 December 2010. Kan personally visited the islands on 14 December that year after some 

remains had been excavated at two sites and participated in a memorial service while there. For the 

address he gave, see “Address by Prime Minister Naoto Kan at the Memorial Service for the War 

Dead in Ioto, 14 December 2010,” available on the Cabinet Office’s website.

18See “American Team on Iwo Jima Searches For Marine Who Filmed Iconic Flag-Raising,” International Herald Tribune (Asia-Pacific version), 22 June 2007. The United States reportedly has a total 

of 88,000 MIA from World War II.

19Eldridge and Tatum, Fighting Spirit: The Memoirs of Major Yoshitaka Horie and the Battle of Iwo 

Jima.

20Fred Haynes and James A. Warren, The Lions of Iwo Jima: The Story of Combat Team 28 and the 

Bloodiest Battle in Marine Corps History (New York: Henry Holt & Company, 2008).

21The three separate islands are Marcus Island or Southern Island (Minami Torishima), the easternmost island of Japan; Okino Torishima (Remote Bird Island), the southernmost island (or reef ) of 

Japan; and Nishinoshima (Western Island, also known as Rosario Island). The islands are not geographically part of the Ogasawara Islands but are administered under them through the Ogasawara 

village office.

22See 1n in the preface for an explanation of the recent ( June 2007) name change from Iwo Jima to 

Iwo (Io) To.

23For more on the location and table of distance for the islands, see Office of the Chief of Naval 

Operations, Navy Department, Civil Affairs Handbook: Izu and Bonin Islands, OPNAV 50E-9, 10 

July 1944, 3.

24Tanaka Hiroyuki, Bakumatsu no Ogasawara: Obei no Hogeisen de Sasaeta Midori no Shima [Ogasawara during the Bakumatsu Years: The Green Islands that Prospered by Western Whalers] (Tokyo: Chuko Shinsho, 1997), 22.

25The Izu Islands were administratively separated from mainland Japan in late January 1946, as were 

many other islands, such as Okinawa, Amami, and the Bonins, but unlike those islands, Japanese 

administration over the Izus was returned two months later in March 1946 due in part to their lack 

of strategic value, among other reasons.

26For more on place names, see Kawakami Kenzo, “Ogasawara Gunto no Yomei” [The Western 

Names for the Ogasawara Islands], Kikan Okinawa to Ogasawara, no. 1 (March 1957), 39–43; Fuyuo 

Nobushima, “Ogasawara Shoto, Chichijima Retto, Ani Jima no Chimei [Place Names for the Ogasawara Islands, Chichi Jima Group and Ani Jima Group], in Long, ed., Ogasawaragaku Koto Hajime, 

95–128; and Daniel Long and Hashimoto Naoyuki, eds., Ogasawara Kotoba Shaberu Jiten [Talking 

Dictionary of the Bonin Islands Language] (Kagoshima: Nanpo Shinsha, 2005), 228–39. By 1830, 

Introduction
10

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

when the first permanent settlers would arrive, the islands had gone through several name changes 

as mentioned above. These changes are best captured in the map appearing in the work of Lionel B. 

Cholmondeley, a British missionary in Tokyo attached to the British embassy who visited the islands 

almost two dozen times during his 34 years in Japan.The documents he referenced when writing his 

book were unfortunately destroyed during World War II. See Tanaka, Bakumatsu, 42; and Lionel B. 

Cholmondeley, A History of the Bonin Islands from the Year 1827 to the Year 1876 (London: Constable 

and Co., 1915). For more on Cholmondeley, see Hamish Ion, “Lionel Berners Cholmondeley: A 

Chaplain in Tokyo 1887–1921,” in Ian Nish, ed., Britain and Japan: Biographical Portraits, vol. 2 

(London: Japan Society of London, 1997), 180–89.

27Hyman Kublin, “The Discovery of the Bonin Islands: A Reexamination,” Annals of the Association 

of American Geographers, no. 43 (March 1953), 27.

28Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Civil Affairs Handbook, 21.

29Ibid., 8.

30Cory Graff, Strike and Return: American Air Power and the Fight for Iwo (North Branch, MN: 

Specialty Press, 2006), 8.

31Ibid.

32For drawings of the objects found, see Ogasawaramura Kyoiku Iinkai, ed., Hirakeyuku Ogasawara

[Emerging Ogasawara] (Chichi Jima: Ogasawaramura Kyoiku Iinkai, 1985), 54. Also see Shizuo 

Oda, “A Review of Archeological Research in the Izu and Ogasawara Islands,” Man and Culture in 

Oceania, vol. 6 (1990): 53–79.

33For more on the residual sovereignty formula, see chapter 4. Also see Eldridge, The Origins of the 

Bilateral Okinawa Problem, particularly chapter 7.

34Robert Standish, Bonin: A Novel (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1944), ix. Standish was the penname of the British novelist, Digby George Gerahty.

35It is interesting to note, for example, how the language being used by the residents has changed 

from English to Japanese to English and back to Japanese again, depending on who was administering the islands. Socio-linguists, such as Daniel Long, have dedicated much of their research to 

examine language acquisition and merger in the islands. In addition to Long’s coedited dictionary 

cited above, see Daniel Long, et al., “Ogasawara in Okeru Nihongo Shutoku no Rekishi—Navy 

Sedai no Obeikei Tomin no Gengo Seikatsu Chosa Kara” [A History of the Acquisition of the Japanese Language in Ogasawara Based on a Survey of the Language Used by the Islanders of Western 

Descent in their Daily Lives during the Years of the Navy Administration], Ogasawara Kenkyu 

Nenpo [Ogasawara Research], no. 28 (March 2005), 87–122; Daniel Long, ed., “Ogasawara Shoto 

no Tagengo Jokyo ni Kansuru Jittai Chosa Hokoku” [Multiple Language Usage on the Bonin (Ogasawara) Islands: A Field Survey Report], Ogasawara Kenkyu [Ogasawara Research], no. 32 (March 

2007), 21–103; and Abe Shin, Ogasawara Shoto ni Okeru Nihongo no Hogen Sesshoku: Hogen Keisei to 

Hogen Ishiki (Kagoshima: Nanpo Shinsha, 2006).

36Different sources cite the numbers 129 and 135, among other figures, as the number of actual returnees, but this author will use 126 (63 males and 63 females) based on a list prepared in Japanese 

by the Ogasawara village office in 1985.
11

Chapter 1

History of the Islands to the Pacific War

They wanted to be regarded as Bonin Islanders . . . they wished to be left alone 

in undisturbed possession of their holdings, and the less that was said about 

nationality or protection of any kind the better.

—Interview with Maria Savory by British diplomat Russell Robertson, November 1875

While much has been written about the “discovery” and early settlement of the islands by 

Westerners and Japanese, and the general outline is known, the details, however, are often 

vague or left out altogether, and in some cases, the narrative is based on legend or faulty 

research. As a result, a large portion of what has been written contains numerous errors, 

with these mistakes regularly repeated. Even today, fact and fiction tend to be intertwined, 

creating an image of the islands as being “mysterious.” The difficulty in accessing the islands 

only adds to their mystery, as does the mixed ethnic make-up of the islanders when compared to the so-called “homogeneous” Japanese.

Hyman Kublin, who did some of the most meticulous historical research on the islands a half-century ago, and Tanaka Hiroyuki, in recent decades, contributed immensely 

to clarifying fact from fiction, truth from legend. Getting at the heart of the matter, Kublin 

observed that due to the interests—commercial, strategic, or territorial—of England, Russia, Japan, and the United States in the islands, “investigation and speculation concerning 

the discovery of the islands were colored more by self-interest and actual ignorance than by 

impartial consideration of the facts.”1

Discovering the Bonin and Volcano Islands

The early accounts of the discovery of the Bonin and Volcano Islands remain shrouded in a 

veil of legends, myths, and imperfect descriptions.2 “Imprecise methods of navigation and 

cartography,” Kublin explains, “the loss, destruction, and actual concealment of many of the 

relevant records, and the lack of interest of early merchant explorers in lands which had 

no obvious commercial value have made for a series of most difficult historical problems.”3

Similarly, being so far from mainland Japan, which had adopted a self-imposed seclusion 

policy known as sakoku, the islands were unknown to, or at least unexplored by, the Japanese until well into the seventeenth century. A story promoted by an opportunistic ronin

(masterless samurai) that first circulated in 1727 in which Prince Ogasawara Sadayori had 

discovered them and named them munin (uninhabited, literally “no people”) in 1593 was 

later found to be untrue.4

In fact, the discovery of at least some of the Bonin Islands (actually, the Volcano Islands) 

dates back even further to the sixteenth century when Spanish explorer Bernardo de la 
12

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

*The author generally uses the names “Bonins” for the sake of consistency, but occasionally uses 

Ogasawara depending on the context. Japanese names for the individual islands are generally used 

unless otherwise noted. Figure 3, circa 1915, introduces the traditional local place names, employing 

some of the Japanese names as well.

(From Cholmondeley, A History of the Bonin Islands, used with permission)

Figure 3. Historic names for places in Chichi Jima (Peel Island)
13

Torre, captain of the San Juan and a member of the exploring expedition of Ruy López de 

Villalobos, sighted some uninhabited islands in the area of north latitude 25 in early October 1543.5

 Having recently crossed the Pacific Ocean from the New World (Mexico) in 

search of the Spice Islands (those comprising northern Indonesia and the southern Philippines), de la Torre had left Sarangani in Mindanao (part of present-day Philippines) on 26 

August and headed in a northeastward direction looking for the legendary islands of Rica 

de Oro (Gold Island) and Rica de Plata (Silver Island) and instead came across the Volcano group.6

 Lacking enough food and water, the San Juan did not land, but de la Torre did 

name the island he saw with a volcano on it “Los Volcanes.”7 This island was probably Iwo 

Jima. He also discovered a few more islands nearby, naming one of them—likely Kita Iwo 

Jima, based on the coordinates written at the time—“Farfana” or “Forfana.”8

 It is important 

to mention that, although later, the Volcano Islands administratively become a part of the 

Bonin Islands, the islands de la Torre discovered were the Volcano Islands and not Chichi 

Jima or Haha Jima.

Considering the fact that the Pacific Ocean in this period was “well-nigh a Spanish 

lake,”9

 the discovery of the islands by the Spaniards was, in retrospect, no surprise. Interestingly, however, there is “little concrete evidence,” according to Kublin, that the Bonins were 

sighted by the Spanish at all in the sixteenth century, even though a regular route between 

the Philippines and Mexico that went “in the vicinity of the Bonin Islands” was traversed 

by Spanish galleons for many years.10 Instead, it was the Dutch who are believed to have 

discovered the Bonins.

In 1639, Dutch explorers Abel Janszoon Tasman of the Graft and Hendricken Mathijs 

Quast on the Engel, sailing from Batavia (present-day Jakarta, Indonesia) in search of the 

legendary Gold and Silver Islands at the request of Antonio van Diemen, governor-general 

of the Dutch East India Company, came across the Bonin Islands on 21 July but could not 

land, as they were unable to “see any opportunity by which a boat could be put ashore.”11

Instead, they named the first island they approached “Engel Island” (Haha Jima) and “Graft 

Island” (Chichi Jima) and recorded the locations on their sailing charts, which they brought 

back to Europe with them.12 As a result, the two Dutchmen are generally credited with 

having discovered the Bonin Islands, as well as Tasmania, New Zealand, and northwestern 

Australia. The two, however, were unsure of the originality of their discovery considering 

that they were using Spanish maps with indications of nearby islands (likely the Volcano 

Islands or Northern Marianas).13 Likewise, as Bonins scholar Tanaka Hiroyuki suggests, 

because their objective was reaching the islands of Gold and Silver, they probably did not 

show that much interest in the islands (the Bonins) they actually did find.14 Their employer, 

however, chose to consider the islands new discoveries.15 Ironically, as well, their discovery 

would be unknown for almost 200 years in Europe,16 although numerous Spanish vessels 

would again sail through the island chain in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth 

centuries.17 Instead, accounts of Japanese discoveries, both fact and fiction, would emerge 

in later years.

Japan’s initial interest in the islands began a few decades after the visit by Tasman and 

Quast when a ship carrying mikan (tangerines) from the Arita area of Ki-shu (present-day 

Wakayama Prefecture) drifted off course in a storm and shipwrecked on an unknown island 

History of the Islands to the Pacific War
14

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

(later named Haha Jima) on or about 20 February 1670, after 72 days at sea.18 The next 

morning, the captain of the ship was found dead, having apparently died in his sleep. After 

spending 52 days on the island recovering and rebuilding their vessel, as well as exploring 

the island, the remaining six members of the crew traveled northeast about 35 miles to 

Chichi Jima. They spent about five or six days there and a couple of days at Muko Jima, 

before leaving for the mainland.19 It took 8 days to reach Hachijo Jima, where they spent 

another 10 days before heading to the port of Shimoda to the southwest of Edo. There they 

reported the incident to local officials and told of the fertile island with the warm climate 

far to the south of the Izu Islands.20 Theirs was the first chronicled discovery by Japanese 

of the Bonin Islands.21

The Tokugawa Shogunate, or Bakufu, had imposed a seclusion order (sakoku-rei) in 

1635, which in addition to closing the country and prohibiting people from leaving, had 

also limited the size of ships that could be built.22 Only small boats for coastal trading were 

permitted, but these vessels did not fare well in stormy weather and many went adrift or 

were shipwrecked, particularly as their captains had little experience in deeper seas.23 The 

crew of the boat that landed on Haha Jima was not punished, and indeed the Bakufu used 

the information gained to plan an expedition to learn more about these islands.

In contradiction to its own sakoku policy, the shogunate had already decided back in 

1668 that a larger type of vessel was needed. After consulting with Shimaya Ichizaemon, 

a Nagasaki ship owner, and others in the area, it had the Fukkokuju Maru specially built, 

modeling it on Chinese trading vessels that were permitted under the seclusion act to trade 

out of Dejima in Nagasaki.24 Taking nine months to build, the vessel was completed in 

February 1670 and was used for shipping between Nagasaki and Edo, when in May 1674, 

the Bakufu appointed Shimaya to lead a secret expedition to the uninhabited islands.25 After a failed attempt in June 1674 and another in February 1675, when it was forced to wait 

at Shimoda for favorable winds, Shimaya’s expedition departed the port in the spring of 

1675 and traveled along the Izu Islands before reaching the still-unnamed (from a Japanese 

perspective), uninhabited islands on 29 April.26

With a crew of about 30, Shimaya spent a month surveying and mapping the islands. 

He departed on 5 June and successfully returned to Edo, bringing various unique specimens 

of plants, rocks, fish, and shells back with him which he submitted along with a full report. 

While there, Shimaya had named each of the islands by kinship terms, such as Chichi (Father), Haha (Mother), Ani (Older Brother), Ane (Older Sister), Ototo (Younger Brother), 

Imoto (Younger Sister), and Mei (Niece). In addition, his team named local places on 

Chichi Jima that survive until today—Omura, Okumura, and Susaki, among others. They 

also established a base of sorts on Chichi Jima and built a small shrine honoring three gods, 

with a sign next to it proclaiming their mission and dates of arrival and departure as well as 

the fact that this island was a part of Japan.27

Upon receiving the report, the Bakufu decided to name the islands Munin-to, or uninhabited (no-man’s) islands, and placed them under the jurisdiction of the daikan (magistrate) of Izu.28 Still determined to maintain the seclusion policy, the shogunate had no 

intention of developing or expanding into the islands and actually scrapped the Fukkokuju 

Maru.

29
15

Reports of the initial discovery and exploration of the islands by the crew of the Japanese 

cargo vessel that went adrift became news in other parts of Japan in later years as the story 

was written about by the Confucian scholar Ito Togai in his Yuken Shoroku (Reports from 

the Courier’s Coaches) and in other writings.30 It is likely that the subsequent Shimaya 

expedition was seen as even greater news, although initially it was kept a secret. In the meantime, at least three other Japanese vessels also went adrift and landed on the Munin Islands 

(most likely Chichi Jima) over the next few decades before returning to the mainland.31

News of the Japanese discovery, or better put, “rediscovery” of the Munin Islands found 

its way to Europe, too, when The History of Japan by Engelbert Kaempfer was published 

posthumously in London in 1727. Kaempfer was a physician for the Dutch East India 

Company who was assigned to Nagasaki in 1690 and stayed in Japan for two years. In the 

book, he mentions the islands but inaccurately transcribes the name for them as “Bune 

Sima,” or the Island Bune. A century later in 1817, a French scholar of Chinese studies, 

Jean-Pierre Abel-Remusat, further butchered the reading of it when he mistransliterated it 

as “Bonin Islands” in an article in the Journal des Savants, of which he was editor.32

A second work, Mémoires Relatifs à l’Asie (Memoirs Relating to Asia) by Julius Heinrich 

Klaproth, an Oriental scholar from Berlin who eventually settled in Paris and was “Remusat’s foremost European rival in the field of Oriental Studies,”33 further employed the 

use of “Bonin” rather than Munin. From essentially that point on, the Munin Islands were 

known in the West as the Bonins.34

Klaproth erred in another way, too. Both he and Abel-Remusat had apparently used 

Hayashi Shihei’s Sangoku Tsuran Zusetsu (A General Survey of Three Nations with an Illustrated Description), published in 1785, when they were writing their respective works.35

Hayashi, a student of “Dutch Learning” (Rangaku), was a military specialist and somewhat 

controversial for having been so bold as to point out inadequacies in Japan’s coastal and 

maritime defenses against foreign powers, particularly England and Russia. Referring to the 

past expedition of the Bakufu to the Munin Islands, he urged the Bakufu to preemptively 

colonize the islands. This was based on his knowledge of a Dutchman (likely Superintendent of Trade at Dejima Arend Werley Veit, otherwise known as Arend William Feith), 

who had transmitted information relating to the Bonins’ appearing on Spanish maps36 on 

the islands’ importance while in Nagasaki in 1777 or 1778.37 Because Hayashi criticized the 

Bakufu, he was eventually punished in 1792 and his Sangoku Tsuran Zusetsu and another 

book, Kaikoku Heidan (Arguments for an Armed Maritime Nation), were banned.

It should be pointed out that Hayashi was not the only one who would note the Bonins’ 

strategic importance over the coming half-century in vain. Sato Nobuhiro, a strategist who 

lived until 1850 and was seen as the father of the Greater Co-Prosperity Sphere of Japan’s 

later militarism, would note the “deserted islands of the southern seas, the so-called Ogasawara Islands” in his “Plan for Assimilation and Conquest” (Kondo Hisaku), a set of strategies for overseas domination.38 Moreover, Watanabe Kazan, chief retainer of the Tahara 

domain (present-day Aichi Prefecture), later expressed doubts about the ability of Japan to 

maintain the closed country policy, noting that the British had already begun inhabiting 

the islands.39 Finally, Confucian scholar Tojo Shinko from the Takada domain in Echigo 

(present-day Niigata Prefecture) warned in 1848, that if the Bonin Islands were left neHistory of the Islands to the Pacific War
16

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

glected, the Westerners would use the islands as a base to threaten the Izu Islands, and then 

mainland Japan.40 (The prophecy of Hayashi, Tojo, and Sato would come true: Westerners 

would later use the Ogasawara Islands to pressure or threaten Japan, 5 years later in the case 

of Commodore Matthew C. Perry and less than 100 years later in the case of the seizure of 

Iwo Jima.) Instead of heeding this warning, the Bakufu placed Tojo under house arrest and 

suppressed his publication like they did with Hayashi at the end of the previous century.

Klaproth translated the section on the Bonin Islands in Hayashi’s book in full. Hayashi 

had revived an old—but since disproved—legend of the discovery of the islands by Ogasawara Sadayori in his book. And through the translation by Klaproth, who was unaware that 

it was no more than a legend, and an incorrect one at that, the myth came to be accepted as a 

true event by scholars and readers in Europe and elsewhere.41 Kublin, writing in 1955, states, 

“As a result of the work of Remusat and Klaproth, not only were Europeans familiar with 

Japanese knowledge of the Bonin Islands, but they also became party to the errors and illusions of Hayashi Shihei. Some of these misconceptions have unfortunately persisted to the 

present day.”42 As mentioned earlier, many works still unwittingly cite it today.

The legend, mentioned above, was that the islands were first sighted by Prince Ogasawara Sadayori, a regional lord at Fukashi in Shinshu (near present-day Matsumoto City), 

who, after receiving permission from his master, Tokugawa Ieyasu, to search for new lands, 

sailed south of the Izu Islands in 1593 and discovered three uninhabited islands that he 

named “Ogasawara.” This account was provided by a masterless samurai, or ronin, named 

Ogasawara Kunai Sadato, when he petitioned the Bakufu in 1727 to allow him to visit the 

uninhabited islands. He included a book that discussed the islands, Tatsumi Muninto Ki (A 

Record of the Munin Islands in the Southeast), as the basis for his claim, explaining that 

he was the great grandson of Sadayori’s son Nagatada, who had also traveled to the islands. 

Due to the 1639 seclusion order, travel beyond coastal waters had been prohibited and as a 

result his family had not been able to go to the islands, he claimed. After investigating the 

claim, the Bakufu gave Kunai permission to visit the island and take some settlers if colonization was found to be feasible. In 1731, Kunai sent one of his nephews to the islands, but 

the unfortunate nephew never returned, likely a victim of a shipwreck. Under suspicion that 

it was a scam, Kunai was not permitted to send a second ship to search for the lost vessel 

and its crew. The Bakufu subsequently arrested Kunai for fraud, having discovered seven 

years after he had made his claim that he in fact was not related to Sadayori. It is likely as 

well that he was the source for the book on which he based his claim.43 In other words, the 

story was probably an elaborate fabrication. It was also the same story that was mistakenly 

picked up verbatim by Western scholars.

Nevertheless, in the meantime, Kunai’s story had spread throughout Japan and people 

began to call them the “Ogasawara Islands.” And in one of the great ironies, 140 years later, 

the Meiji government formally adopted the name “Ogasawara” for the islands and even 

used the fiction about Sadayori’s discovery and colonization of them as one of its arguments 

when explaining internationally their annexation in 1876.

It was shortly after the publicity the islands received in the West that the first Western 

settlers began to arrive, but not before the islands, somewhat comically, would be given a 

few more name changes. Having not been visited for close to a century, a British whaler, the 
17

Transit, captained by the American James J. Coffin of Nantucket, Massachusetts, “rediscovered” the islands in 1824.44 Arriving at the southern group (the Haha Jima group) on 12 

September that year, he proceeded to name the two largest Fisher’s and Kidd’s Islands after 

his employer, Fisher, Kidd, and Fisher of Bristol, England, and the bay—Coffin’s Bay—

after himself.45

Coffin’s visit was related to the search for whales in the Pacific, whose blubber was the 

source of oil for lamps and an important product. While his was a British-registered ship, 

American whalers would eventually number about 80 percent of the vessels in the North 

Pacific, or some 400 of the 500 there. The industry, however, began to decline in the latter 

half of the nineteenth century with the 1859 discovery of petroleum in Pennsylvania.46 The 

islands would come to be known as an “ideal calling-place, from the whaling captain’s point 

of view.”47

With the increase in whaling activities in the Pacific, other vessels came to the island, 

as did new names for it.48 In 1825, another British whaler, the Supply, sailed into the bay 

at Chichi Jima and left a sign stating they had been there. The next year, a British ship, the 

William, also came, but was shipwrecked in the bay. Two crew members elected to stay on 

and salvage the cargo, while the others departed on another whaler, the Timor, which happened to have arrived. Planting vegetables, raising pigs, and building a hut to live in, these 

men were the first island “settlers.”49

Imagine the surprise, therefore, when on 9 June 1827, HMS Blossom, captained by Frederick W. Beechey, sailed into the same bay and found two Europeans already living on the 

island. Beechey was engaged in a four-year expedition of the Pacific islands and the polar 

areas. The Blossom stayed for nearly one week at Chichi, surveying it and its neighbors. 

Beechey named the bay “Port Lloyd” (after the late Bishop of Oxford), Chichi Jima “Peel 

Island” (after Sir Robert Peel, the Secretary of State for the Home Department), Haha 

Jima and its surrounding islands the “Bailey Islands” (after a former president of the Astronomical Society),50 as well as several other names for the smaller islands and sites. In 

addition, noticing the sign left by the Supply a couple years before, he took formal possession of the island on behalf of King George, nailing a copper plaque to a tree describing his 

claim.51 In his subsequent report on the visit, he explained he had been aware of the Japanese account of the Bonin Islands as it appeared in previous Western literature (Remusat’s 

article and Klaproth’s book), but wrote that he doubted the islands he visited were in fact 

the Bonins: “their description is so very unlike anything that we found in these islands, 

that if the Japanese are at all to be credited they cannot be the same, and if they are not to 

be believed, it may be doubted whether Bonin-sima is not an imaginary island.”52 Indeed, 

Beechey said the islands seemed to correspond with the group known as the Yslas del Arzobispo.53 British diplomat Russell Robertson, describing the visit 40 years later before the 

prestigious Asiatic Society of Japan (after he himself had traveled there in early 1876),54

surmises that the islands Beechey visited were in fact the Bonins, and that if there was a 

discrepancy, then the islands the Japanese in the 1670s had visited probably were the Bailey 

or Coffin groups.55

The two European men living on the island did not return on the Blossom and so they 

were still there when Russian explorer Frederic Lutke arrived in 1828 on the warship Seniavin.

56 They told Lutke, who was of German descent, that the islands had already been 

History of the Islands to the Pacific War
18

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

claimed by Beechey on behalf of Great Britain. Lutke had been impressed with the islands, 

thinking it possible to build a naval base with little expense or labor, and thus was greatly 

disappointed at the news that the British had already been there. The two European settlers, 

nevertheless, cooperated with Lutke’s exploration of Peel Island (which included participation by two scientists he had brought with him), and decided to leave the island on 15 May 

with him on the Seniavin after almost three years. The Bonins were thus once again without 

inhabitants, and without formal confirmation of Great Britain’s possession of them. It had 

been 153 years since the Bakufu had placed the islands under the Izu domain’s jurisdiction, 

but without the means, authority, or interest in truly staking its claim militarily, diplomatically, or even financially.

Western Settlement of the Islands

Word of the Blossom’s visit to the Bonin Islands spread to the Sandwich Islands (presentday Hawaiian Islands), approximately 3,300 nautical miles to the east. Particularly during 

the whaling era, Hawaii had become one of the major through-points for ships coming 

and going. Its major port at Honolulu, A. Grove Day writes, “became the business capital 

of the Pacific, and its harbor held merchant ships from China, Peru, Mexico, California, 

Great Britain, and the Atlantic coast of the United States.”57 It was in this environment 

that several individuals, of completely different nationalities and backgrounds, learned of 

the Bonin Islands and decided to try their luck by settling there.

One of them, Matteo Mazarro, a Genoan who claimed to be a British subject, and 

John Millichamp,58 also a British subject, approached Richard Charlton, a “hard drinking, 

greedy former ship captain turned trader” who had served as the British consul in Honolulu 

since 1825, about settling on an uninhabited island in the Pacific in early 1830.59 Charlton 

recommended the Bonins, which he had recently learned had been taken possession of 

by Beechey on behalf of the British and was told about it by Beechey himself.60 Others 

expressed a desire to go, including Nathaniel Savory, an American from Bradford, Massachusetts, who had missed his ship while in Hawaii due to the medical care he required 

after losing a finger in an onboard firing mishap; Aldin B. Chapin, another American; and 

Charles Johnson from Denmark.61

Charlton eventually organized the party and placed Mazarro, who was illiterate and 

reportedly prone to violence, in charge. The schooner Washington was fitted for the journey 

and included livestock and seed. The hodgepodge group of approximately 25 colonists (5 

Westerners and about 20 Hawaiian men and women), departed Honolulu on 21 May 1830, 

and arrived at Peel Island, as the British called Chichi Jima, on 26 June.62

Upon arrival, the group hoisted the British flag that Charlton had given Mazarro and began to develop the island. It looked as if the Bonins were finally going to become British territory in fact as well as name. However, the lack of follow-up by the British made their claim 

weak and disappointed the new colonists, some of whom wished to see the islands made 

British; others just wanted the protection of a naval power that “ownership” would bring.

Over the years, the colonists built an essentially self-sufficient community and traded 

with visiting American, British, Russian, and French whalers by supplying fresh food and 
19

water. Between January 1833 and mid-1835, for example, 24 vessels visited the islands, 22 

of which were whalers.63 The islanders, however, were always at the mercy of the sailors who 

landed and sometimes caused trouble, including thefts, abductions, and rapes. Appeals to 

the British government for protection fell on deaf ears, with the Colonial Office and the 

Board of Trade responding that no promises of protection could be given as the islands are 

“beyond ordinary assistance” and “beyond the limits to which British Cruizers [sic] ordinarily go.”64 In fact, this answer was not entirely true as many British vessels would indeed 

visit the islands.

The islanders had also begun to fight internally. With no formal laws, problems increasingly became difficult to resolve civilly, especially when the “leader” Mazzaro was a violent 

man himself. Fortunately, on 15 July 1836, the American warships USS Peacock (1828) and 

Enterprise (1831) arrived and helped the settlers with formulating a written code that had, 

among other items, “all disputes [to be] decided by the majority.”65 This involvement would 

be the first formal one for the American government (military or civilian), but not the last, 

in helping draft the local laws and regulations governing the Bonin Islands. A report after 

the visit by HMS Larne (1829) in late 1838 to early 1839 shed further light on Mazzaro’s 

bizarre behavior.66

Although the islands were nominally British-owned, at least two of the islanders considered themselves American citizens. Nevertheless, many of the Bonin islanders saw their 

colony as an independent venture and were not concerned about the question of sovereignty, only protection, as they were often at the mercy of the captains and crews of visiting 

whalers and other commercial vessels. Mazarro, on the other hand, emotionally insecure 

against the more respected Savory, went to Hawaii in the fall of 1842 to report on the progress of the settlement to the British acting consul, Alexander Simpson, whom Charlton had 

left behind as his successor and whom Day described as “a man of devious mind, a lover of 

intrigue.”67 In addition to recruiting additional settlers and laborers, Mazarro’s real purpose 

seems to have been getting Simpson to certify that Mazarro was the official head of the 

settlement. The acting consul agreed to do so, signing a document recommending Mazarro 

as the head until a duly appointed British government official was placed over the islands. 

Simpson also gave Mazarro another Union Jack to take back to the islands, which he would 

fly, as would the proud Savory with the Stars and Stripes on special occasions.68 The British 

influence, nevertheless, would continue to decrease on the island, symbolic of the decline 

of the British in the Pacific on the one hand, and its growing interest in China over Japan 

on the other. Mazarro’s compatriot, Millichamp, had also left Peel Island, heading instead 

for Guam. He, on the other hand, never returned (having established a shipping business 

there). Mazarro would die in 1848, leaving a young wife from Guam, whom Savory married in 1850.69

The lack of British follow-up over the years is curious. Strategically, there had been interest in the islands as a secondary base for the British in their war against China (Opium 

War). One British dispatch from 1837 argues that “no time should be lost in the formation 

of a small naval station at the Bonin Islands [and] that this and other parts of the coast of 

China should be visited very frequently.”70 That interest seems to have declined, however, 

when the British succeeded in opening China to trade. There were also numerous public 

History of the Islands to the Pacific War
20

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

appeals by scholars and missionaries for the islands’ protection and development and official recommendations by diplomats and military men along the same lines, but to no 

avail.71 The same would also be true for the American side, although a highly respected U.S. 

Navy officer did his best to generate American interest in the islands.

The Pacific Strategy of Commodore Perry

On 14 June 1853, Commodore Matthew C. Perry arrived in Port Lloyd with the USS 

Susquehanna (1850) and Saratoga (1842). He had just visited the Ryukyu Islands (then 

known abroad by a version of their Chinese reading, the Lew Chews, and today known 

as Okinawa), some 800 miles to the west and south, and was on his way to Edo, the seat 

of the Shogunate, as part of an expedition to “open” Japan to foreign intercourse.72 While 

these modern and threatening “Black Ships” would shock Bakufu officials and the Japanese 

people upon their arrival in Tokyo Bay in August, the islanders had been long used to the 

comings and goings of American and other warships. Between 1837 and 1850, for example, 

a handful of U.S., British, and Russian men-of-war stopped in Port Lloyd. Unfortunately, 

they were not nearly as frequent as the many more commercial vessels that visited the islands, whose purpose was often to plunder them and abduct their young women. Perry’s 

visit and interest in the islands caused inflated hopes that the United States would be able 

to provide both protection and perhaps sovereignty to the islands.

Perry’s visit to the Bonin Islands was part of a comprehensive strategy he had envisioned for the region by which a sea route linking Hawaii, the Bonin Islands, the Ryukyus, 

and Formosa would be developed, with appropriate refueling stations and bases to provide 

security. In particular, he believed the islands required friendly settlements, if not outright 

colonies, along this route. The existing settlement on the Bonin Islands provided just the 

right location.

He was not the first U.S. Navy official to argue the importance of the Bonins, however. 

Three years before his arrival, the USS Porpoise (1836), en route from Hong Kong to San 

Francisco, stopped off at Port Lloyd in September 1850, the first U.S. warship to visit there 

since 1836. Its captain, Lieutenant Thomas J. Page, noted the potential advantages that 

Port Lloyd could offer as a coaling station in a report to Secretary of the Navy William A. 

Graham on 28 November 1850. He also observed that the islands were “in the possession 

of no Nation.”73

Echoing the maritime policing role the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps team still performs today, Page was also concerned about the safety of the islanders, as they had often 

been harmed by the crews of visiting ships and pirates. A particularly gruesome incident 

had happened just before his arrival. A Hong Kong-based ship, the brigantine Vanguard, 

led by a Captain Richards, arrived at Port Lloyd on 20 July 1850, and “stole one female 

from off the beach, and carried her away in the vessel . . . as females are in great demand” at 

the ship’s next destination.74 Page, who took depositions on that and other crimes against 

the islanders, suggested “an occasional visit by our Men of War, to the different islands of 

the Pacific where the spirit of enterprise has led our countrymen, either to reside, or trade, 

would have a most salutary effect, in protecting them from depredations of the natives, and 
21

also from the marauding incursions of those sea-faring persons, who are but little removed 

in their character and habits, from pirates themselves.”75

On the day after arriving in the harbor, Perry sent two parties led by Bayard Taylor and 

Dr. C. T. Fahs ashore to explore Peel Island, and sent a third party to inspect the coasts of 

the two northern islands, Buckland (Ani Jima) and Stapleton (Ototo Jima).76 While these 

parties were exploring the islands, Perry met with the islanders, especially Savory, who had 

clearly established himself as the leader of the community in the wake of Mazarro’s death 

five years before.

At Peel, Perry purchased a plot of land (approximately 12.3 acres) along the bay for $50 

at a place called Ten Fathom Hole, which would allow for the storage of coal.77 Savory, 

the only survivor of the original Western settlers, was charged by Perry to be his agent and 

placed on the “books of this ship for pay and provisions, and you are consequently attached 

to the Navy of the United States and possessed of all the privileges and immunities to be 

derived therefrom.”78 Seaman John Smith, a member of Perry’s crew, stayed on Peel Island 

to assist Savory with the work.79 It is unclear what became of Perry’s title to the land when 

the Japanese took possession of the islands.80

Although he was only there four days, Perry’s strong interest in the islands psychologically and practically made up for the neglect American authorities had shown toward the 

two expatriates over the years. Perry helped draft a simple constitution comprising three 

articles and 13 sections that was called the “Organization of the Settlers of Peel Island,” 

under which Savory was elected chief magistrate, with James Maitley, a London native and 

former British Navy seaman who arrived around 1844,81 and Thomas H. Webb, a native 

of Wallington, Surrey, England, who had come to the island in 1849, as councilmen.82 The 

settlement was given a name, “The Colony of Peel Island,” although there was no indication 

whose colony it was. Perry also left behind four head of cattle, five sheep, and six goats as 

gifts. Savory was so happy with the arrangements made for government, the purchase of 

land, and the gift of livestock,83 he named his son (born to him by his new Chamorro wife, 

the former Mrs. Mazarro) after Perry.84

Perry not only gave the residents the impression of a strong American interest in the 

islands, but he followed up on it when he was departing the Ryukyus for Hong Kong by 

sending Captain John Kelly in the USS Plymouth (1844) back to the Bonins to visit the 

colonists and survey the southern group (the Bailey Islands, otherwise known as the Haha 

Jima group).85 Kelly did, and acting on Perry’s instructions, “took formal possession of them 

in the name of the United States, and gave them their proper name of Coffin,” after another 

American, Captain James Coffin, who had been there some 30 years before.86 Kelly reestablished claim to the islands by attaching a copper sign on a tree on the main island.87 This 

time, however, settlers were now there. A couple of years before the Plymouth’s arrival in 

1851, a small group of inhabitants from Peel Island had moved to Bailey Island to establish 

a new settlement. It would eventually grow to a couple thousand people in the pre–Pacific 

War period.

While Perry was in the Ryukyus, he had written of the islands to Secretary of the Navy 

James C. Dobbin, expressing his belief that they were of “the highest importance to the 

History of the Islands to the Pacific War
22

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

commerce of the United States and of the world.”88 Perry later expanded on his views with 

regard to the Bonins in the following way:

My visit to the Bonin Islands forcibly impressed me with the idea of their importance as a point of rendezvous for vessels navigating that part of the Pacific 

ocean in which they lie, and especially as offering a port of refuge and supply for 

whaling ships resorting to those regions, as well as a depot for coal for a line of 

steamers which, ere long, must unquestionably be established between California 

and China, via Japan . . . To render this part of the ocean in all respects convenient 

to our whaling ships, something more is wanted, and that is a port of resort, which 

shall be in all respects free for them to enter and depart, without the restraints of 

exclusive laws and national prejudices; for though . . . the ports of Hakodadi and 

Simoda [Hakodate and Shimoda], in Japan, to which we may add Napha [Naha], 

in great Lew Chew [the Ryukyus], are by treaty open to American vessels, a long 

time may elapse before the people of those ports will probably divest themselves 

of the jealousies which they have hitherto entertained against strangers; and it is 

well known that the crews of whaling vessels visiting the ports of the Pacific, are 

not remarkable for their orderly behavior or conciliatory deportment, hence my 

argument in favor of an establishment at the Bonin Islands is strengthened. My 

plan is to establish a colony at Port Lloyd, Peel Island, the principal of the Bonin 

group, leaving the question of sovereignty to be discussed hereafter . . . The right 

of sovereignty undoubtedly belongs to Japan, as the earliest known occupant of 

the islands; beyond this claim the present settlers have unquestionably priority of 

jurisdiction.89

Perry’s visit to Peel Island and his purchase of land for a coaling station caught the attention of the Russians, whose ships visited there a few weeks after Perry in July 1853,90

and the British, who had been aware from as early as April 1853 that Americans were 

planning to acquire an island base in Japanese (or Chinese) waters.91 Simpson, who had 

been the acting consul in Honolulu, read of the purchase while he was in Scotland and immediately wrote to Minister of Foreign Affairs Lord Clarendon to protest the action on the 

basis of British claims to the islands.92 Clarendon in turn instructed Sir J. George Bonham, 

chief superintendent of trade in Hong Kong, to ask Perry for “an explanation of his designs.”93 When Perry’s squadron arrived in Hong Kong, Bonham visited Perry aboard the 

Susquehanna to inquire about his actions in Port Lloyd and his intentions for the islands. 

Bonham pointed out that they had been taken possession of in the name of King George 

30 years earlier.

Perry responded that he preferred to give his answer in writing, and did so in a letter to 

Bonham dated 23 December 1853.94 Despite his personal desires to the contrary, Perry correctly explained that the transaction was a private matter out of necessity to secure ports of 

refuge and supplies, as well as to establish a line for mail steamers that would be traveling 

across the Pacific in the future. He acknowledged that he had not made the purchase under 

any special instructions from the U.S. government and did not know whether his actions 

would be approved or not. Perry went on to argue that he did not believe the British had 

sovereignty over the islands as Americans made up the majority of the nationalities of Westerners present. He proposed that the two countries create an open port at Peel Island.95
23

In the end, Bonham and Perry agreed to let their home governments deal with the issue of sovereignty, although Perry would never come to accept British claims (which it was 

unable to enforce due to events in other parts of the world, such as the Crimean War). In 

the meantime, the following year, Perry sent Captain Joel Abbot in the USS Macedonian

(1836) back to Peel Island with gifts of seed and farming implements, and also gave the 

islanders a new Stars and Stripes to raise when ships entered Port Lloyd (as the United 

States had grown to 31 states in the union by this point).96 He was careful to point out that 

the question of eventual sovereignty had yet to be decided and that his interest was related 

to the advantages of general commerce.

This commerce was becoming more and more important to the United States. In 1854, 

for example, the U.S. whaling fleet numbered 668 vessels with an aggregate displacement 

of 208,399 tons, or 12 times more than the combined whaling fleets of all other countries 

in the Pacific. In addition, New England clipper ships were setting new records for speed 

in reaching China. Trade with Japan was next. It just had to be opened.

Despite the importance of this trade, Perry had difficulty convincing the U.S. government that the islands were strategically important. Arguing that the British were “accidental 

visitor[s],” he wrote in his narrative that the “English have not a particle of claim to priority 

of discovery . . . the inhabitants practically disown the paternity of the English sovereign.”97

In a March 1856 speech before the American Geographical and Statistical Society of New 

York, Perry spoke more forcefully of the strategic importance of the islands.98 He distrusted 

Japan’s intentions to live up to the treaties he and others would sign and stressed the need 

for a “port of refuge.”99 Interestingly, this is essentially the same argument the U.S. military 

would use in favor of retaining the islands after the signing of the San Francisco Peace 

Treaty 100 years later in 1951.

In the end, the opening of numerous ports in Japan and their generally unimpeded use, 

including those at Shimoda, Hakodate, Naha, and others, negated the need for a coaling 

station in the Bonins.100 In addition, the Democrats, who replaced the Whigs in the 1856 

presidential elections, were uninterested in commercialism and imperialism. Perry’s death 

on 4 March 1858, removed from the scene the main advocate of possessing or developing 

the Bonins. Moreover, America was increasingly becoming divided internally, and civil war 

was approaching. The war’s outbreak in 1861 basically ended the possibility of American 

annexation of the Bonins for the time being. Into that vacuum stepped not Britain but 

Japan.

Japan’s Growing Interest in the Islands

Opportunities to clarify Japan’s position on the Bonin Islands, on which dozens of nonJapanese had been living for more than 30 years, had appeared on numerous occasions 

prior to Perry’s visit. In April 1840, for example, the Bakufu received an in-depth report 

from the captain of the Chukichi-maru, a ship from Mutsu no Kuni (present-day Takata 

City in Iwate Prefecture), that had been blown off course in February and landed at Peel 

Island. It was the first Japanese ship known to have been there since the late 1600s.101 The 

captain and his crew of six sailors spent one month there and were cared for by the small 

History of the Islands to the Pacific War
24

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Western community. The sailors told Bakufu authorities that the islanders were kind and 

numbered around 30, and introduced some 50 words of the language (primarily English 

and some Hawaiian) that was used on the island. The Bakufu, however, did nothing with 

this information.102 Indeed, although the incident was recorded in its Tsuko Ichiran Zokushu

(Compilation of Documents Concerning Relations with Foreign Countries, Continued), 

according to historian Tanaka, its misfiling under “Ikokubu, Yon, Hyoryu (Foreign Waters, 

Section Four, Disablings)” suggested that the Bakufu did not note that the islands the sailors had been stranded on was the Bonins.103

The Bakufu also did nothing when warned by the manager of a Dutch factory at Dejima, 

who had informed the Nagasaki magistrate’s office in April 1846 that, while his government was aware the Bonins were a territory of Japan, it was curious about Japan’s policy of 

standing idly by while English and Americans colonized the islands. To do so, he warned, 

would be to invite disaster in the future.104 Already increasingly weak, the Bakufu could 

probably do little about it.

This cycle of indecision and inaction would begin to change following Perry’s arrival. 

Japan would have to review its policy, something not easy to do in such tumultuous times 

and the great debate in Japan over opening the country.

Perry’s mission to Japan, which included the arrival of the Black Ships in 1853 followed by the signing of the Treaty of Kanagawa in 1854, was eventually successful in that 

it opened treaty ports for trade without causing a war. The use of Port Lloyd as a rendezvous point and a place of information gathering about Japan and the intentions of other 

countries in the region had been an important part of this success. For the leadership of 

Japan, on the other hand, Perry’s use of Naha and Port Lloyd exposed Japan’s vulnerability 

to foreign incursions from these areas.

This fact was first reinforced with the opening of Hakodate and Shimoda in March 

1855, as per the Treaty of Kanagawa, to foreign trade. Several whaling ships began anchoring in Port Lloyd in anticipation of the opening of Hakodate. Takeuchi Shimotsuke no 

Kami Yasunori, the first magistrate of the newly developed Hakodate, heard of this from 

the captains of the vessels and informed Abe Ise no Kami Masahiro of the Council of 

Elders in Edo on the level of development in Port Lloyd for the “transport and storage of 

coal for sea-faring ships of all nationalities, and also facilities for reprovisioning.”105 He also 

mentioned that the islands were called the Bonins in English and that as many as 80 people 

of different nationalities were living there.

The importance of Port Lloyd and the Bonins in trade was confirmed a couple of years 

later when Japan learned of Perry’s views from the report of his trip given to the U.S. Congress in 1856 entitled Narrative of the Expedition of an American Squadron to the China Seas 

and Japan: Performed in the Years 1852, 1853, and 1854, under the Command of Commodore M. 

C. Perry, United States Navy, by Order of the Government of the United States.

106 Although it 

is commonly believed that the first copies of the Narrative to make it to Japan were the five 

given by President James M. Buchanan to Japanese envoys sent to the United States in 1860 

to exchange ratification documents concerning the Treaty of Amity and Commerce, the first 

copies of this two-volume, 624-page report actually arrived in Japan sometime between 1857 
25

and 1858.107 The Bakufu immediately translated it and read Perry’s high evaluation of the 

Bonins, islands that the Bakufu had ignored for the past 200 years. They also learned that 

Perry believed Japan’s claims to the islands were stronger than those of Great Britain.

The third prod in Japan’s review of its policy, or lack thereof to date, was the request 

made by Sir Rutherford Alcock,108 the minister plenipotentiary at the British mission in 

Japan, to purchase customs-free coal in exchange for carrying the Shogunate’s mail to and 

from Nagasaki. The request was eventually denied, and a record of the deliberations reveals 

the real reason for denying it. Namely, the superintendent in charge of foreign countries 

raised the following point concerning British (and U.S.) interest in the Bonins:

In recent years we have seen news of developments on the Bonin Islands in the 

Nihon Kiko [Perry’s Narrative] and there have been allegations from the Dutch as 

well. It seems that people of the English race have moved to said islands and have 

made a coal depot there . . . If we were to grant Alcook’s request and hand over large 

quantities of coal virtually without any customs levied, it is certain that he would 

take it to said islands and use it to support their development. If we would but 

increase the naval capabilities of our own country, we would be able to develop the 

place with the sole commodity of coal, and there would be a prospect for making it 

a territory of Japan. To put it another way, by handing over large quantities of coal 

we would, so to speak, be doing something tantamount to lending soldiers to our 

enemies, and English rascals could become our enemies in a moment’s time. Were 

we to do this, it is arguable that the damage could extend to the seven islands of 

Izu. If we take all the above into consideration, the infinitesimal profits are hardly 

worth risking a conflict.109

The fourth impetus for the Bakufu to review its policy came as a result of the dispatch of 

envoys to the United States in 1860 for the exchange of ratification documents. Upon their 

return, the delegation advised the Bakufu to “recover (kaishu)” and develop the islands.110

The Bakufu was finally convinced and decided to act in 1861. Eventually, it would not 

only claim the islands but settle them as well. First, it organized an expedition to repossess 

them led by Foreign Magistrate Mizuno Chikugo no Kami Tadanori. The ship to be used 

was the Dutch-built Kanrin Maru, the same one that brought the envoys to the United 

States in 1860. The Bakufu next informed representatives of other countries, including 

Alcock and the American minister, Townsend Harris, of its intentions to occupy and develop the islands in November 1861. The shogunate received no immediate response from 

Alcock, and only a request by Harris, who had forwarded the letter to Secretary of State 

William H. Seward (who did not comment on it), that the rights of American settlers 

in the islands be respected. The Bakufu interpreted this statement as U.S. recognition of 

Japanese sovereignty over the Bonins, at least in principle.111 It immediately responded that 

American citizens’ rights would be respected.112

Theoretically, this would have been an appropriate time for England and the United 

States to cooperate and force Japan to back down on its claims to the islands, but both 

countries saw each other as rivals, and England, in particular, saw Russia, not Japan, as 

the greater challenge, and in the end, the two countries—the United States of which only 

History of the Islands to the Pacific War
26

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

had commercial and not territorial interests—did not challenge Japan’s claims. Indeed, the 

United States was already almost a year into its tragic Civil War.

After eight months of preparation, the Bakufu’s expedition departed in January 1862 and 

arrived in Port Lloyd later that month on the 19th.113 For four months, Mizuno and the 90 

or so other Japanese officials in his party built roads, a warehouse, a shrine, and a temporary 

office, as well as drew up new rules regulating use of the harbor and land and established a 

monetary system. Mizuno also surveyed the existing properties and confirmed their ownership. Before departing on 7 April, he resurrected the Japanese names of the islands and 

important places originally given to them by members of the Shimaya expedition in 1675.114

But convincing the Westerners on the island to accept Japanese rule was the most important work of the expedition.115 After having a letter from E. L. C. Portman, a member 

of the American mission who had traveled with Perry to the Bonins, delivered to Savory; 

Mizuno, one of Japan’s most skilled diplomats, called on the island’s leader with Nakahama 

“John” Manjiro as interpreter. Nakahama was once a shipwrecked sailor who had been 

brought to America at the age of 14 and spent the next 10 years there becoming fluent in 

the language and extremely knowledgeable about the culture.116 In their meeting, Savory 

raised the fact of Beechey’s visit 35 years earlier, but Mizuno responded that the islands had 

been discovered by Japan some 200 years before that and explored by Japan and that the 

government was planning now to have settlers come to the islands.117 He explained that 

the rights of the islanders would be protected. Savory had no choice but to acquiesce. If 

Mizuno knew the Ogasawara legend to have been untrue, he did not let on. Having read 

Perry’s writings and those of others, he surely knew the legend was widely believed in the 

West and probably used it to his advantage to convince Savory and the other settlers that 

the islands historically belonged to Japan.118

Mizuno met with the rest of the islanders and told them of Japan’s intentions to enforce 

its jurisdiction. He said that he would permit the islanders to leave if they so desired, and 

that the Japanese government would offer fair payment for their land and housing should 

they choose to go. No one wanted to leave, and they expressed in writing their desire to stay 

and obey Japanese laws. Savory and the other community leaders, such as Webb, also agreed 

to become Japanese subjects.119 Mizuno then distributed gifts to the islanders, including 

sake, plates, toys, and other items. The islanders were reportedly quite pleased.120

Mizuno, it appears, did his best in other ways as well to alleviate the concerns of the 

islanders and to make the relationship go well. He was fair in his dealings and dispatched a 

doctor to the household of Savory, now quite old, on several occasions, perhaps in an effort 

to win over the island’s most respected elder.121

It is likely, too, that some of the islanders were already favorably disposed to the Japanese. As mentioned earlier, 20 years before in 1840, seven Japanese crew members spent 

two months on the island recovering from 60 days adrift at sea. Although a language barrier existed, the friendship and assistance given by the residents were genuine. The islanders 

all went to the port to see the vessel off when it departed in April that year. Having been at 

the mercy of pirates and unruly crews of other Western vessels, and unsuccessfully requesting the protection of British and American authorities for three decades, one can surmise 

that Mizuno’s offer of protection to the islanders was highly welcome.
27

Development of the Bonin Islands—Japan’s False Start

Mizuno’s team returned to Edo in late March 1862, and subsequently submitted a report 

on the islands and their expedition. Their report was detailed, filled with more than 150 

pages of maps and drawings of aquatic life, geography, and fauna, and 600 pages of text.122

There were also drawings of a canoe, hut, and other items found on the island.

Based on this report, the Bakufu decided to develop the islands and send colonists there. 

Settlers were recruited from Hachijo Jima, the southernmost of the Izu Islands. Because 

of overpopulation, these volunteers had petitioned the Izu domain to allow them to emigrate to the mainland, but eventually they were persuaded to go to Ogasawara. The Bakufu 

provided the 30 settlers with everything they would need to get started on Chichi Jima, 

including land, housing, food, clothing, and farming tools.123

They arrived in August 1862 and settled in Ogiura, which was then undeveloped, on 

the other side of the bay from the Okumura area, inhabited by the early, primarily Western 

settlers. By the end of the year, they had constructed offices, storehouses, homes, and had 

cleared more than 8,000 tsubo [6.5 acres] of land for cultivation. They only rarely mixed 

with the original settlers, as all necessary transactions were done between Savory and a 

commissioner sent with the group, Obana Sakunosuke.124

There was one event around this time that became the first case of extraterritoriality 

exercised by the United States of an American citizen in Japan and threatened to become a 

larger problem than it probably should have been. The event (occurring in April 1863) has 

been called the “Horton Incident,” but it began with a person other than George Horton. 

Horton, a British-born American who had arrived in the islands with Perry in 1853 and 

left his service as a result of old age, was accused of piracy off of Ani Jima. He was taken 

to Chichi Jima where he was implicated in the attempted theft of some items off a ship, 

the Ichiban Maru, commanded by Nakahama, who had been the interpreter at Chichi Jima 

the year before. William Smith, who had asked Horton to take back some of “his possessions,” was working for Nakahama at the time, having come on his whaling vessel in 1862. 

Nakahama had been aware of Smith’s bad reputation;125 indeed, he was a fugitive who had 

twice escaped from Russian vessels. Described as “an incorrigible kleptomaniac,” Smith had 

probably taken advantage of Horton with whom he was living.126 In any case, when Smith 

and Horton were confronted and accused of stealing. Horton’s pistol was found and the 

two men were arrested for “piracy” and brought to Japan for trial. Smith, an Englishman, 

was found guilty.127 Horton, on the other hand, was not, and the new U.S. minister resident 

in Kanagawa, Robert H. Pruyn, demanded that Japanese authorities either return Horton 

to Chichi Jima or pay an indemnity of $2,000 for his expenses incurred in Yokohama.128

Horton, Pruyn protested to the Japanese government, “is a poor, trembling, paralytic old 

man of eighty-five years of age . . . You have answered that he was taken away because it 

was dangerous to leave him there. I have seen him, and will not waste time in further reply 

. . . I regard his expulsion as entirely unwarranted.”129 Unlike Harris, his predecessor, Pruyn 

was more willing to work with England and play hardball with Japan. A settlement was 

reached whereby $1,000 would be paid by the Shogunate to Horton, who chose to stay on 

the mainland. He died the following year at the age of 85.

History of the Islands to the Pacific War
28

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

The issue was complicated at the time by the fact that Pruyn was unhappy with some of 

the regulations and harbor rules that had been drawn up by the Japanese for the islands, some 

official acts, and even felt the question of sovereignty was unresolved.130 Pruyn was told about 

these regulations on 26 July and expressed his objections on 14 August.131 The following day, 

he informed Secretary Seward, who simply acknowledged the despatch in early December 

and wrote that a definitive answer could not be given until he had had an opportunity to 

confer with Senator Ira Harris of New York, a close friend and his successor as senator.132 The 

answer was never sent, probably due to America being embroiled in the Civil War.

Although it appeared as if it was going to be a successful colonization, the Bakufu ordered Obana, in May 1863, to abandon the project and return to Edo with the settlers.133

They had been there only nine months. There are several explanations for the sudden withdrawal, such as financial difficulties and the inability of the colony to grow rice there. But, 

the official reason for the withdrawal given by the Bakufu was that it expected British 

retaliation following the (Charles L.) Richardson Affair (also known as the Namamugi 

Incident or the Kanagawa Incident). In this, a member of the Satsuma Daimyo’s procession 

killed a British citizen and seriously injured two others for a perceived slight in Yokohama 

in September 1862. The British retaliated and bombarded Kagoshima the following year. 

Their ships also gathered in Yokohama, and the Bakufu, fearing further retaliation, apparently did not want any additional humiliation on the remote Bonin Islands.

However, according to Okuma and Tabobashi, the actual reason was more complex—

namely the existence of a serious internal conflict in which the balance of power within the 

Bakufu had shifted to a more antiforeign posture because of pressure by radical patriots 

calling for “revering the emperor, expelling the barbarian (sonno-joi).” Chief Councillor 

Ando Nobumasa was attacked by radicals and almost died, and the capable Mizuno was 

disgraced and demoted. In light of this situation, the Bakufu was unable and unwilling to 

continue to support the development of the Bonins.134

Obana did as he was told, and within four days, he and his fellow Japanese workers 

evacuated the islands. He left the buildings, food, and other items to Savory and the other 

residents for their use and care, but explained that the Japanese were not abandoning the 

sovereignty over the islands or their property rights, and thus the properties would have to 

be surrendered when they returned. It was unclear at the time, however, when and even if 

they would return.

Japan Officially Claims the Islands

and Restarts the Settlement

In 1875, following the creation of the Meiji government and its early attempts to modernize the country, Japan decided once again to reclaim and resettle the island. However, in the 

decade-plus that had passed since its abandonment of the settlement, it was only natural 

that doubts had arisen among the powers and the islanders as to what Japan’s real intentions were.135

Several governments, including the German in 1872136 and the British and American in 

1873,137 asked about the status of the islands, but in light of the internal difficulties of the 
29

new state, no one in the Japanese government knew what the situation was or would brave 

making such a decision.

Captain Benjamin Pease, who had taken up residence on Peel Island around 1870, visited the U.S. legation in Yokohama in April 1873, “at the request of a large portion of the 

residents,” to “find out under what governmental protection the residents of that group of 

islands were.”138 Pease explained to the consular officer that there were 25 Americans on 

Peel Island, among a total of 68 residents, and 2 more Americans, 1 on Parry Island and the 

other on Bailey Island. He also gave an overview of the history of the islands, and noted 

that “there are about twenty-six children between the ages of five and sixteen living there 

wholly uneducated, as no one can be induced to locate there and teach, as the country is 

governed wholly by lynch law. That frequent disputes arise, and no means of obtaining 

redress for wrongs exist.”139 It is unclear to what extent Pease’s description is true, as a law 

code had been established in 1836 when the USS Peacock and Enterprise visited and again 

at the time of Perry’s visit in 1853. Pease was likely biased—being unpopular himself and 

possessing a “deep-rooted hatred” or jealously of Savory.140 By 1873, Savory’s health had 

declined, and perhaps he was no longer able to enjoy the authority he once had or arbitrate 

the disputes anymore. A tidal wave that struck Peel Island in the fall of 1872 had damaged 

Savory’s home and destroyed his personal papers, diaries, and some communal papers (although others were recovered), and likely left him further saddened.141

C. E. de Long, the consular official Pease met with, wrote to Secretary of State Hamilton Fish to ascertain if in fact the U.S. government had in the past “asserted any jurisdiction 

over or claim to the islands, and if not, if [he] should recognize Japanese jurisdiction, (if 

still asserted,) and if so, whether [he] should appoint Captain Pease, or some other resident 

American, consular agent for the United States.”142 Fish received de Long’s letter on 23 

May, and wrote back the following week after confirming, apparently with the Department 

of the Navy and Congress, and within his own department, that neither Congress nor the 

U.S. government seems to have approved of Perry’s actions 20 years before. Perry’s taking 

possession of the islands on behalf of the United States, Fish wrote, “has never been expressly sanctioned by Congress, and we are not aware that any other act of the Government 

has since taken place which would show a disposition to support the claim of the naval 

officer adverted to [Captain Pease].”143 Fish went on to inform de Long that the American 

residents of the islands were basically on their own:

If the citizens of the United States have repaired to those islands for the purpose of 

taking up their abode, this has been done without any promise, express or implied, 

that this Government would protect them in their pursuits. By resorting to such 

remote spots on the globe’s surface, under such circumstances, they may fairly be 

held to have deliberately abandoned the United States without a purpose of returning, and therefore have relinquished the rights as well as the duties of citizens.144

This would probably have been news to the original settlers, and is certainly not the 

traditional way the U.S. government deals with its citizens who live abroad for commercial 

or other purposes.

Although it is uncertain if de Long shared Fish’s response with Pease or not, it is clear 

that de Long showed it to Japanese government officials and encouraged them to clarify the 

History of the Islands to the Pacific War
30

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

situation. De Long met with Soejima Taneomi, the foreign minister (who had succeeded 

Iwakura Tomomi in the latter’s absence on the Iwakura Mission), showing him a copy of 

Fish’s instructions.145 Soejima later reported it to Iwakura, since made minister of the right 

(Udaijin). Iwakura had returned in September that year from his two-year mission abroad, 

and was instrumental in overturning an August decision made in his absence in support of 

the dispatch of forces to the Korean Peninsula.146 Soejima, “an ardent expansionist” in the 

words of a historian of this period,147 was on the side of the proponents of the so-called 

Seikanron (literally, “advocacy of a punitive expedition to Korea) to invade Korea, and was 

forced to leave government as a result of their defeat in the debate.

Little came of de Long’s gesture at this time, which historian Tanaka surmises was 

done to force Japan to stand up to the British on the issue.148 In addition to the problems 

over Seikanron, which gutted the government of passionate, albeit shortsighted people, 

the Japanese government in 1874 had to deal with the uprising in Saga led by some of 

the proponents of the Seikanron among others; the issue of dispatching forces to Taiwan 

to deal with the murders of fishermen from the Ryukyus, which the Japanese government 

had made a domain of Japan in 1872; and the passage of a treaty with czarist Russia over 

the Kuriles and Sakhalin (in May 1875); but by the fall of 1875 it was ready to take up the 

issue of settling Ogasawara.149 Indeed, it had already begun discussing the issue in earnest 

in March, if not the previous year. One study suggests that as far back as April 1873, the 

Japanese government began “harden[ing] its attitude towards the question of sovereignty” 

when a special study concerning the settlement of the islands and the development of 

whaling there was presented to the government.150

In October 1875, the government made the decision to send a group of 10 officials, 

including Tanabe Taiichi from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (Foreign Ministry), Hayashi Masaaki from the Finance Ministry, Lieutenant Nezu Seikichi from the 

Navy Ministry, and Obana Sakujo from the Home Affairs Ministry, and so informed the 

representatives of the United States and Britain.151 The U.S. side had no objection, but the 

British government was interested in the Japanese reasons for claiming sovereignty over 

the islands. On 2 November and again on 5 November, Sir Harry S. Parkes, who had been 

in Japan almost a decade by this point,152 met with Foreign Minister Terashima Munenori, 

who had succeeded Soejima in October 1873, to ask about the Japanese government’s 

intentions. In their latter meeting, Parkes challenged Japan’s ability to claim the islands 

“just because they are nearby. That means that you don’t have any rights to islands far away, 

such as the Ryukyus, which, if your argument is used, means that China can claim them 

because they are close to China.”153 Terashima replied that the government had undertaken the proper steps, and had already sent officials some 10 years before, to which Parkes 

countered “so did the United States, Russia, and Britain.” Terashima asked if they were by 

command of their governments, and Parkes answered in the affirmative (of course, as we 

know, in none of the cases were they there for claiming or colonizing the territories per se). 

Terashima informed Parkes that Japan was the last country to do so, and because it would 

not be good to leave islands so close to Japan unattended, the government had decided to 

settle the islands. Parkes, while not happy, said if that was the case, no other country could 

really argue.
31

Still, Parkes was not sure what Japan’s final intentions were. A few days later, he wrote 

to Minister Terashima and asked him when the Japanese vessel was going to sail to the 

islands, what the name of the ship was, who was going to be on it, and “whether the object 

of their mission is to establish Japanese authority in the Bonin Islands.”154 After consulting 

with the other ministries, Terashima responded on the 12th that the ship would probably 

leave on the 16th, but in fact it would not be for another five days. On that day, 21 November 1875, commissioners from the four ministries involved in Bonin Islands affairs—the 

Foreign Ministry (Gaimusho), the Navy Ministry (Kaigunsho), the Home Affairs Ministry (Naimusho), and the Finance Ministry (Okurasho)—sailed to Chichi Jima Ogasawara 

aboard the Meiji-maru to reestablish the colony.155 After arriving in Port Lloyd, now called 

Futami-ko, the commissioners gathered 13 of the leading settlers, including Horace Perry 

Savory, the eldest son of Nathaniel Savory who had passed away on 10 April 1874, at the 

age of 80. They informed the settlers that Japan intended to reestablish the colony and 

asked them to pledge again their allegiance to Japanese laws and regulations. The islanders 

agreed to do so and signed a document to that effect.156

Not everyone was happy with the arrangement, however. Parkes ordered Russell Robertson, who had been in Japan since February 1860 in a number of diplomatic posts, to 

follow the commissioners to Chichi Jima on the HMS Curlew. Robertson left the day after 

the departure of the faster Meiji-maru, commanded by an Englishman named Richard H. 

Peters,157 but by the time he arrived at Futami-ko, it was too late to do anything. The islanders had already pledged allegiance to the Japanese. Symbolic of this, Captain Edmund 

Church of the Curlew purchased the copper plate first attached to a tree by Beechey from a 

person in Susaki (otherwise known as Clarkson Village), but said he was doing so because 

it was an object of curiosity rather than a relinquishment of Britain’s claim.158

Yet, Robertson seems to have accepted the situation as a fait accompli, for he subsequently gave an objective and detailed presentation in March 1876 on the islands before 

the Asiatic Society of Japan, established a few years before in 1872. He did, however, note 

the special situation in which the islanders found themselves in his closing remark, which 

bordered on cautious optimism and concern:

I trust that if communication comes to be established with these islands with anything like regularity that the claims of settlers on the sympathies of the foreign 

communities of Yokohama and Yedo will not be overlooked, and that an attempt 

at ameliorating their condition will be made from one or both these settlements if 

not indeed generally from the open ports in Japan. I can vouch for it that kindly 

sympathy expressed either in word or deed will not be inappreciated there, and that 

in spite of many drawbacks, there are as warm hearts on the Bonins as any that beat 

among ourselves.159

The experiences of the original residents throughout the decades of the nineteenth 

century—courted, and in some cases engaged by the powers but never officially married 

in the eyes of international society—had obviously led to some bitterness or frustration. 

When Robertson asked Maria Savory, the widow of Nathaniel, what she and her family 

thought about protection by any particular power, she responded that “they wanted to be 

regarded as Bonin Islanders . . . that they wished to be left alone in undisturbed possession 

History of the Islands to the Pacific War
32

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

of their holdings, and the less that was said about nationality or protection of any kind the 

better.”160 Gradually, however, the residents came to realize that the Japanese government 

was serious about developing the islands and one by one they requested to be naturalized as 

Japanese citizens. In order to encourage the foreign residents to adopt Japanese nationality, 

the Japanese government decided to provide a loan of up to 100 yen without interest for 10 

years and to provide tools and other items valued up to 25 yen for free to those who became 

citizens.161 By 1882, all had naturalized.162

The Islands under Japanese Control

In the meantime, the Japanese government had officially declared the Bonin Islands, now 

known as the Ogasawara Islands in Japan, to be a part of Japan in December 1876, and 

informed other countries. Neither the United States nor England protested the move, but 

their officials in Japan did raise questions about the rules and regulations regarding ports 

and customs. Specifically, their questions concerned the fines for those who violated the 

regulations, which they said went against the extraterritoriality clauses of previous treaties. 

Terashima explained that, in the case of minor infringements, it would be impractical to 

bring those accused before the consulates and asked for their understanding. Neither Bingham nor Parkes was satisfied with the response, but they did not seek further clarification.

The islands were placed under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Home Affairs, and in 

December, an office from that ministry (Naimusho Ogasawara Shucchoshosha) was established at Ogiura. Obana Sakunosuke (his name now abbreviated to Sakusuke) once more 

was placed in charge of the island government. In 1880, the islands were placed under the 

jurisdiction of the Tokyo Prefectural (later Metropolitan) Government, as no international 

problems had occurred when claiming the islands.163 More bureaucratic changes would 

occur over the coming years. In 1884, administrative headquarters were transferred from 

Ogiura to Omura, and two years later, the Bureau of Ogasawara Islands (Ogasawara Tocho) 

was established and a governor appointed from Tokyo. The bureau was transformed into 

the Tokyo Prefecture Ogasawara Branch Office (Ogasawara Shicho) in 1926, when local 

government systems were reorganized.164 In the late 1930s, the islands would increasingly 

come under military control until they became one big base by the mid-1940s.

Emigration was initially slow, numbering only around 35, as only Japanese citizens were 

allowed to settle there (even after the revision of the treaties had permitted foreigners to 

travel and reside throughout Japan). An 1878 Home Affairs Ministry report found there 

to be 252 people on the island, of whom 194 were Japanese settlers (a ratio of more than 

3 to 1). However, as a result of the passage the year before of the “Rules to Permit Stipend 

Payments to Those Who Relocate (Ijumin Kyuyo Kisoku),” which gave 80 yen to each family that resettled there as well as providing land and household supplies and other things, 

resettlement began in larger numbers.

Unfortunately, many of those resettlers were in it simply to earn a quick yen and had no 

long-term commitment to developing the islands or being productive citizens there. Thus 

the government stopped emigration temporarily in 1879, and then allowed people only 

with a government permit to settle there.165 Despite the government support, the early de-
33

cades in the islands for the new settlers were quite difficult. Figure 4 shows the population 

changes between 1875 and 1944 (when the islanders were evacuated again).

Complicating this situation was some of the high-handed approaches to the islanders 

in the early years and instances of corruption, both locally and by government officials, that 

angered the islanders and caused some friction in relations between the officials and the 

locals.166

The new islanders experimented with growing coffee beans, gum trees, cotton, and indigo, 

with workers being recruited from the Izu Islands and the Shizuoka and Tokushima Prefectures.167 Although sheep and pigs were raised on the island of Ototo Jima and other places 

with some success, most crops were found to be unsuitable for cultivation there. Eventually, 

sugarcane was successfully grown in the 1880s, with an expert being brought in from Kagawa 

Prefecture in Shikoku,168 and did well until the worldwide crash in the sugar market in the 

1920s. Unfortunately, during that time, much of the forests on the islands, particularly Haha 

History of the Islands to the Pacific War

Figure 4. Population changes in the Bonin (Ogasawara) Islands from 1875 to 1944
34

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Jima, were cut down with very little regulation to accommodate the new cash crop of sugar 

cane.169 Conservation, as practiced by the original islanders, was ignored in favor of profit 

and resulted in environmental destruction and the rise in fuel prices due to the lack of sustainable trees. With the successful development of sugarcane, whaling and sea turtle hunting 

followed. Again, traditional conservation was abandoned in favor of profit.170

The Japanese acquisition of the Pacific Islands that were Germany’s possessions after 

World War I made Chichi Jima a stopover between the Mandates and mainland Japan, and 

saw more workers come to the islands. Plantations were dissolved into smaller farms and 

neighborhoods developed. By 1887, the number of residents had jumped to 999, and then 

4,360 in 1897. In 1921, more than 5,000 were on the islands, and when they were evacuated 

in 1944 as war approached, there were a total of 7,711 people in 1,379 households.

The population of the original islanders increased as well, but only slightly. In 1875, 

at the time of Robertson’s visit, he discovered there to be 69 residents; 66 on Chichi Jima 

and 3 on Haha Jima. Thirty-seven were male, and 32 female. There were approximately 20 

children under the age of 15. Of the males, five were Caucasian.171 By 1912, the number 

of original settlers and their descendents had increased to 112, or about a ratio of 40-to1 vis-à-vis the Japanese settlers. In 1913, about 40 left for Guam, which had been under 

U.S. control since the end of the Spanish-American War in 1898. After that the number 

remained constant; in 1944, there were 87. (see figure 4 for more on the population and 

occupation on the islands.)

“We got along all right,” 91-year-old Charlie Washington (Kimura Saburo) told researchers in 1971.172 “That is, we did business with the Japanese, but the two groups stayed separate.”173 He continued, “When we boys left Yankeetown to go to Omura, we never went 

alone. The Japanese taunted us, called us ‘barbarians’ or worse and a fight usually followed. We 

were taller and stronger and could lick them. The islanders never felt inferior to anyone!”174

Despite the hard work of Mizuno and Obana in the 1860s and the goodwill engendered during the shipwrecked Japanese sailors’ stay in the islands in 1840, the relationship 

between the original residents and the new residents (who would greatly outnumber them) 

became strained over property disputes, prices, and other frictions. Moreover, subsequent 

Japanese authorities also took a less accommodating approach to the unique background 

of the original settlers, and they would be subjected to discrimination in later years, particularly as war approached. During the war years, the islanders of Western descent had 

to adopt their Japanese names (as mentioned above, by the early 1880s all had naturalized 

as Japanese citizens and presumably chosen Japanese names at this point). Even with this, 

they were later distrusted and in some cases not permitted to work in military factories. 

They were also occasionally abused locally by military authorities and on the mainland, 

after they were evacuated there, by those suspicious of them.

Over the years, the island would continue to produce sugar cane, fish, etc., but overall 

the economic importance of the islands was insignificant. They were strategically important, however, as a link in Japan’s communications and transportation with Hawaii and 

North America, as well as its newly acquired territories in the Pacific as a result of World 

War I when Japan was placed in charge of the former German territories.
35

In 1906, Chichi Jima was made a station on the undersea cable laid between San Francisco and Tokyo through Hawaii, the Marianas, and the Bonins.175 In 1914, the Japanese 

built the Naval Communication Center on Chichi Jima, and began to fortify the island by 

establishing a base headquarters and developing the port area and other infrastructure such 

as roads. Other fortifications were rushed to completion prior to the start of the Washington Naval Limitation Conference in 1921–22, which would prohibit further fortification of 

islands in the Pacific and limit Japan’s naval power to the status quo. They were completed 

in November 1921.176 On 22 February 1922, the Japanese Foreign Ministry announced 

that “in conformity with the spirit of [Article XIX of the Treaty], the Japanese government 

have decided forthwith to discontinue work on the fortifications in the Bonin Islands and 

Amami Oshima.”177 Chapter 3 describes in more detail the fortifications and efforts by 

Japan to skirt the treaty.

Following the outbreak of war with China in 1937 and the lapse of the treaty, Japan 

began to build an extensive network of bases in the Pacific. Both the Japanese Navy and 

Army began to arrive in greater numbers “transforming the whole area of Ogasawara Shoto 

into a restricted military zone.”178 Chichi Jima was one of several islands fortified along the 

chain that included Izu, Bonins, Iwo Jima, Saipan, and Tinian, which was to provide outer 

Figure 5. Occupation by households/population in Chichi Jima and Haha Jima in 1935

History of the Islands to the Pacific War
36

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

layers of protection for Japan. The Bonins would be used primarily as a supply base, storing 

ammunition and food in caves, and as a radio transmission facility, taking advantage of its 

high peaks. The islands were placed under martial law at this point. In the meantime, the 

few foreign visitors seemed to have stopped coming around 1930.179

“Before the war we used to get along with the Japanese on Chichi,” Miriam Savory said 

in an interview, “but when the war started they began putting us down. We heard about 

Pearl Harbor over the radio. ‘The war will be over in 10 days,’ they told us. ‘Your people can 

never win.’ ”180 Richard Washington explained that school authorities and the police “asked 

the school children what language their parents spoke at home. If the answer was ‘English,’ 

they called us up for questioning.”181 He added, “They beat us up . . . We were watched all 

the time.”182 One of Nathaniel Savory’s grandsons decided that in this tense atmosphere, 

it was wise to burn his grandfather’s effects, and did so, “even burned the flag Commodore 

Perry [had given] Nat.”183 Speaking of her time evacuated in Yokohama, Miriam Savory 

said, “I think if the Japanese had won they would have killed all the Bonin Islanders.”184

As the war intensified, the government decided in February 1944 to evacuate all civilians from Ogasawara, and the evacuation was started in April. U.S. air attacks on the islands 

on 15 June led to a speeding up of the evacuation. Figure 6 shows the dates, numbers, vessels used, origins, and routes for these evacuations. Ships arriving from the mainland with 

troops and supplies destined for Chichi Jima, Haha Jima, and Iwo Jima were used to send 

the islanders back to the mainland once their cargo was dropped off.185

Eventually, 6,886 of the 7,711 civilians were evacuated; 825 healthy males were ordered 

to remain behind to produce and supply food for the military, including four of the descendents of the original settlers: Simon and Jimmy Savory, Frank Washington, and Jeffrey 

Gilley. Simon would witness the beheading of an American pilot, and Gilley said he saw 

two decapitations.186 Others were drafted into the military to serve in other parts of Japan 

and China and were injured during the war.

The Settlement of Iwo Jima and

the Island on the Eve of the Battle

Spanish explorer Bernado de Torres first sighted Iwo Jima in 1543, and others came through 

the area, but it was an Englishman named Gore in 1673 who had gotten close enough to be 

able to give the remote island the name “Sulphur Island” for its pungent smell (a name that 

was later retained by the Japanese, translated as Iwo Jima).187 It would not be for another 

100 years, however, before the islands were mapped and drawn. This was done by the crew 

of Captain James Cook during their third and final voyage explorating the Pacific in 1776 

when HMS Discovery and HMS Resolution sailed near the still uninhabited island.188 A 

couple of decades later, Russians approached the islands in 1805. As activity increased in 

the Pacific because of whaling and the search for routes to China, interest in the area grew, 

but because of their lack of a natural harbor, the Kazan Islands were essentially bypassed 

and would not be settled until late in the nineteenth century. Iwo Jima’s rough sea approaches would make some of the later landings difficult at the time of the battle.
37

(Recreated by author from Tokyoto Ogasawaramura, ed., Ogasawara Shoto Kyosei Sokai Kara 50 Nen Kirokushi, 257–58)

*All departures were from Futami Harbor, Chichi Jima, and Okimura, Haha Jima.

**Where there are two numbers in a block, the top number is that of evacuees from the village of 

Omura, and the bottom one represents the number of evacuees from Ogiura.

***Where there are two numbers in a block, the top number is that of evacuees from the village of 

Okimura, and the bottom one represents the number from Kitamura.

****Figures from original table; actual totals were 1,570 (Haha Jima) and 663 (Kita Iwo Jima).

Figure 6. Forced evacuations from Ogasawara and Volcano Islands in 1944

History of the Islands to the Pacific War
38

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Unlike Chichi Jima, Iwo Jima took three-quarters of a century longer to be inhabited. In 

1887, the governor of Tokyo Prefecture visited the Bonin Islands and included Iwo Jima, the 

territorial status of which was still undefined, in his itinerary. Then on 9 September 1891, the 

Japanese government officially claimed the islands and placed them under the Ogasawara 

Branch Office that year.189 Although the islands were opened up for development, it was 

not until 1904 before the first permanent settlers arrived. Around this time, the Japanese 

government imposed a ban on foreign settlement and, as a result, Iwo Jima became entirely 

closed off to the outside world.190 Despite this, the island population grew to 1,164—all 

Japanese—in 219 households.191 There were six hamlets—Motoyama, Higashi, Nishi, Kita, 

Midori, and Chidori—but most people lived in Iwo Jima’s only “town,” Motoyama. Overall, 

the island’s volcanic ash and black sand made it an inhospitable place, but the sulphur mine 

and refinery provided employment, as did the growing of sugar cane that was refined in 12 

sugar mills around the island.192 Approximately 500 people worked in the sulphur plant in 

Motoyama. Many of them would also assist in the sugar mills during the February to May 

harvest time. Cotton had been unsuccessfully cultivated but the residents were able to grow 

a number of small crops, such as coffee, cocoa, bananas, corn, and other vegetables, primarily for local consumption. Commercial fishing was attempted, but this too was unsuccessful 

due to the lack of a supporting harbor and infrequent ship arrivals, and only enough for local consumption was yielded. Ships arrived every two months from Tokyo, and a local boat 

traveled once a month between Ogasawara and the Kazan Islands.193

Because of its volcanic and sulfuric make-up, the availability of drinking water was always a problem on Iwo. Most potable water, therefore, was collected during the rainy season 

between April and June. It was enough to sustain the villages, but as the population grew by 

5 and then by 20 times in the months prior to the battle, many problems emerged.

Being a subtropical climate, the islanders lived initially in raised huts constructed of 

wood frames with roofs of tin and walls of palm-like leaves until more permanent dwellings were built. Despite the simple existence, Motoyama offered a small inn used by visiting government officials; a bar serviced by young women, including those from Korea and 

China; some general stores; a police station; a government survey office; a grade school; 

and a high school.194 Radio and mail by ships were the primary means of communication 

between the mainland and Iwo.

In 1940, a civilian construction company (Mabuchigumi)195 from Yokosuka began building the island’s first airport, the incoming workers increasing the local population slightly. 

The airport’s purpose was military in nature, however, and in the spring of 1941, half a year 

prior to Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, an Imperial Navy detachment of 93 men was sent 

to set up defensive guns around the new base.196 In March 1944, Imperial Navy Captain 

Wachi Tsunezo, who would have a near 50-year connection with Iwo Jima afterward, arrived as the garrison commander along with 1,000 sailors and Japanese Marines, followed 

by Imperial Japanese Army Colonel Atsuchi Kanehiko with 1,000 soldiers.197 The ultimate 

role of Iwo Jima was still unknown to the islanders.
39

Notes

1

Kublin, “The Discovery of the Bonin Islands,” 28.

2

For insightful articles on the documents and literature regarding the discovery of the islands, see 

Hyman Kublin, “The Bonin Islands: An Essay on the Western Language Literature,” Kokusaiho 

Gaiko Zasshi [The Journal of International Law and Diplomacy], vol. 54, no. 6 (December 1955): 

671–86, and his “The Discovery of the Bonin Islands: A Reexamination,” Annals of the Association 

of American Geographers, no. 43 (March 1953): 27–46. Also see Akioka Takejiro, “Ogasawara Shoto 

Hakkenshi no Kihon Shiryo Chizu ni Tsuite” [Documents Concerning the Discovery of the Bonin 

Islands], which appeared in three parts of Kaijishi Kenkyu, no. 1 (October 1963): 1–10, nos. 3–4 

combined issue (April 1965): 45–57, and no. 8 (April 1967): 96–112.

3

Kublin, “The Discovery of the Bonin Islands,” 27.

4

The ronin said his name was Ogasawara Sadato, a descendent of Sadayori, and presented a document 

called Tatsumi Muninnto, believed to have been written around that time, to corroborate his story. The 

request was granted, and, in December 1733, a group departed for the islands, never to return. When 

the ronin reapplied to make the trip himself in 1735, he was discovered as not being related to the 

Ogasawara family. He was accused of being a fraud and severely punished by the Bakufu authorities. For more, see Tanaka Hiroyuki, Bakumatsu no Ogasawara: Obei no Hogeisen de Sakaeta Midori no 

Shima [Ogasawara during the Bakumatsu Period: The Green Islands that Prospered as a Result of the 

Western Whaling Vessels] (Tokyo: Chuko Shinsho, 1997), 9–14; Tabata Michio, Ogasawarato Yukari no Hitobito [People with a Connection to Ogasawara] (Ogasawara-son: Ogasawara-son Kyoiku 

Iinkai, 1993), 7–12; and Tanaka Hiroyuki, “Edo Jidai ni Okeru Nihonjin no Mujinto (Ogasawarato) 

ni taisuru Ninshiki” [The Ogasawara Islands in Tokugawa Japan], Kaijishi Kenkyu, no. 50 (June 1993), 

30–44, which is translated by Stephen Wright Horn as Tanaka Hiroyuki, “How the Japanese of the 

Edo Period Perceived the Ogasawara Islands,” Nihongo Kenkyu Sentaa Hokoku [ Japanese Language 

Research Center Reports], vol. 6 ( June 1998), 31–58. In most works concerning the Bonin Islands, 

the date 1593 will appear followed by a description that Ogasawara Sadayori discovered them. Although the story later turned out to be a hoax (and the perpetrator of it punished in 1735), many 

continued to believe it or at least perpetuate the story, and some later works include the supporting 

(but forged) documents to the 1727 petition without comment as if they were true (see editorial n3 

by Tanaka in his 1993 article). A shrine was built and dedicated to Ogasawara Sadayori in the prewar 

era (first being built in Omura’ Otaki, and then moved to the base of Suzumiyama in Oura in 1899. 

It was rebuilt in 1981, having been burned down during the war). See Tabata, Ogasawarato, foreword 

(p. 14); and for photos see Kurata Yoji, ed., Ogasawara: Hakken kara Senzen made [Ogasawara, From 

Discovery to the Prewar] (Kamakura-shi: Abokku-sha, 1983), 8–9; Ogasawarason Kyoiku Iinkai, 

ed., Hirakeyuku Ogsawara [Ogasawara Opening Up] (Ogasawara-son, Ogasawara-son Kyoiku Iinkai, 

1985), 58; and Ogasawara Henkan 20 Shunen Jikko Iinkai Kinenshi Hensan Shitsu, ed., Me de Saguru Ogasawara [Looking for Ogasawara Through Pictures] (Ogasawarason: Ogasawara Henkan 20 

Shunen Jikko Iinkai, 1991), 26, 99. Similarly, historians and other writers continue to retell the legend 

as if it were fact. (This includes the Japanese government, which, in later years, despite having exposed 

the story as untrue, used this date and story as a reference when claiming sovereignty over the islands.) 

Despite the research of scholars such as Tanaka Hiroyuki, the myth still continues to be believed. The 

Japanese Foreign Ministry’s encyclopedia entry for the Bonin Islands, for example, introduces the 

story without noting that it was found to be a hoax. See Hanabusa Nagamichi, “Ogasawara Kizoku 

Mondai” [The Problem of Ogasawara’s Sovereignty], in Gaimusho Gaikoshiryokan Nihon Gaikoshi 

Jiten Hensan Iinkai, ed., Shinpan Nihon Gaikoshi Jiten [An Encyclopedia of Japanese Diplomacy, Rev. 

ed.] (Tokyo; Yamakawa Shuppan, 1992), 113. In the early 1990s, the Ogasawara Board of Education 

History of the Islands to the Pacific War
40

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

sponsored the publication of two books as part of the celebration for the “400th Anniversary of the 

Discovery of the Ogasawara Islands” [Ogasawara Shoto Hakken 400 Nen Kinen], suggesting its support of the legend (Tabata’s book above, and a collection of essays called the Ogasawara Shoto Hakken 

400 Nen Henkan 25 Shunen Kinen Ronbun-Sakubun Konkuuru Nyusho Sakuhinshu, published in 1994). 

Hal Buell’s Uncommon Valor, Common Virtue: Iwo Jima and the Photograph that Captured America (New 

York: Berkeley Caliber, 2006), 1, makes the same mistake, as does Derrick Wright, The Battle for Iwo 

Jima 1945 (Phoenix Mill, England: Sutton, 2006), 1, and another book in Japanese, while acknowledging the story to be a legend, introduces the readers to it as if it were fact. See Yamaguchi Ryoko, 

Ogasawara Kurnokikuru: Kokkyo no Yureta Shima [Ogasawara Chronicles: The Islands Shaken by (National) Borders] (Tokyo: Chuko Shinsho La Clef, 2005), 21–22. The otherwise helpful Historical and 

Geographical Dictionary of Japan (by Edmond Papinot, which was first published in 1910 and subsequently reprinted by Charles E. Tuttle Company beginning in 1972), similarly errs (p. 473). Numerous other newspaper and magazine stories also regularly mistake the legend for fact.

5

There are at least three different factual errors that have emerged with this discovery. Some writers, including Lionel Berners Cholmondeley, A History of the Bonin Islands from the Year 1827 to the 

Year 1876 and of Nathaniel Savory One of the Original Settlers (London: Constable and Co., 1915), 

attribute the discovery of the islands to Villalobos, but this is incorrect. Kublin (“The Bonin Islands,” 

2–3), citing the work of Ione S. Wright, explains, “A mere study of his trans-Pacific route will quickly 

reveal the invalidity of this claim.” See Ione S. Wright, “Early Spanish Voyages from America to the 

Far East, 1527–1565,” in Adele Ogden and Engel, eds., Greater America: Essays in Honor of Herbert 

Eugene Bolton (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1943), 57–58. Second, Cholmondeley and 

others write that the islands discovered were the Bonin Islands. Technically, that is correct if the 

fact that the Volcano Islands are, in modern times, seen as part of the Bonin Islands, but they are a 

separate group. Third, the islands were said to be the Arsopispo Archipelago, but this was a name 

given well after the age of Villalobos/de la Torre, and thus it was unlikely that these were the same 

islands. This is supported by Tanaka (Bakumatsu no Ogasawara, 16–17). Incidentally, both Tanaka 

(Bakumatsu no Ogasawara, 16–17) and Kublin (“The Bonin Islands,” 3) believe it was the Volcano 

Islands that were discovered, but the ever-cautious Kublin describes the story as “still inconclusive.” 

In another article, Kublin suggests that “de la Torre sighted the Northern Marianas and, possibly

Iwo-Jima” (emphasis added). See Kublin, “The Discovery of the Bonin Islands,” 38.

6

Tanaka, Bakumatsu no Ogasawara, 16.

7

Cholmondeley, A History, 7; and Tanaka, Bakumatsu no Ogasawara, 16. Also see, James Burney, A 

Chronological History of the Discoveries in the South Sea or Pacific Ocean, Part 1 (London: G. and W. 

Nicol, 1803), 239.

8

Tanaka, Bakumatsu no Ogasawara, 16, and Antonio Galvano, The Discoveries of the World (London: 

Haklut Society, 1862), 234–35. Burney, A Chronological History (p. 239), has it written as “Forfana.”

9

Kublin, “The Discovery of the Bonin Islands,” 37.

10Ibid., and William L. Shurz, The Manila Galleon (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1959), 226.

11Kublin, “The Discovery of the Bonin Islands,” 3, 15; Tanaka, Bakumatsu no Ogasawara, 17; and J. 

R. Heeres, Abel Janszoon Tasman’s Journal (Amsterdam: Frederik Muller and Co., 1898). Also see 

Kublin, “The Discovery of the Bonin Islands,” 39–40.

12Tanaka, Bakumatsu no Ogasawara, 17; Tanaka, “How the Japanese of the Edo Period,” 48; Sebastian Dobson, “A Chronology of the Bonin Islands,” Nihongo Kenkyu Sentaa Hokoku [ Japanese Language Research Center Reports], vol. 6 ( June 1998), 21; and Kublin, “The Discovery of the Bonin 

Islands,” 40.
41

13Kublin, “The Discovery of the Bonin Islands,” 40.

14A few years after their visit in 1643, another Dutch explorer, Maarten Gerritsz de Vries, is reported 

to also have sighted the islands. See Okuma Ryoichi, Rekishi no Kataru Ogasawarato [The Ogasawara Islands as Told by History] (Tokyo: Nanpo Doho Engokai, 1966), 29.

15Kublin, “The Discovery of the Bonin Islands,” 40.

16Kublin writes that the log of their journey was not discovered and published until 1843 by P. F. von 

Siebld. See ibid., 39.

17Ibid., 41.

18Tanaka, Bakumatsu no Ogasawara, 2–7; and Dobson, “A Chronology of the Bonin Islands,” 21.

19Tanaka, Bakumatsu no Ogasawara, 2–7; and Tanaka, “How the Japanese of the Edo Period,” 31.

20Ibid.

21Midori Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study of Ogasawara/The Bonin Islands, Japan,” 

(Unpublished PhD dissertation, Stanford University, 1990), 25.

22The boats, called Yamatogata sen ( Japanese-style boats), were to be no larger than 42.3 feet in 

length, 18.7 feet in width, and 6.2 feet deep, and were quite common during the period of seclusion. 

They easily took on water and were considered dangerous and weak. For designs and other relevant 

information, see Ogasawarason Kyoiku Iinkai, ed., Hirakeyuku Ogsawara, 60.

23Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 24; and Suzuki Takahiro, Ogasawara Shoto kara 

Mita Bakumatsu-Ishinki no Nihon [ Japan during the Bakumatsu and Restoration Period as Seen 

from Ogasawara] (Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shiryo Hensansho, 1985), 3–4. For a longer study on 

this issue, see Arakawa Hidetoshi, Nihonjin Hyoryuki [A History of Japanese Castaways] (Tokyo: 

Jinbutsu Oraisha, 1964).

24As part of the seclusion act, the Bakufu had destroyed all large ships for trading, including the 

Shuinsen vessels that had been permitted by Toyotomi Hideyoshi back in 1592. See Ogasawara-son 

Kyoiku Iinkai, ed., Hirakeyuku Ogsawara, 56; and Tabata, Ogasawarato Yukari no Hitobito, 29–30.

25Tabata, Ogasawarato Yukari no Hitobito, 30.

26Ibid., 29–30; Tanaka, Bakumatsu to Ogasawara, 7–9.

27Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 25; and Tanaka, Bakumatsu no Ogasawara, 8.

28Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 26.

29According to Arima, the Bakufu subsequently attempted an expedition to the Munin Islands in 

1722, and again in 1782, but was unsuccessful both times likely due to the limited navigational skills 

of the crew and the size of the vessel.

30Tanaka, “How the Japanese of the Edo Period,” 31.

31Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 24; and Suzuki, Ogasawara Shoto, 4.

32Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 28. According to Kublin, Hayashi’s manuscript, 

which had been translated into Dutch by local Japanese scholars and Isaac Titsingh, the Dutch 

superintendent of trade at Dejima, and brought back to Europe in 1806 (along with the original 

Japanese), was acquired by Remusat when Titsingh died.

History of the Islands to the Pacific War
42

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

33Kublin, “The Bonin Islands,” 682. According to Kublin (pp. 679–80), Klaproth would propose that 

the Russian government annex the islands to use as a base for trade with China in his article “Commerce de la Chine avec Russie,” Annales des Voyages, second series, vol. 40 (1828): 273–98.

34Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 28.

35Ibid. For more on Hayashi, see Okuma Ryoichi, “Ogasawara Shoto to Hayashi Shihei no ‘Sankoku 

Tsuran Zusetsu’ ” [The Ogasawara Islands and Hayashi Shihei’s ‘A General Survey of Three Nations 

with an Illustrated Description’], Seisaku Geppo, no. 207 (1973), 112–29.

36Kublin, “The Discovery of the Bonin Islands,” 682–83.

37Tanaka, “How the Japanese of the Edo Period,” 35–36. Tanaka (and Tabata, Ogasawarato Yukari, 

33–38), provide a detailed description of Hayashi’s references to the islands in their writings. The 

three countries referred to in Hayashi’s work were Ezo (Hokkaido), Chosen (Korean Peninsula), 

and the Ryukyus.

38Ibid., 38.

39Ibid., 38–39.

40Ibid., 43.

41Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 28.

42Kublin, “The Discovery of the Bonin Islands,” 682.

43Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 28–29; and Tanaka, “How the Japanese of the 

Edo Period,” 32.

44The visit to the islands by Coffin, who was from Nantucket, Massachusetts, was discussed in the 

Nantucket Inquirer on 10 November 1827. It is reprinted as appendix iv in Kublin, “The Discovery 

of the Bonin Islands,” 671–72, and 681. It is also discussed in Edmund Fanning, Voyages and Discoveries in the South Seas, 1792–1832 (New York: Collins and Hannay, 1833). According to Kublin, 

who cites W.T. Brigham, An Index to Islands of the Pacific Ocean: Memoirs of the Bernice Pauahi Bishop 

Museum (Honolulu, 1900), 46, the Bonin Islands may have been visited by another American, John 

Ebbets, who was serving as an agent of the fur trader and millionaire John Jacob Astor in Hawaii, 

in 1824. Kublin was able to ascertain that Ebbets was in Oahu in 1824 but was unable to confirm 

if he had in fact made it to the Bonins during that year. See Kublin, “The Discovery of the Bonin 

Islands,” 681–82.

45Dobson, “A Chronology of the Bonin Islands,” 22; Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 

29; Okuma Ryoichi, Ogasawara Shoto Ikokusen Raikoki [Record of the Comings of Foreign Vessels to 

the Ogasawara Islands] (Tokyo: Kondo Shuppansha, 1984), 40–41.

46For an insightful discussion of the whaling industry, see Arrell Morgan Gibson, Yankees in Paradise: 

The Pacific Basin Frontier (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1993), particularly chapter 

8. Also see Eric Jay Dolin, Leviathan: The History of Whaling in America (New York: W. W. Norton, 

2007).

47Frank T. Bullen, The Cruise of the Cachalot Round the World after Sperm Whales (Mechanicsburg, PA: 

Stackpole Books, 2001), chapter 13.

48For more on the whaling industry and the Bonin Islands, see Tanaka Hiroyuki, “Ogasawarato 

to Hogeisen” [Ogasawara and Whaling Vessels], in Ishii Kenji, ed., Nihon Kaijishi no Shomondai: 
43

Taigai Kankeihen [Issues in Japan’s Maritime History: Foreign Relations Edition] (Tokyo: Bunken 

Shuppan, 1995), 197–216; and Tanaka Hiroyuki, “Bunkyudo no Ogasawara Shoto Kaitaku to Hogei Jigyo” [The Colonization of the Bonin Islands and the Whaling Industry in the 19th Century], 

Kaijishi Kenkyu, no. 10 (April 1968), 136–46.

49According to the account of Capt Frederick W. Beechey, who came upon the two sailors, an earthquake and tsunami had hit the island in January 1826. It seems that the date is a typo, however, 

as Beechey writes, the sailors had been on the islands for eight months, and Beechey had arrived 

in June 1827. It is probably correct to assume that the date was January 1827. See Frederick W. 

Beechey, Narrative of a Voyage to the Pacific and Bering’s Strait (London, 1831), 228–40. Beechey only 

gave the name of one of the men, Wittrein. Lutke’s account, later, supplies the name of the other 

man, Peterson. See Frederic Lutke, Voyage Autour du Monde, 1826–1829 (New York: De Capo Press, 

1971). For more on the voyage of Beechey, see George Peard, To the Pacific and Arctic with Beechey: 

The Journal of Lieutenant George Peard of H. M. S. Blossom, 1825–1828 (Cambridge: Cambridge 

University Press, 1973).

50Beechey, Narrative of a Voyage; and Russell Robertson, “The Bonin Islands,” Transactions of the 

Asiatic Society of Japan, vol. 4 (1875–76), 113–18.

51Cholmondeley, A History of the Bonin Islands, 9–13. For more on the plaque, which turned up in 

Australia, see David Odo, “A Brief Biography of Beechey’s Copper Plaque,” Journal of Boninology, 

no. 14 (March 2005): 7–9; and Tanaka Hiroyuki. “Beechii Kancho no Doban ni Tsuite” [On Captain 

Beechey’s Copper Plaque], Journal of Boninology, no. 14 (March 2005): 10–11.

52Beechey, Narrative of a Voyage, 228–40,

53Ibid.

54His trip and talk before the ASJ are described later in this chapter. The ASJ was formed in 1872 in 

Yokohama by British and American diplomats, businessmen, and missionaries to learn more about 

the country in which they were residing, sponsoring monthly lectures and the publication of the annual Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan.

55Robertson, “The Bonin Islands,” 117. Due to his country’s interest in the islands, Robertson was 

probably trying to stress his country’s claim to the island by explaining that, although Beechey did 

not think he had arrived at the Bonins, he in fact did, and in Robertson’s argument, it was the Japanese who were mistaken about earlier claims.

56Frederic Lutke, Voyage Autour du Monde, 1826–1829, vol. 2 (New York: De Capo Press, 1971), 

150–66.

57A. Grove Day, Hawaii and its People: Paradise and Paradox in the Pacific (New York: Duell, Sloan, 

and Pearce, 1955), 114.

58The two earliest accounts of this period use different spellings. Robertson writes the name as Millichamp, and Cholmondeley uses Millinchamp. As British records, introduced below, use Millichamp, 

the author will employ that spelling as well. Cholmondeley suggests that he may not have been an 

Englishman. Both Robertson and Cholmondeley use the name “John,” but it appears from other 

Guam-related genealogies that the man may have been in fact Richard M. Millinchamp, an English 

sea captain who had lost his ship around the Cape of Good Hope and was picked up by a French 

merchantman before finding his way to Hawaii.

59On Charlton, see Herb Kawainui Kane, “The Other Attack on Captain Cook,” Honolulu StarBulletin, 2 October 1999.

History of the Islands to the Pacific War
44

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

60Harry Emerson Wildes, A New History of Japan’s Foreign Intercourse (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly 

Resources, Inc.), 262.

61Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 31–33.

62Ibid., 33. Buell, in his brief history at the beginning of Uncommon Valor, has the Savory arrival as 

1827, but that is incorrect.

63Dobson, “A Chronology of the Bonin Islands,” 23, citing Nathaniel Savory, “List of Shipping 

which entered and sailed from Port William, St. George’s, Bonin Islands, from 1 January 1833 to 1 

July 1835,” in appendix to E. W. Clement, “Mito Samurai and British Sailors in 1824,” Transactions 

of the Asiatic Society of Japan, vol. 33 (1905), 190.

64Dobson, “A Chronology of the Bonin Islands,” 23, citing “Francis Stavers to Colonial Office, 10 

April 1834,” and “Colonial Office to Stavers, 16 April 1834.”

65Dobson, “A Chronology of the Bonin Islands,” 23, citing Ruschenberger, William Samuel Waithman (1838) Narrative of a Voyage around the World, during the Years 1835, 36, and 37; Including a Narrative of an Embassy to the Sultan of Muscat and the King of Siam (London: Richard Bentley, 1855), 

298–313. This code was not good enough for the illiterate, nominal leader of the group, Mazarro, who 

apparently plotted to have Savory, and perhaps Chapin, murdered in 1838. There was a British ship 

of a similar name, HMS Enterprize, that also visited the islands, but that visit was 15 years later. See 

Richard C. Collinson, Journal of the H. M. S. Enterprise (London: Sampson Low, 1889); and Richard 

C. Collinson, “The Bonin Islands in 1851,” The Nautical Magazine, vol. 21 (March 1852), 135–38.

66Blake, P. I. (Captain), 1838, Report from the Officer Commanding H.M.S. Larne, on the Occasion of 

Her Visit to the Bonin and Caroline Islands, in Regard to Acts of Violence Committed on the Natives by 

British Subjects and Particularly by the Master and Crew of the Cutter Lambton of Sydney. Public Office 

Reference FE 80 C.O. 201/302, Great Britain, Colonial Office, New South Wales. Copy courtesy 

of Daniel Long. Also see Blake, P. I. (1924) Report of the Cruise of HMS Larne in 1839 in Historical 

Records of Australia, series 1, vol. 20, 27–28, 655–72. Sydney: Library of the Committee of Commonwealth Parliament, and Capt Robert Blake (1839), “Visit to Port Lloyd, Bonin Islands, in Her 

Majesty’s Sloop ‘Larne’,” Proceedings of the Bombay Geographic Society 3, 106, 109.

67Day, Hawaii and Its People, 121.

68Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 34.

69Savory’s first wife had been abducted by the crews of British vessels, Maid of Australia and St. Andrews. See Dobson, “A Chronology of the Bonin Islands,” 25, citing Taylor, Bayard (1855) A Visit to 

India, China and Japan, in the Year 1853 (London: Sampson Low, Son & Co., 1855), 394. Savory also 

lost his livestock, clothes, and savings of around $2,000. Savory’s sad story is also retold in Cholmondeley, The History of the Bonin Islands, 26–27.

70“Letter from Charles Elliot in Macao to John Backhause, January 23, 1837,” Foreign Office, 17/19 

records.

71See, for example, T. Horton James, “The Sandwich and Bonin Islands. A Letter to a Noble Lord 

on the Importance of Settling the Sandwich and Bonin Islands, in the North Pacific Ocean, on the 

plan of a proprietary government; together with Hints on the probability in that case of introducing 

British Manufactures into the Great Empire of Japan,” (London: W. Tew, 1832); and G. Tradescant 

Lay, “Trade with China. A Letter Addressed to the British Public on Some of the Advantages that 

would Result from an Occupation of the Bonin Islands,” (London: Royston and Brown, 1837), both 

cited in Dobson, “A Chronology of the Bonin Islands,” 28–29.
45

72For a full record of the trip, see Francis L. Hawks, Narrative of the Expedition of an American Squadron to the China Seas and Japan: Performed in the Years 1852, 1853, and 1854 under the Command of 

Commodore M. C. Perry, United States Navy, by Order of the Government of the United States (New 

York: D. Appleton and Company, 1856); and Matthew C. Perry, The Japan Expedition, 1852–1854: 

The Personal Journal of Commodore Matthew C. Perry (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Press, 1968).

73“Letter from Lt. T. J. Page to Secretary of Navy, November 28, 1850,” cited in Dorothy Richard 

Pesce and L. Gordon Findley, A History of the Bonin-Volcano Islands, 1830–1958, 9–10, unpublished 

manuscript, Operational Archives, Naval Historical Center. The manuscript is actually two parts, 

Book I, which covers the period from 1830 to 1950 and was written by Pesce, and Book II, which 

covers the remaining years and was written by Findley. They are referred to as Pesce, Book I, and 

Findley, Book II, hereafter. Pesce and Collinson (1852) both write that vessel’s name was Dolphin, but 

that was the name of the class. The ship’s name was actually the Porpoise, and had been long involved 

in antislavery patrols before becoming part of the United States Exploring Squadron and service in 

the U.S.-Mexican War.

74Collinson, “The Bonin Islands in 1851,” 137.

75Pesce, Book I, 10.

76Samuel Eliot Morison, “Old Bruin” Commodore Matthew Calbraith Perry, 1794–1858 (Boston: 

Little, Brown, and Company, 1967), 312.

77Hawks, Narrative, 242.

78Letter from Perry to Savory.

79Findley, Book II, 286.

80As the deed to it states that the rights would pass to Perry’s “heirs and assigns forever,” the case 

could be made that the land still technically belongs to Perry’s descendants.

81Robertson writes “Motley” and that he died on the Bailey Islands in 1870, while Cholmondeley 

uses “Moitley” and writes the date of his death as 1866. Collinson also uses “Moitley.” As his article 

was published in 1852, it does not cover the period of his death.

82Robertson, “The Bonin Islands,” 119.

83With the exception of the goats, which thrived and “swarm” all over the islands, the sheep died and 

the cattle were stolen by visiting whalers. See Robertson, “The Bonin Islands,” 122.

84Morison, Old Bruin, 312.

85Pesce, Book I, 15, and Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 39.

86Hawks, Narrative, 332.

87Ibid. Robertson writes that one of the Plymouth’s cutters was lost in rough seas off of Chichi Jima, 

and 14 of its crew died. Robertson, “The Bonin Islands,” 122.

88Hawks, Narrative, 242. Dobbin had been instrumental in getting President Franklin Pierce nominated as the Democratic Party candidate for the presidency, and then elected president. As a reward 

for his service, Pierce named the North Carolinian native secretary of the Navy. Dobbin believed in a 

strong navy and helped modernize its ships during his four years in office. He also helped arrange the 

Perry visit to Japan. Ironically, a ship named after him, the USS Dobbin (AD 3) was present at Pearl 

Harbor when it was attacked by Japanese forces on 7 December 1941. See Dictionary of American 

Naval Fighting Ships, vol. 2, 282–83.

History of the Islands to the Pacific War
46

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

89Hawks, Narrative, 244–45.

90Admiral E. V. Puchachin, who commanded the Russian Far Eastern Fleet, visited Peel Island on 

his way to Nagasaki on 3 July and stayed for 10 days, departing on the 13th. He was the third Russian 

to visit the islands, after Ivan Fedorovich Kruzenshtern (born Adam Johann Ritter von Krusenstern 

of a Baltic German family), in 1805, who spotted Iwo Jima, and Lutke, in 1828, discussed above.

91For an insightful discussion of British internal discussions regarding the Perry visit to the Bonins, 

see W. G. Beasley, Great Britain and the Opening of Japan, 1834–1858 (London: Luzac and Company, 1951), 94–96.

92“Letter from Alex Simpson and H. N. Lay to Lord Clarendon, October 1, 1853,” cited in Hawks, 

Narrative, 352. The fourth Earl of Clarendon’s real name was George Frederick William Villiers.

93Hawks, Narrative, 351–52.

94Cited in Hawks, Narrative, 354–56.

95A few years later, Beechey, in a speech in London, echoed Perry’s plea for open ports: “The right of 

possession from priority of discovery is a question of which nations are naturally jealous; but I trust 

that not only in respect of these islands, but in all other cases, our relations will be such, that our 

ports will be mutually open for the general benefit of navigation and commerce.” See F. W. Beechey, 

“Address to the Royal Geographical Society of London, May 26, 1856,” Journal of the Royal Geographic Society, no. 26 (1856): 228. Beechey had become president of the RGS in 1855.

96Pesce, Book I, 18. Some tales, including this one by Navy historians, has the ship’s name as Macedonia, but it is actually Macedonian. For more, see James T. de Kay, Chronicles of the Frigate Macedonian 

(New York: W. W. Norton, 1995).

97Hawks, Narrative, 195.

98M. C. Perry, “The Enlargement of Geographical Science,” cited in Pesce, Book I, 19.

99Perry, “The Enlargement of Geographical Science.”

100Pesce, Book I, 20.

101Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 40; and Tanaka, “How the Japanese of the Edo 

Period,” 43.

102Dobson, “A Chronology of the Bonin Islands,” 24; Tanaka, Bakumatsu no Ogasawara, 70–74.

103Tanaka, “How the Japanese of the Edo Period,” 43.

104Ibid.

105Ibid., 44; and “A Written Statement of Information Privy to Myself Concerning the Bonin Islands.”

106Hawks, Narrative.

107Tanaka Hiroyuki, “Ogasawara Shoto wa Naze Nihon no Ryodo” [Why are the Ogasawara Islands 

Japanese Territory], in Gejo Masao, et al., eds., Shitte Imasuka, Nihon no Shima [Do You Know 

Japan’s Islands?] (Tokyo: Jiyu Kokuminsha, 2002), 79; and Tanaka, “How the Japanese of the Edo 

Period,” 46. The superintendent in charge of foreign countries refers to Perry’s Narrative in a discussion (mentioned below) in 1859, suggesting that the Narrative had already made its way to Japan 

and was translated.
47

108For more on this time, see Sir Rutherford Alcook, The Capital of the Tycoon: A Narrative of Three 

Years Residence in Japan (London: Longman and Green, 1863).

109Tanaka, “How the Japanese of the Edo Period,” 45–46.

110Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 41. Curiously, although ordered to call at the 

islands either on his way to or from the United States to make observations, the naval magistrate, 

Kimura Settsu no Kami Yoshitake, for reasons unclear, did not do so. Tanaka, “How the Japanese of 

the Edo Period,” 47–48.

111Tabobashi Kiyoshi, “Ogasawara Shoto no Kaishu” [The Recovery of the Ogasawara Islands], 

Rekishi Chiri, vol. 39, no. 5 (May 1922): 20 (368); and Hyman Kublin, “The Ogasawara Venture, 

1861–1863,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, vol. 14, nos. 1 and 2 ( June 1951): 272. Harris’s journal 

curiously does not refer to the Bonins. See Mario E. Consenza, ed., The Complete Journal of Townsend 

Harris, rev. ed. (Tuttle: Rutland, 1959), and the biography by William E. Griffis, Townsend Harris: 

First American Envoy in Japan (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1895).

112Tanaka, Bakumatsu no Ogasawara, 127.

113Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 41–42.

114Ibid., 42–43.

115For the records of his conversations with the islanders of Western descent, see “Ogasawarato 

Jumin Taiwasho,” Obana Sakujo Kankei Shiryo.

116For more on John Manjiro, see Nakahama Akira, Nakahahama Manjiro no Shogai [The Life of 

Nakahama Manjiro] (Tokyo: Fuzambo, 1970), 257–59.

117Tabobashi, “Ogasawara Shoto no Kaishu,” 317, and Okuma, Rekishi no Kataru, 121.

118Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 42.

119Ibid., 42. According to Arima (p. 47), “Webb was the only literate man who performed marriage 

and burial services.”

120Yamaguchi, Ogasawara Kuronikuru, 41.

121Ibid., 42–43.

122“Ogasawarato Kaitaku Saiko Ken” [Restarting the Development of Ogasawara], in Gaimusho, ed., 

Zokutsushin Zenkan Ruishu no Bu 38 [Continuation of All Related Documents] (Tokyo: Yushodo 

Shuppan, 1988), 90–557.

123Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 44.

124See Robertson, “The Bonin Islands,” 122.

125Nakahama, Nakahama Manjiro, 261.

126Shepardson, The Bonin Islands, 91–92.

127Sir Harry Parkes described the piracy charge as “absurd.” See Stanley Lane-Poole, The Life of Sir 

Harry Parkes, vol. 2 (London: Macmillan 1894), 282.

128Kublin, “The Ogasawara Venture,” 280–81. Horton was born in Boston, England, but served 

for 18 years in the U.S. Navy. Coming to the Bonin Islands in 1854, he decided to retire there and 

bought a tract of land and settled down.

History of the Islands to the Pacific War
48

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

129Foreign Relations of the United States (1864), 471–72.

130Hunter Miller, Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, vol. 6 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1942), 773.

131Ibid.

132Ibid.

133Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 44.

134Ibid., 45.

135A tidal wave hit the islands in 1872, striking more fear in the residents. It was at this time that 

Savory lost his diary that he had been keeping since the establishment of the colony. Although some 

papers were recovered, his diary was likely the one thorough and most reliable record kept at the 

time covering the previous 42 years. Dobson, “A Chronology of the Bonin Islands,” 27. Savory would 

die a little later on 10 April 1874.

136The German government’s request for clarification seems to have been made in response to the 

description of the islands in a British government publication (China Seas Pilot) as being British territory. For more, see Tanaka, Bakumatsu no Ogasawara, 239–41.

137Pease’s appeal was also noted in the British press and seems to have been the direct catalyst for 

the British government’s request to the Meiji government to clarify its intentions with regard to the 

islands. The London Times reported on it in 1873, and shortly after that, British representative Parkes 

told his Japanese counterparts, “If Japan continues to leave the islands as is, they will become British 

territory.”

138“Letter from C. E. de Long to Secretary of State Hamilton Fish (April 23, 1873),” Papers Relating 

to the Foreign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, With the Annual Message of the 

President, December 7, 1874 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1874), 635.

139Ibid., 636. Ironically, Pease reportedly would meet a similar fate. On 9 October 1874, Pease departed Ogiura by boat but never returned. A few days later, his empty boat drifted ashore at David’s 

Beach (present-day Yakiba Kaigan). According to Tabobashi, a worker of Pease’s named Spencer 

was having an affair with Pease’s wife, Susan Robinson, and Spencer was suspected of being involved 

in the disappearance but no charges were brought “as no one missed Pease’s death.” See Tabobashi, 

“Ogasawara Shoto no Kaishu, 4,” 22. According to Shepardson, Pease’s suspected murderer was 

“murdered in turn” and Susan was said to have married the murderer, a Thomas Tewcrab. See Shepardson, The Bonin Islands, 105.

140Cholmondeley, The History of the Bonin Islands, 62.

141Ibid., 64. This was the second tsunami to hit Chichi Jima in two decades, the earlier one being in December 1854 (as a result of the Ansei Tokai earthquake). For more, see Tsuji Yoshinobu, 

“Ogasawara Shoto no Tusnamishi” [History of Tsunamis in the Bonin Islands], Rekishi Jishin, no. 21 

(2006), 65–79. Another destructive tsunami hit in May 1960, as a result of the Chilean earthquake. 

For more, see Suzuki Takahiro, “Beigun Shihaika no Ogasawara Shoto to Chiri Jishin Tsunami” 

[The Ogasawara Islands under U.S. Military Control and the Tsunami from the Chilean Earthquake], Tokyo Toritsu Ogasawara Koto Gakko Kenkyu Kiyo, no. 6 (1992), 22–56.

142“Letter from de Long to Fish,” 636.

143“Letter from Secretary of State Fish to Mr. De Long, May 31, 1873,” Papers Relating to the For-
49

eign Relations of the United States, Transmitted to Congress, With the Annual Message of the President, 

December 7, 1874, 637.

144Ibid., 637.

145Tanaka, Bakumatsu no Ogasawara, 241–42.

146Ibid., 242.

147Michael R. Auslin, Negotiating with Imperialism: The Unequal Treaties and the Culture of Japanese 

Diplomacy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004), 197.

148Tanaka, Bakumatsu no Ogasawara, 242.

149Ibid.

150Dobson, “Chronology,” 27.

151Tanaka, Bakumatsu no Ogasawara, 242.

152Parkes would serve in Japan from 1865 until 1883. For more on him, see Gordon Daniels, Sir 

Harry Parkes: British Representative in Japan 1865–83 ( Japan Library, 1996). Also see Kuwada 

Masaru, Kindai ni Okeru Chunichi Eikoku Gaikokan [British Diplomats in Modern Japan], (Kobe, 

Japan: Minume Shobo, 2003); and W. G. Beasley, “Sir Harry Parkes and the Meiji Restoration,” The 

Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan, Third Series, vol. 12 (December 1975), 21–38.

153“Document No. 158, November 5, 1875, Terashima Gaimukyo to Eikoku Koshi to no Taiwasho: 

Ogasawarato e Nihon Kanin Haken Narabini Doto no Shozoku ni Kansuru Ken” [Memorandum of 

Conversation between Foreign Minister Terashima and British Minister on Dispatch to Ogasawara 

of Government Officials and the Issue of the Island’s Sovereignty], Gaimusho, ed., Nihon Gaiko 

Bunsho [ Japanese Diplomatic Documents], vol. 8 (Tokyo: Nihon Gaiko Bunsho Haifukai, 1956), 

362–63.

154“Document No. 159, November 8, 1875, Eikoku Koshi Yori Terashima Gaimukyo Ate: Ogasawarato e Nihon Kanin Haken Shui Narabini Haken Kanin no Seimei nado ni Kanshi Shokai no 

Ken” [Letter from British Minister to Foreign Minister Terashima on Dispatch to Ogasawara of 

Government Officials, the Purpose of Their Visit, and Their Names], Gaimusho, ed., Nihon Gaiko 

Bunsho, 363.

155Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 45–46.

156One person who the Japanese government feared would cause problems at this point was Captain 

Pease. See n.139. See Tanaka, Bakumatsu no Ogasawara, 247.

157Thomas Dunbabin, “White Japanese: Britain’s Lost Colony of the Bonins Naval Base Given 

Away,” The Sun, 26 August 1923.

158Pesce, Book I, 23.

159Robertson, “The Bonin Islands,” 140.

160Ibid., 138–39.

161Yamagata Ishinosuke, Ogasawaratoshi [A History of the Ogasawara Islands] (Tokyo: Toyoto Shiten, 1906), 354–56.

162Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 47.

History of the Islands to the Pacific War
50

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

163Interestingly, an idea was introduced in September 1872 to place the Bonin Islands under the 

administrative control of the Ryukuhan (Ryukyu Domain) but it was not accepted. See Tsuji, Ogasawara Shoto Gaishi, 69.

164Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 48.

165Ibid.

166Tanaka, Bakumatsu no Ogasawara, 251–53.

167Ibid., 255; and Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 48.

168Tanaka, Bakumatsu no Ogasawara, 255.

169Ibid., 255–58.

170Ibid., 258–59.

171Robertson, “The Bonin Islands,” 128.

172Blowden Hammond and Mary Shepardson, “Uncle Charlie Washington: His Life, His Island, 

His People,” unpublished manuscript, 1973, 8.

173Ibid.

174Ibid.

175Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 51; and Pesce, Book I, 24.

176Pesce, Book I, 24, citing U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, December 1923, 2069.

177Pesce, Book I, 24–25, citing U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings.

178Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 51.

179According to the U.S. Navy, the last known foreigner to visit Chichi Jima in the prewar era was 

a German named W. Gundert, who made a brief vacation trip there in 1930. See Navy Department, Civil Affairs Handbook, 45. However, according to Shepardson, who cites an interview with 

an islander, the English brother-in-law of Richard Washington visited Chichi Jima before the war 

in the late 1930s. See Shepardson, The Bonin Islands, 169. Upton Close (“Japan’s Stronghold in the 

Pacific,” New York Herald Tribune, 26 February 1933, 8), also incorrectly writes that the last foreigner 

to conduct research on Chichi was a German named Dr. Richard Goldschmidt, who studied the 

genealogical composition of the islanders in 1926 and published his findings in 1927, but he was 

followed by F. Wagenseil (date unknown) who conducted similar research. (See Kimura Masafumi, 

“Ogasawarato Konketsusha no Haigusha Sentaku to Jinko” [Selection in Marriage and Population 

in the Mixed Blood People on the Bonin Islands], Jinruigaku Zasshi, vol. 67, no. 5 (1960), 12–22.) 

The U.S. Navy apparently did not know about Wagenseil’s visit when completing the Handbook. 

It did have the names, occupations, and addresses of those Americans known to have visited the 

islands, which it included in the report. Moreover, according Willard Price, a Canadian-born American and prolific writer about Japan and the Pacific, an unnamed American diplomat, and two friends 

visited Haha Jima in 1931, accompanied by a military policeman who was “ostensibly a ‘guide’.” See 

Willard Price, “Springboards to Tokyo,” The National Geographic Magazine, vol. 76, no. 4 (October 

1944), 393. Price himself mentions his own visit, but does not give a date, although it was probably 

in 1935. One historian suggests he was an intelligence officer, but does not provide the evidence to 

support the claim. Laurie Barber, “Willard Price: Uncle Sam’s Spy?” WaiMilHis, vol. 1, no. 4 ( July 

1999), http://www.waikato.ac.nz/wfass/subjects/history/waimilhist/1999/willardprice.htm.
51

180Hammond and Shepardson, “Uncle Charlie,” 9. Author italics.

181Ibid., 9–10.

182Shepardson, The Bonin Islands, 169.

183Hammond and Shepardson, “Uncle Charlie,” 10. Without explicitly contradicting Washington, 

Shepardson, in another work, writes that the flag was “taken by the Japanese and never returned.” 

Shepardson, The Bonin Islands, 166. It contains a description of the burning of the papers by Samuel 

Savory in 1942, which was originally published by Audrey Bordallo in the May 1965 edition of 

Pacific Profile.

184Hammond and Shepardson, “Uncle Charlie,” 12.

185Horie Yoshitaka, Tokon Iwo Jima: Ogasawara Heidan Sanbo no Kaiso [Fighting Spirit, Iwo Jima: 

The Memoirs of a Staff Officer, Ogasawara Forces] (Tokyo: Kojinsha NF Bunko, 2005), 89–91, 

96–97, 134–35. According to Horie, who was in charge of the evacuation, “About 50 or 60 of the 

islanders remained on Chichi Jima up to the end of August 1944 because these people wanted to 

stay very urgently, and since I was busy because I went to Iwo Jima and Tokyo, I was not very careful.” Kuribayashi, who was on Iwo Jima, was very angry and fired off a telegraph: “According to some 

rumors, some civilians have remained at Chichi Jima. Don’t you know that they encumber the armed 

forces in case of battle. Reply immediately. Kuribayashi.”

186Ibid., 10, and Shepardson, The Bonin Islands, 174.

187Graff, Strike and Return, 7. According to Graff, survivors from a three-masted Italian merchant 

ship that had been destroyed in a typhoon briefly lived on the inhabited island.

188Cook was murdered in Hawaii in February 1779 during an altercation with locals on the island 

of Hawaii (Big Island). Graff, Strike and Return, 7. Graff was uncertain of the exact date, but Buell, 

Uncommon Valor, 2–3, introduces a map that was drawn in 1786.

189Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 118.

190Graff, Strike and Return, 8.

191“Iwojima no Kako to Genzai” [Iwo Jima’s Past and Present], Ogasawara Kyokai, ed., Ogasawara, 

vol. 43 (25 December 1997), 12.

192Graff, Strike and Return, 7.

193Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 118.

194Richard Wheeler, Iwo (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1980), 6.

195Today, the company, still based near Yokosuka in Yokohama, is known as Mabuchi Construction, 

and uses the acronym Mzec.

196Wheeler, Iwo, 6.

197Wachi, who returned to Tokyo in October 1944, became a Buddhist priest in the postwar period 

and was active in the collecting of the remains of fallen soldiers, establishing the Iwo Jima Association, and working toward good relations between the United States and Japan. His activities are 

discussed more in chapter 7. For more on Wachi, see Kamisaka, Iwo Jima Imada Gyokusai Sezu.

History of the Islands to the Pacific War
52

Chapter 2

The War and the Battle of Iwo Jima

The United States is the last country in the world that Japan should fight.

—Lieutenant General Kuribayashi Tadamichi, Commander, Iwo Jima, in a letter home while

he was traveling through the United States in the late 1920s as the deputy military attaché

Iwo Jima has come to be called the “Inevitable Island” by a number of writers. It was Time

magazine, in its 5 March 1945 issue, that first used the expression.1 As U.S. forces made 

their way westward across the Pacific, the militaries of both countries were destined, it 

seems, to clash on the tiny island of Iwo Jima, located strategically as it was on “Japan’s 

doorstep.” The seizure of that volcanic hot spot would bring American forces to within 700 

miles of the mainland, the closest they had come in any great numbers. It had been a long 

and hard-fought journey for them following the attacks on Pearl Harbor, 3,100 miles away, 

some three years before on that quiet Sunday morning of 7 December 1941.

The resulting clash on Iwo Jima cost many lives on both sides. Almost all of the 22,000 

Japanese defenders were killed; only 1,083 (867 Imperial Japanese Army; 216 Imperial Japanese Navy) survived, and few voluntarily. On the U.S. side, the battle caused more than 

26,000 casualties, including 6,800 deaths. Of those, 5,931 U.S. Marines were killed and 

17,372 wounded in action.2 It was the first battle in which there were more casualties on 

the U.S. side than on the Japanese side.3 Iwo Jima was the bloodiest battle in the history of 

the Marine Corps, “the toughest fight in the 169 years of our Corps,” Lieutenant General 

Holland M. Smith, who was the senior Marine in the planning phase and in theater as commanding general, Expeditionary Troops (Task Force 56), sadly noted.4

 An assault that was 

expected by some planners to take only a few days actually took more than a month. As a 

result of the battle, American military and political leaders reexamined their thinking about 

Japan’s willingness and ability to fight as U.S. forces got closer to their enemy’s homeland. 

They decided it was important to try to avoid having to invade the Japanese mainland.

There was then, and continues to be, a debate in the United States as to whether it was 

worth the price.5

 Some, such as Smith, split the difference by arguing it was indeed necessary to take Iwo, but that the number of casualties could have been fewer had there been 

more pre-invasion bombardment by the Navy as he and his staff had requested on numerous occasions.6

 Nevertheless, “Howlin Mad” Smith wrote in his memoirs, “In fighting a war 

to win, you cannot evaluate the attainment of an objective in terms of lives, or money, or 

material lost. I said ‘Yes’ to this question [about the need to seize Iwo Jima] before we laid 

plans to take Iwo Jima, and I say ‘Yes’ today.”7

One Marine veteran observed that Iwo Jima “was as close to Hell as you could get.”8

Another intimated that it was worse than that: “I know I’m going to Heaven. I put in 36 

days in Hell.” Why then would Americans, the 70,000 Marines of the landing forces and 
53

150,000 others supporting the operation, go there, a place they knew only as “Island X” and 

“Workman” before their departure for the battle?

The reasons for taking Iwo Jima were numerous and can be summarized as follows:9

(1) American “very long range” bombers (Boeing B-29 Superfortresses) could fly closer to 

Japan before being detected; (2) bombers would not have to avoid flying near Iwo and thus 

would require less fuel and could carry more bombs; (3) it would serve as a base for fighter 

planes (primarily the long-range North American P-51 Mustang) that could escort the 

bombers to and from mainland Japan; (4) it would provide an important midway point for 

damaged bombers and other aircraft to land and get repaired; (5) search and rescue operations could be done from Iwo more easily than from the Marianas for pilots and crews of 

bombers and other planes that crashed in the sea; (6) the capture of the runways would 

stop it from serving as a base from which Japanese aircraft could harass U.S. operations and 

bases in the Central Pacific; and (7) the capture of Iwo Jima, Japanese territory—indeed, a 

part of Tokyo Prefecture—would, hopefully, send an important psychological blow to Japan 

that the end was near.

Japan, on the other hand, not only wanted to delay that end as long as possible but make 

the United States pay such a punishing price for Iwo Jima that it would rethink any plans to 

invade Japan proper. The loss of the Mariana Islands—the northernmost of which had been 

under Japanese control since World War I as a mandate of the League of Nations—in the 

summer of 1944 shocked the Japanese leadership, leading to the resignation of Prime Minister 

Tojo Hideki, who had always told Emperor Hirohito and the people of Japan that the Americans were soft and lacked the courage to fight.10 That November, the Marianas, only 1,500 

miles from Japan, would be used by U.S. B-29s to bomb Japanese cities and industrial centers. 

As long as Japan held on to Iwo Jima, those bombing runs would be less successful than the 

U.S. Army Air Forces desired or expected. The United States, therefore, had to be prevented at 

all costs from seizing Iwo and turning it into its own “unsinkable aircraft carrier.”

Ironically, Iwo Jima’s inherent value to Japan was limited to an early warning site and a 

base for fighter-interceptors. Indeed, writes Joseph Alexander, a former Marine and expert 

on amphibious operations, “On the larger scale, the island was a strategic liability to the 

Japanese.”11 An idea seriously studied at one point by Major Horie Yoshitaka and others at 

the headquarters of Lieutenant General Kuribayashi Tadamichi on Iwo Jima was to blow 

the island up (or “sink it”) in order to render it unusable by U.S. forces.12 This idea was supported by some in the General and Naval Staff Offices. After consulting with demolition 

experts, however, Kuribayashi and his staff realized they did not have enough dynamite 

to do so.13 However, regardless of its value to Japan, the more reasons the United States 

had to seize the island, the greater the necessity for Japanese forces, led by the 54-year old 

Kuribayashi, to prevent that from happening.

Despite the inevitability of the clash, Iwo Jima was actually a “latecomer as a potential objective” for U.S. amphibious operations, as a U.S. strategy championed by General 

Douglas A. MacArthur, had been to approach Japan through the Philippines, Formosa, and 

Amoy.14 Because Formosa, in particular, was seen as a slow, exhaustive, and bloody route, 

U.S. military leaders endorsed the faster route through Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

The War and the Battle of Iwo Jima
54

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

The U.S. Decision to Seize Iwo Jima

Despite the Bonin Islands having received little attention as part of a series of war plans 

with Japan developed in the 1920s and 1930s, they did get the consideration of the staff 

of Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief, Pacific Forces, in late 1942 when it 

developed a study on the seizure of Chichi Jima.15 With its fine harbor and small airfield, 

Chichi Jima, in the Navy’s opinion, could serve as a combined fighter and bomber base and 

port facility.16 The Navy, however, showed little interest in Iwo Jima, due to its lack of harbors. Distracted by other more pressing operations, it would be about nine months before 

the feasibility of seizing the Bonin Islands could be examined at higher levels.

Believing that the Bonins would be an important point in the defense of Japan after 

the fall of the Marianas, U.S. planners further examined the question of seizing them in 

mid-September 1943.17 Despite their “important strategic position in the Central Pacific 

area,” the study by the Joint War Planning Committee ( JWPC), a planning group under 

the Joint Staff Planners, which in turn was under the newly created Joint Chiefs of Staff 

( JCS), argued that “their potential value as an offensive base is limited.”18 It noted that the 

terrain “decidedly favor[ed] the defense,” and warned that “operations planned herein are 

likely to entail heavy losses, and to divert out of all proportion to the anticipated value of 

these islands to us.” The JCS decided to shelve the plan.

During the summer of 1944, Nimitz’s forces seized Saipan (from mid-June to early July), 

Tinian (late July), and Guam (late July to early August). Significantly, Guam had been U.S. 

territory since the end of the Spanish-American War, and thus it was the first American 

territory retaken from Japanese control.19 The other land battles in the Pacific, including 

Saipan, were for Japanese protectorates. The victory in Guam therefore was a significant 

morale booster for the United States and an equally large symbolic—and strategic—loss for 

Japan. Its outer perimeter had been breached, and a panic ensued in planning headquarters 

in Tokyo. The next campaign would likely involve historically Japanese territory.

Shortly after the beginning of the campaign in Saipan, several U.S. planners turned 

their attention to altering the plan to next retake Guam and instead pursue “the immediate 

occupation of Iwo Jima.”20 JWPC planners had learned through intelligence, correctly in 

retrospect, that the defenses at Iwo Jima were at this point poorly organized, and completed 

a study urging the seizure of the island on 24 June. With the Japanese fleet heavily damaged 

in the largest carrier battle in history between the U.S. and Japanese navies in the Philippine 

Sea on 19 and 20 in what became known as the Marianas Turkey Shoot, planners thought 

Iwo Jima could be seized quickly and made into an air base for the two bomber groups of 

Consolidated B-24 Liberators and an equal number of fighter groups. Guam could then be 

reconquered afterward. Unfortunately, the leadership of the JWPC disagreed with the proposal, believing that Iwo Jima would be logistically difficult to maintain. They also argued 

that changes in the plans would throw “months of planning out of sequence” and doubted 

that “plans and current operations could be altered in time to take advantage of it.”21

Navy photoreconnaissance and other intelligence turned out to be correct—Iwo Jima 

and the rest of the Bonin Islands remained far from prepared. The breaching of the outer 

perimeter to the “Inner Vital Defense Zone” had simply been too fast and expectations by 
55

The War and the Battle of Iwo Jima

the Japanese leadership of the Japanese fleet to survive too high. Japanese officers later said 

the United States could have easily taken Iwo Jima at this point. Unfortunately for U.S. 

forces, waiting another eight months to invade Iwo allowed Kuribayashi the time to make 

it into one of the most heavily fortified islands ever. Charles W. Tatum, who was in the first 

landing force on Iwo Jima, lived to write critically later that “indecision [of the JCS] in not 

targeting Iwo Jima sooner was a tragic flaw which would cost thousands of American lives 

in February–March 1945, when the island was finally invaded 30 days behind the original 

JCS timetable.”22 Although not the subject of this study, the case could probably be made 

that had Iwo been successfully taken in the summer of 1944, the war would have been over 

much earlier and perhaps the use of the (not yet completed) atomic bombs could have been 

avoided.

This does not mean that Iwo Jima and the Bonins were ignored at the time. Indeed, 

they were becoming all the more significant. The staffs at the newly created 20th Air Force 

Headquarters, Washington, DC, and those at the Joint Chiefs of Staff and in Hawaii, were 

all taking a new look at their importance as the situation had changed in several respects, 

including the capture of “many of Japan’s outer defenses” and the fact that “Japan is no longer a far distant group of islands; it is a number of specific islands which are now appearing 

over the horizon.”23 On 29 June, for example, the 20th Air Force prepared a study of the 

feasibility of providing fighter escort for its “very long range (VLR) bombers,” or B-29s, 

from Iwo Jima, and recommended to the Joint Chiefs of Staff that Iwo be seized as a base 

for fighters.24

It would be no exaggeration to say that planning for the seizure of the Bonin Islands, or 

one of them, was “inextricably interwoven” with the development of the B-29 long-range 

bombers.25 Known as “Superfortresses,” the B-29s had their origin in 1939 when Chief of 

the Army Air Corps, General Henry H. Arnold, requested the experimental development 

of a four-engine bomber with a range of 2,000 miles. Eventually, the plane that was produced had a range of 4,400 miles, without a load, and 3,500 miles when carrying four tons 

of bombs.26 It had a wingspan of 141 feet and length of 99 feet, with four engines of 2,200 

horsepower each, allowing it to fly at 361 miles per hour near a service ceiling of 38,000 

feet. An experimental group of 100 B-29s operated from airfields in China during the latter part of 1944 in an effort to test their combat effectiveness and develop and refine tactical doctrine while enhancing the administrative and logistical support necessary for them. 

With the capture of the Marianas, a B-29 offensive from those islands was to be launched 

as soon as the airfields there could be completed in the fall. Iwo Jima, lying halfway between 

the Marianas and Tokyo, looked to be the ideal place to station fighter escort for those 

planes as they were likely to be vulnerable in their missions over Japan.

The Joint Staff Planners, on the other hand, did not believe Iwo could be used to station the escorts for the B-29s as “the distance to Tokyo for present fighters is too great,” 

and thus did not support the 20th’s recommendation.27 However, the planners looked at 

the Bonins as a possible step following an invasion of Formosa, scheduled for 15 February 

1945, and known as Operation Causeway. They recognized that in addition to Iwo, five 

islands—Haha Jima, Chichi Jima, O Shima, Hachijo Jima, and Nii Jima—in the Nanpo 

Shoto chain could sustain airfields, but they tended to regard the Bonin Islands as being of 
56

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

only limited use to U.S. offensive strategy. Of them, it was Chichi Jima, not Iwo, that was 

most appealing for the reasons mentioned above.

Arnold was unhappy with the position of the Joint Staff Planners and wrote to them 

on 14 July to argue the usefulness of Iwo as a P-51 Mustang fighter escort base for the B29s.28 A week later, on 21 July, he wrote again to the planners that in view of the expected 

need to protect his “very long [range] bombers” over Japan, “plans for the defeat of Japan 

include operations to capture and develop fighter bases on the Bonin Islands.”29 Arnold 

wanted Iwo taken.

In the meantime, the Navy continued to look at the possibility of seizing islands in the 

Bonins group, but its conclusion—and just lukewarm at that—remained that only Chichi 

Jima and Haha Jima offered “sufficient size and import to warrant consideration for advance base development.”30

With no consensus in sight on whether to move ahead with a seizure of the Bonins and 

which specific islands to develop facilities on, the JWPC completed a plan in mid-August 

and submitted it to the Joint Staff Planners calling for their capture. It described the action as a desirable “operation for opportunity” in that it would: (1) provide fighter cover for 

our air effort against Japan; (2) deny these strategic outposts to the enemy; (3) furnish air 

defense bases for U.S. positions in the Marianas; and (4) provide fields for staging heavy 

bombers against Japan.31 Importantly, the planners, in a subsequent meeting on August 16, 

based on Arnold’s arguments, contended that Iwo Jima was the only practical objective in 

the Bonins as it was the only island that could support a large number of fighter aircraft and 

be softened up by aerial and surface bombardment.

While the specifics had yet to be determined, Iwo Jima was to be the objective if an invasion of the Bonins were to take place. A larger problem existed, however, in that MacArthur, for political and other reasons, still wanted to go through the Philippines and Formosa 

rather than the faster route through the Nanpo Shoto.32 President Franklin D. Roosevelt 

had already accepted MacArthur’s argument that it was symbolically important to return 

to the Philippines and liberate it from Japanese control at their meeting in late July on 

Saipan. However, there were several military officers who favored the latter approach. Some 

of them were senior Army leaders, such as Lieutenant General Millard F. Harmon, commanding general, Army Air Forces, Pacific Ocean Areas, and Lieutenant General Robert 

C. Richardson Jr., commanding general, Army Forces, Pacific Ocean Areas. Both had begun to question the wisdom of moving against Formosa and called instead for striking the 

islands of the Nanpo Shoto.33

Perhaps the most important voice of doubt about the Formosa operation, and biggest believer in the importance of seizing Iwo Jima, was Admiral Raymond A. Spruance, 

commander, U.S. Fifth Fleet, who had just returned to Hawaii in early September from 

the Marianas. Spruance, uncertain of his next assignment, called on Nimitz at the latter’s 

headquarters in Makalapa.34 When Nimitz told him the next operation was going to be 

Formosa and Amoy and suggested that Spruance should take a short vacation to see his 

family in California beforehand, Spruance responded that he did “not like Formosa.”35

When asked by Nimitz what he would do instead, Spruance said: “I would prefer taking 
57

The War and the Battle of Iwo Jima

Iwo Jima and Okinawa.”36 Spruance had been advocating the Iwo Jima-Okinawa route 

for some time, believing Japan could be blockaded into submission, and had told Chief 

of Naval Operations Admiral Ernest J. King, who was visiting Saipan in mid-July (but 

not attending the Roosevelt-MacArthur-Nimitz meeting), that the Formosa plan should 

be abandoned in favor of Okinawa.37 Simply put, he considered the Formosa idea so bad 

that it was not worth serious study. He was surprised, therefore, when Nimitz, thinking of 

King’s order, told him, “Well, it’s going to be Formosa.”38

Nimitz, however, seemed to have his concerns, too, disagreeing with MacArthur’s plan 

to go through Formosa. In an attempt to reconcile their different approaches, Nimitz invited the general to Hawaii, but MacArthur, who had been told by the JCS to begin planning 

Operation Causeway, the invasion of Formosa, hoped that the Iwo Jima invasion would 

subsequently be scrapped and told Nimitz he was too busy to go.39 This did not stop two 

senior Army officers—Harmon and Lieutenant General Simon Bolivar Buckner—from 

showing up.40 Buckner, who headed the Tenth Army, joined Harmon and Richardson in 

opposition because in terms of logistics and manpower, it would be difficult to conquer the 

heavily fortified Formosa.41 They supported, instead, a drive through the Nanpo Shoto, 

with Iwo Jima being the southernmost of the islands.

On the morning of 7 September 1944, Nimitz and his staff, as well as Buckner and Harmon, met to discuss Iwo Jima.42 Whether he realized it or not, for Nimitz, 7 September was 

a special day—43 years before, then 16-year-old Texas-born Chester had entered the U.S. 

Naval Academy as the youngest plebe in his class, not knowing the bow of a ship from its 

stern.43 Today, however, the 59-year-old four-star literally had the weight of the world—or 

at least a large area of it—on his shoulders as Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Ocean Area 

(CinCPOA). One September later, this weight would be removed when Japan surrendered 

at a ceremony in Tokyo Bay on board the USS Missouri (BB 63), the flagship of Admiral 

William F. Halsey Jr., commander of Third Fleet, which had participated in the bombardment of Iwo Jima and in the strikes on mainland Japan just before that.

The meeting ended shortly before noon. Encouraged by the support of the two Army 

generals, Nimitz decided to raise the issue directly with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to get 

them to make a decision in favor of Iwo Jima rather than the Formosa operation.44 This was 

necessary because, as the war in Europe was still the priority, there was a shortage of combat 

supplies and manpower for the Pacific, and if these limited supplies had to be contested 

over by Nimitz and MacArthur then the planning and actual operations would not go well. 

There simply was not enough to sustain two simultaneous campaigns. It would have to be 

Iwo or Formosa. Nimitz intended to convince the JCS to support the plan to seize Iwo. In 

order to do so, he needed Spruance’s help and asked him to meet at San Francisco’s Treasure Island, where a conference with Chief of Naval Operations King had been arranged 

for the end of September.

When Spruance arrived in the federal building on 29 September, the staffs of Nimitz 

and King were already there awaiting the arrival of their bosses. Rear Admiral Forrest P. 

Sherman, head of the Fleet War Plans Division, handed Spruance the summary of the 

position paper he had prepared on Nimitz’s behalf. It stated that CinCPOA did not have 

enough forces to seize Formosa but did have enough to capture Iwo and Okinawa, and rec-
58

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

ommended that Formosa be abandoned in favor of the latter course. Sherman asked Spruance to “read it carefully and tell me what you think of it.”45 With obvious satisfaction that 

his arguments had carried the day, Spruance responded, “I wouldn’t change a word of it.”46

Shortly thereafter, Nimitz arrived, followed by King. Nimitz handed the paper to King, 

who “frowned as he read it.”47 Nimitz and Sherman laid out the strategic rationale for 

dropping the Formosa plan and seizing Iwo Jima instead, introducing the endorsements of 

Buckner and Harmon, who argued that the United States might suffer 50,000 casualties 

in an invasion of Formosa. Spruance was quiet throughout the discussion. King asked him 

why he was silent. Spruance replied that Nimitz and Sherman were presenting the case so 

well, he had nothing to add.48

The meeting took five hours, but when it was over, King was convinced. The presentation 

by Spruance and Sherman was, according to Nimitz, “a masterful job that carried the day.”49

The “Monks of Makalapa,” as Nimitz’ team was known, had won the debate. King promised 

to recommend to the JCS that Iwo Jima and Okinawa, not Formosa, be attacked.50 Back 

in Washington, the sleep-deprived King submitted on 2 October a proposed directive for 

future operations, specifically calling for the occupation of Iwo Jima in January 1945 to 

allow fighter support for the B-29s operating from the Marianas.51 The JCS accepted it 

immediately, and the following day, issued a new directive, ordering CinCPOA to “occupy 

one or more positions in the Nanpo Shoto, target date 20 January 1945.”52 Nimitz and 

Spruance, who had both returned to Pearl Harbor on the morning of 3 October, received 

their orders from the JCS the next day for the seizure of Iwo Jima.53

Planning Operation Detachment

By 7 October, Nimitz and his staff had prepared a joint staff study for preliminary planning issued for subordinate commands. While not a directive, it did spell out the objectives 

of Operation Detachment, the name given the operation to seize Japanese assets in the 

Bonins. The larger purpose of the operation was “to maintain unremitting military pressure 

against Japan” and “to extend our control over the Western Pacific.”54 With the anticipated 

seizure of Iwo Jima and the development of an air base on the island, the study pointed 

out that the United States would be able to attack the Japanese Empire; protect its bases in 

the Marianas; cover its naval forces and conduct search operations in the approaches to the 

Japanese Empire; and provide fighter escort for very long-range operations. To do so, the 

study added, it was necessary to “destroy enemy naval and air strength in the Bonins” and 

“reduce Japanese naval and air strength and production facilities in the Empire.”

The staff study and a directive from Nimitz ordering the seizure of Iwo Jima was given to 

Lieutenant General Holland M. Smith, commanding general, Fleet Marine Forces, Pacific, 

as the Marines would have the main job of taking Iwo Jima as they had with many other 

islands in the Pacific.55 The directive also named Smith commanding general, Expeditionary Troops (Task Force 56); Admiral Spruance as operation commander (Task Force 50); 

Vice Admiral Richard Kelly Turner Joint Expeditionary Force commander (Task Force 

51); and Rear Admiral Harry W. Hill as second in command, Joint Expeditionary Force.56

According to Marine Corps historians Garand and Strobridge, these men being chosen to 
59

The War and the Battle of Iwo Jima

command the important Iwo Jima operation was “not accidental . . . All of them had shown 

their mettle in previous engagements.”57 They were, an earlier account explains, “the very 

men who had perfected the amphibious techniques from Guadalcanal to Guam. Nearly 

every problem, it was believed, had been met and mastered along the way, from the jungles 

of Guadalcanal up through the Solomons, and across the Central Pacific from the bloody 

reefs of Tarawa to the mountains of the Marianas.”58

Iwo Jima was to be a naval operation in the assault phase, with the Marines providing 

the bulk of the fighting force and the Navy the lift and early firepower, and then the Marines would turn over the island to the U.S. Army after its capture.59 For Smith, who was 

approaching his 63d birthday, this would be his last operation after a career spanning 39 

years in the Marines.60

Smith has been called the “indisputable apostle of amphibious assault,” whose “prickly 

insistence on amphibious preparedness and realistic training” was crucial to readying the 

United States for the Pacific War.61 He knew instinctively that Iwo Jima would also be a 

tough fight for the Marines.

Without delay, Smith started planning in conjunction with the other commanders involved in the operation, and on 14 October issued a letter of instruction that designated 

Major General Harry Schmidt, commanding general, V Amphibious Corps, as commanding general of the Landing Force.62 Schmidt and his deputy, Brigadier General William 

W. Rogers, were to assume responsibility for preparing and executing all of the plans for 

the Landing Force. Upon completion of the plans, Schmidt was to submit them to Smith 

for approval.63

The 3d, 4th, and 5th Marine Divisions were assigned to the Landing Force for planning, training, and operations. The 3d and 4th Divisions, commanded by Major Generals 

Graves B. Erskine and Clifton B. Cates (a future commandant) respectively, were veteran 

units, having seen action in Saipan and Tinian (in the case of the 4th) and Guam (in the 

case of the 3d). The 5th Division, commanded by Major General Keller E. Rockey, was 

to experience its first combat as a unit, but contained many seasoned individuals who had 

participated in other battles in the Pacific. In short, the three divisions were experienced 

and well trained.

Schmidt at this point had been on Guam, where he had located his V Amphibious 

Corps command post. In order to facilitate planning for Iwo, he moved his headquarters to 

Pearl Harbor on 13 October. With the exception of the 3d Division, which was located on 

Guam, all the major staffs were now in the Hawaii area to allow for close coordination and 

joint planning.64 As an added benefit, most of the staffs’ members knew each other, having 

worked together on earlier operations.

There was one tricky aspect of the command relationship, however, that neither Smith 

nor Schmidt liked—namely Smith “outranking” Schmidt. Smith’s position as commanding general of expeditionary forces was called by Marine historian Alexander a “contrived 

billet” in this case, as it was one amphibious corps attacking one island.65 Both Smith 

and Marine Corps Commandant A. A. Vandegrift saw “Iwo Jima as a corps task which 

Schmidt should handle without anyone looking over his shoulder.”66 As commander of the 
60

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

amphibious corps, Schmidt would head the largest force of Marines ever committed to a 

single battle (a three-division landing force with 70,000 men). However, he would always 

be resentful of Smith “stealing his thunder.”67 It no doubt affected their personal relations 

at the time. In any case, Smith was aware of the problem and tried to keep out of Schmidt’s 

way. “I guess they sent me along,” Smith would later say, “just in case something happened 

to Harry Schmidt.”68

Smith’s role was actually larger than that. While he and Turner would not exercise any 

immediate tactical control over the fighting forces, they would be strategic commanders.69

Among his many jobs, Smith would act as a counterweight to Turner’s presence and insurance if Schmidt and his headquarters were lost.70 Smith’s high-profile presence would 

allow Schmidt to fight the fight without distraction; Smith “baby-sat” high-level visitors, 

such as Secretary of the Navy James V. Forrestal, who had shown up to watch the landing, 

and met with the press to provide them with a “reality check” about the potential causalities 

resulting from the battle.71 “This is going to be a rough one,” he predicted before combat 

correspondents gathered before D-Day on the flagship, “we could suffer as many as 15,000 

casualties.”72 No one believed his pessimistic prediction, but even Smith and his staff had 

underestimated the number. Back in Hawaii, Smith (and Turner) would also be responsible 

for the strategic aspects of the operation, approving or disapproving plans coming up the 

chain of command.

Despite the potential for serious problems that the complicated structure presented, 

the planning began rather seamlessly and the first tentative operational blueprint for the 

landing force, a guide for subordinate commanders, was issued by Schmidt on 19 October, 

less than a week after his staff had set up shop in Hawaii.73 The next day, Smith issued a 

directive to Schmidt in which troop assignments for training, planning, and operations 

were designated, and that also directed Schmidt to have the V Amphibious Corps ready for 

combat by 15 December—five weeks before the scheduled start of the seizure of Iwo Jima 

on 20 January.74

Over the next two months, planners continued with their preparations, revising Operation Detachment in light of new intelligence and other information, such as ship and equipment availability. Drafts of the plan were published on the following dates: 25 November 

(CinCPOA Operation Plan, 11-44), 23 December (VAC Operation Plan No. 3-44), 27 

December ( Joint Expeditionary Force Operation Plan No. A25-44), and 31 December 

(Fifth Fleet Operation Plan No. 13-44).75

Similarly, the respective divisions in the landing force underwent their training and were 

refitted as necessary. The training and rehearsals took place on Guam for the 3d Marine Division, Maui for the 4th, and Camp Tarawa on the big island of Hawaii for the 5th.76 According to Alexander, the physical separation of the three divisions interestingly “had no adverse 

effect” on the preparatory training.77 This would be the fourth major assault landing in 13 

months for the 4th (“The Fighting Fourth”), and one veteran noted that “we had a continuity 

there of veterans that was just unbeatable.”78 Similarly, although the 5th Division (“Spearhead”) was fighting for the first time as a unit, more than half of the men and officers were 

veterans. Equal confidence was found in the 3d Division (“The Fighting Third”) as well—“we 

were in good shape, well trained, well equipped and thoroughly supported.”79
61

The War and the Battle of Iwo Jima

Despite the extensive training, planning, and the expertise gathered at higher levels, 

Smith began to have strong reservations over the number of casualties that would be inflicted on his force in light of new intelligence obtained on an increasingly regular basis 

from the air and sea. As the frequency of reconnaissance flights increased in the fall of 1944 

with growing interest in seizing one or all of the Bonin Islands, the monitoring of Japanese 

radio transmissions, and captured documents in Saipan and elsewhere indicated, it became 

clear that Japan was quickly fortifying the island. This was particularly true when the June 

and October photos were compared. However, there were at times extended gaps between 

flights, and much of the fortification was taking place underground, out of sight of the 

reconnaissance aircraft and submarine periscopes.80

U.S. intelligence on the island suffered in other ways, primarily because visitors, foreign 

or Japanese alike, to Iwo were restricted in the years leading up to war.81 Any “trespassing, 

surveying, photographing, sketching, modeling, etc., upon or of these premises” was punishable under the Military Secrets Protection Law (Gunki Hogoho).82 Initially, the United 

States had been able to acquire a somewhat fuzzy photograph dated sometime prior to 

1931 taken by someone standing on the eastern side of Iwo Jima with 556-foot Suribachiyama, or Mount Suribachi, in the background on what would become the landing beaches 

during the battle, and a topographical side-view drawing from the 1920s, which somewhat 

inaccurately portrayed the height of the plateaus in the northeast part of the island.83 But 

this picture and drawing were from Japanese sources; no Caucasian had been to the island 

since the early 1900s.84 Later, as battle planning progressed in 1944, the lack of human 

intelligence caused the United States to be unaware that the civilians had for the most part 

been evacuated by the end of July that year. It was assumed, furthermore, that because of 

the lack of fresh water on the island, it could not support more than 12,000–13,000 troops, 

but in fact Kuribayashi had more than 20,000 men. Moreover, U.S. planners did not know 

who the highest ranking military officer was on Iwo Jima. It was not until some nine days 

into the battle that they learned Kuribayashi was in fact on the island.85

Despite these limitations, the U.S. Navy was able to compile a Civil Affairs Handbook for 

the Bonin Islands, which included a fairly detailed description for different aspects of Iwo 

Jima and its neighboring islands.86 However, this was not of much use in battle planning 

and estimates of the military capabilities on the island, especially as many of their capabilities were developed in the late summer and fall of 1944 after the Handbook was completed. 

Thus, the Americans were forced to rely on air and then later submarine reconnaissance for 

much of its intelligence. On the eve of the battle, underwater demolition teams, the “halfcrazy, half-seals” teams of divers, would do a last-minute check of beach approaches.87

“My own study of early air photographs,” Smith wrote, “indicated that a situation of 

an incredible nature existed on the island. It was plain that Iwo Jima had fortifications the 

like and extent of which we had never encountered . . . My opinion was that naval gunfire 

was needed on an island five times the size of Tarawa, with many more times the number 

of defenses, most of them deep underground.”88 For Smith, there was a direct correlation 

between knocking out the defenses and limiting the number of U.S. casualties: “I could not 

forget the sight of Marines floating in the lagoon or lying on the beaches at Tarawa, men 

who died assaulting defenses which should have been taken out by naval gunfire. At Iwo 
62

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Jima, the problem was far more difficult. If naval guns could not knock out visible defenses, 

how could they smash invisible defenses except by sheer superabundance of fire?”89

Even before the latter reconnaissance photos, Smith, who had not been consulted about 

the decision to invade Iwo Jima, was reluctant to take the island and told Spruance so, just 

as Spruance had once informed his superior, Nimitz, about his reservations regarding the 

Formosa invasion. “It will be the toughest place we have had to take,” Smith told Spruance.90 “I don’t know what anybody wants it for, but I’ll take it.” According to Spruance’s 

biographer, Smith’s pessimism worried the admiral.91 The Marine general’s warnings “had a 

profound impact on Spruance,” who later noted that they “left certain doubts in my head as 

to whether Iwo Jima would be worth what it cost us.”92 The admiral in charge of Operation 

Detachment “began to doubt whether the costs of taking the island would be worth the 

gains, and the uncertainty troubled him throughout the three-month planning period.”93

Smith had shared his concerns with Marine Commandant Vandegrift, whose own son, 

a lieutenant colonel, would be part of the landing force and later wounded in the battle. In 

a letter dated 12 January 1945, Smith told Vandegrift,

As you know, I have nothing to do with the great strategy in the Pacific and only 

express myself when called upon for a statement. I believe that the operation is not 

worth the casualties we will suffer. On two separate occasions I protested that naval 

gunfire is insufficient, with the result that it has been increased to some extent, but 

not enough, in my opinion, to suffice. I can only go so far. We have done all we 

could do to get ready . . . and I believe it will be successful, but the thought of the 

probable casualties causes me extreme unhappiness . . . would to God that something might happen to cancel the operation altogether.94

Vandegrift did not agree with Smith’s doubts, but admits his letter “aroused my qualms.”95

He did relay Smith’s complaints to King and naval planners and asked for all possible support. “King assured me Nimitz was doing the best with what he had,” the Commandant 

wrote in his memoirs, “I am convinced this was true.”96

Smith’s staff, especially Schmidt, also shared his concerns about the need for greater 

naval bombardment prior to the invasion. The original provision, drawn up by planners in 

Nimitz’s headquarters, was for eight days of naval fire by a cruiser division, plus three days 

by older battleships.97 On 24 October, Smith forwarded a request by Schmidt for 10 days 

of bombardment by a cruiser division and battleships on to Turner, who in turn responded 

that not only was this impossible due to “limitations on the availability of ships, difficulties 

of ammunition replacement, and the loss of surprise,” but that the eight-days’ bombardment had been abandoned and instead the cruiser division would fire on Iwo at irregular 

intervals starting on 15 December and be subjected to only three-days’ bombardment by 

heavy ships immediately prior to D-Day.98

A Marine naval gunfire expert, Lieutenant Colonel Donald M. Weller, was disgusted. 

“The issue was not the weight of shells, nor their caliber, but rather time. Destruction of 

heavily fortified enemy targets took deliberate pinpoint firing from close ranges. Iwo Jima’s 

700 hard targets would require a lot of time to knock out, a lot of time.”99 Schmidt tried 

again. On 8 November, Smith forwarded to Turner another proposal prepared by Schmidt 
63

The War and the Battle of Iwo Jima

requesting nine-days’ bombardment. Two weeks later, Turner replied in the negative, and 

reaffirmed that the bombardment would only be for three days. He did promise, however, 

to conduct the bombardment as accurately as possible and use heavier caliber shells. In 

their massive study on Marine Corps amphibious operations, historians Jeter A. Isely and 

Peter A. Crowl noted grave contradictions in Turner’s arguments. “Turner was avoiding the 

central issue,” they wrote, “which was the length of time allowed for deliberate, destructive 

fire at point blank range, rather than the tonnage of projectiles expended.”100

“I was never so depressed in my life,” Smith later wrote.101 “We had to haggle like horse 

traders, balancing irreplaceable lives against replaceable ammunition . . . Three days were 

totally inadequate but the decision was out of our hands, although we had presented all conceivable evidence, backed by photographic evidence of the island’s defenses. The lack of naval 

gunfire, so vital to the success of a landing, struck at the very heart of our enterprise.”

Smith and Schmidt decided to request at least another day’s bombardment, making 

four instead of three. Turner approved the new suggestion and forwarded the request to 

Spruance, “provided there was no objection based on the general strategical situation.”102

Unfortunately, that was the reason Spruance rejected it.

The “strategical situation” Spruance would cite was a strike by the ships of Task Force 

58 on mainland Japan simultaneous to the beginning of the bombardment of Iwo Jima. 

Spruance wanted to take advantage of the element of surprise and prevent Japanese aircraft 

from launching kamikaze attacks against his ships gathered near Iwo. Another purpose of 

the mission was to strike at the Nakajima Aircraft Company to stop its ability to manufacture planes. The task force, comprised of 16 fleet carriers, 8 battleships, 15 cruisers, and 

77 destroyers—almost all built since the attack on Pearl Harbor—eventually did undertake 

two series of strikes on 15 and 16 February, but bad weather forced it to cancel the third 

strike on the 17th.103 Instead it turned around and headed for Iwo Jima and arrived in time 

to participate in the final stages of the pre-invasion bombardment. In retrospect, Isely and 

Crowl observe, “in view of Japan’s light air reaction over Iwo it is hard to see how Spruance’s 

attacks on the home islands greatly benefited the assault.”104

As expected, Smith was beside himself. “Naval insistence upon the priority of the strike 

against Japan at the cost of fire support for our assault on Iwo Jima was incomprehensible. 

To take the better part of the fleet away ignored the principal aims of our mission . . . [by] 

weaken[ing] the power we could use at Iwo Jima . . . The operation was planned for the capture 

of Iwo Jima, but Spruance permitted the attack on Japan to overshadow the real objective.”

In one final effort to make the best use of the limited bombardment, Schmidt forwarded 

a proposal dated 2 January 1945, requesting concentrated firing on landing beaches and 

Motoyama No. 1 airfield, the places he needed it the most. This, too, was rejected—with 

no hint of irony—because other areas, in Spruance’s opinion, would receive too light fire 

coverage, a fact that the Marines were all too aware and which precipitated the request 

for more days of naval bombardment in the first place. “Thus,” Smith lamented, “were we 

defeated—a group of trained and experienced land fighters, our full realization of the necessity for naval gunfire based on many previous island operations—again overridden by 

the naval mind . . . We had tried our best to enlighten the high command, feeling that our 

judgment would be respected, but naval expediency won again.”105
64

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Sadly for the assaulting forces, the problems with naval bombardment did not end, due 

to a change in plans by Spruance.106 Ships allocated for the pre-D-Day bombardment of 

Iwo were unavailable and substitutions made, and other ships were withdrawn at the last 

minute to join Task Force 58 in its attacks on mainland Japan. While apologetic, Spruance 

insisted they were necessary to ensure the successful outcome of that mission. Even Turner 

protested against this sudden change, pointing out to his chief that “fire support already 

had been seriously diminished and would be reduced dangerously without [the services 

of ] the USS Washington (BB 56) and the USS North Carolina (BB 55).”107 Spruance wrote 

to Smith to tell him he “regret[s] this confusion caused in your carefully laid plans, but I 

know you and your people will get away with it.”108 To Smith, “this pat on the back was 

cold comfort against the loss of great modern ships, with 16-inch guns we knew could rip 

apart Japanese pillboxes and tear the heart out of concrete bunkers.”109 What’s worse, bad 

weather prevented the full use of the limited days allotted for the bombardment and made 

firing accurately difficult. According to Isely and Crowl, due to these and other problems, 

despite there being more than 34 hours of daylight between 16 and 18 February, the main 

batteries of the large warships fired an average of less than 13.5 hours.110

Nevertheless, some 90 percent of the allotted medium- and heavy-caliber ammunition 

was used against Iwo. “No previous target in the Central Pacific,” Isely and Crowl continue, 

“had received such a volume of preparatory shelling per square yard of terrain—nor had 

any other gone into the assault phase with so many of its defenses intact.”111 Spruance, 

who did not leave memoirs, felt justified in overruling the request for the extra days of 

bombardment and deciding that a three-day bombardment was enough. Two weeks after 

the invasion began, he went ashore for the first time and looked at the Japanese fortifications closely. He concluded, according to his biographer, “that only a Marine with rifle and 

flamethrower ultimately could eradicate enemy soldiers on Iwo, regardless of the amount of 

air and naval gunfire.”112 In the admiral’s opinion, therefore, naval pre-invasion bombardment was irrelevant against the fortifications on Iwo.

Were Kuribayashi alive to take part in this debate, he probably would have agreed with 

Smith on the importance of naval bombardment by reading from an undated report he had 

telegraphed during the battle to Chief of the Army General Staff Umezu Yoshijiro: “We 

need to reconsider the power of bombardment from ships. The beach positions we made on 

this island by using many materials, days, and great efforts, were destroyed within three days 

so that they were nearly unable to be used again . . . Nearly all Army and Naval guns placed 

near the beach for firing on landing craft and troops were destroyed by the bombardments 

from ships before the enemy landed.” 113

As Spruance’s biographer has written, the dispute over the question of pre-invasion 

bombardment still simmered for years afterward and will probably never be satisfactorily 

resolved. What is clear, however, is that the failure of the Navy to live up to the initial plans, 

and Spruance’s unilaterally modifying plans on the eve of the invasion certainly impacted 

the preparations Smith and Schmidt had to make and the execution of that battle. Combined with the effects of bad weather discussed above, the result was “like throwing human 

flesh against reinforced concrete.”114
65

The War and the Battle of Iwo Jima

These changes were not the only adjustments they had to make to their plans. The operation itself had to be postponed twice due to the failure of MacArthur to release ships 

planned for the Iwo assault that had been supporting the Luzon operation in the Philippines. The original date for the attack on Iwo was 20 January and was moved to 3 February. 

It was further postponed to 19 February. The invasion of Okinawa was planned for no later 

than 1 April, and some of the shipping, men, and equipment would be needed for that assault as well, and thus the operation against Iwo, which was essentially squeezed between 

two other operations, could wait no longer. With or without the desired naval gunfire, the 

invasion had to take place. As a result, it can be said that Iwo Jima was a victim of a tight 

timeline and the Marines would pay the price.

Despite this, Smith and Schmidt and the other commanders had done all they could to 

prepare for the invasion. They were well aware of the challenges, self-imposed or otherwise, 

on their operations. But what they did not know, however, was the strategy of the Japanese 

commander and his plans for his defending forces of 21,000.

Defending Iwo Jima

By the spring of 1944, U.S. advances in the central Pacific had necessitated a reevaluation 

of Japanese plans. Its outer perimeter had been breached, and the mainland was in danger. 

The war had been going against Japan’s favor for some time but the implosion of its outer 

defenses suggested the situation was about to turn desperate.

The commanding general eventually chosen to defend the Bonins at this dismal point 

was Kuribayashi Tadamichi, a 1914 graduate of the Imperial Japanese Army Academy. Although he was of samurai heritage, Kuribayashi wanted to become a journalist or diplomat 

and applied to the Shanghai Toa Dobun Shoin Institute, but eventually chose a career in 

the Imperial Army due, in part, to financial reasons.115 After promotion to second lieutenant, he studied for a year at the Cavalry Academy, and rose to the rank of lieutenant. He 

next entered the Imperial Japan Army War College in 1920, and graduated in November 

1923. Earlier that year, he had been made cavalry captain. In March 1928, he left Japan for 

the United States where he would serve as deputy military attaché at the Japanese embassy 

in Washington, DC, and study at numerous institutions in the United States, including a 

short time at Harvard (May–August 1928), Fort Bliss ( January–August 1929), and Fort 

Riley (August–December 1929). After returning to Japan via London, Paris, Berlin, and 

Siberia in July 1930, he became the first military attaché to Canada in August 1931, where 

he served for more than two years. Following assignments in Japan, China, and Hong 

Kong, he became the commanding general of the Second Imperial Guards Home Division, 

which included the protection of Emperor Hirohito and the Imperial Palace, in June 1943. 

He was promoted to the rank of lieutenant general at this point; he was 52 years old.

Perhaps because of his long service in North America and knowledge of its industrial 

power, Kuribayashi did not think Japan should go to war against America. During his two 

years in the United States, he traveled extensively with a car he purchased after having been 

taught by an American military officer how to drive, and gained a great understanding for 

the country and respect for Americans, whom he described as “energetic and versatile.”116
66

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

He was particularly impressed with American industrial might as evidenced, among other 

places, in Detroit. He felt that in an emergency, the American people would show a real 

fighting ability and the economy could be turned into a powerful war machine. History 

proved he was right. He wrote to his family during the trip that “The United States is the 

last country in the world Japan should fight.”117 In this sense, he can be compared to another former attaché, Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku, who planned and executed the attacks 

on Pearl Harbor while being aware of the odds against Japan. Few people in the xenophobic 

Japanese Army knew the United States as well as Kuribayashi; indeed, most of them had 

never even been abroad. It may have been for that very reason he was chosen to command 

the forces in Iwo; Japan’s leaders probably hoped he could anticipate how the United States 

would approach its attack on Iwo Jima, by far the most important enemy assault in the war 

to date.118

In late May 1944, the Imperial General Headquarters, or Daihonei, decided to reorganize the order of battle for the 31st Army, which had been created on 25 February 1944, under the command of Lieutenant General Obata Hideyoshi. It was to defend the four large 

areas of Truk, Marianas, Palau, and the Bonin Islands, by establishing a separate command 

to focus on the defense of the Bonins (to include Iwo Jima and Marcus Island).119 The existing army garrison forces comprising the Chichi Jima Fortress (Chichi Jima Yosai), which 

came into being on 7 December 1941, and strengthened in February and March 1944, 

were to be consolidated under a newly established 109th Division (Dai 109 Shidan).120 The 

Chichi Jima Fortress commander, Major General Osuga Kotau, who arrived on 4 March, 

was under the command of the 31st Army in Saipan, which in turn, was under the newly 

established Central Pacific Fleet (Chubu Taiheiyo Homen Kantai). Eventually, because of 

difficulties of command and control, the order of battle would have to be revised.121

Along with these changes, Osuga created the Iwo Jima Ishitai under the command of 

Colonel Atsuchi Kanehiko on 23 March.122 It was comprised of about 4,880 infantry soldiers and engineers. The men were transferred to Iwo Jima between 20 and 23 March.123

Their strategy for defending the island was to meet the enemy at the water’s edge and thus 

began preparing their fortifications along those lines.124

Also in March, the Imperial Navy established the approximately 1,000-man Iwo Jima 

Keibitai under the command of Captain Wachi Tsunezo. It was placed under the navy’s 

Chichi Jima Homen Tokubetsu Konkyo Chitai, originally established in October 1941 and 

renamed in June 1942.125 Under separate commands, the two organizations were to cooperate in preparing the defense of Iwo Jima. Incidentally, U.S. estimates of the total Japanese 

troop strength in the spring—about 5,000—were fairly accurate.

On 27 May, the day after the 109th was officially established, Emperor Hirohito appointed Kuribayashi to assume command of the division.126 When he gave Kuribayashi 

the Emperor’s orders, army General Tojo Hideki, who was also serving as prime minister, 

told Kuribayashi that “The entire army and the nation will depend on you for the defense 

of that key position . . . Only you among all the generals are qualified and capable of holding this post.”127 Kuribayashi was not so confident. He apparently had been aware of the 

rumors that at least one other distinguished officer had been offered the position but had 

managed to talk his way out of it.128 Although he initially did not tell his wife and children, 
67

The War and the Battle of Iwo Jima

Kuribayashi did inform his brother, Yoshima, that “I may not return home alive from this 

assignment, but let me assure you that I shall fight to the best of my ability, so that no disgrace will be brought upon our family.”129

Kuribayashi left Tokyo for Iwo Jima on 8 June from Kisarazu Air Base in Chiba Prefecture with his aide, Lieutenant Fujita Masayoshi.130 At the time, some within the command 

believed that the headquarters should be positioned in Chichi Jima, being located between 

the mainland and Iwo Jima as it was. However, Kuribayashi decided that the fight was 

probably going to be for Iwo Jima, with its airfield, and thus he decided to establish the 

headquarters of his command there.131 The fact that he had to borrow a room in the home 

of a resident, Sakurai Naosaku, and use it as a headquarters for a few days suggests the lack 

of preparations that awaited him.132

One week after his arrival, the Americans launched air strikes against the Bonin Islands, 

including Iwo Jima, to prevent Japanese combat aircraft based there from interfering with 

the Saipan invasion. The strikes were carried out by Navy Task Force 58 under the tactical 

command of Rear Admiral Joseph J. “Jocko” Clark, who had arrived the evening before 

the Saipan invasion (14 June 1944) to “hammer Iwo Jima for the first time.”133 Some 60 

carrier planes struck Iwo on the afternoon of the 15th, and another 100 the following day. 

Approximately 10 U.S. planes were shot down. Almost all of the Japanese planes were destroyed, along with about 40 people killed. In addition to those losses, the school, located in 

Motoyama, was damaged as was the home of one of the teachers.

As a result of this attack, the Yokosuka Air Wing was ordered to prepare the air defense of 

Iwo Jima, but was only able to spare 30 Mitsubishi A6M Zero fighters.134 The pilots were 

ordered to go immediately, and did not have time to say farewell to their families.135 However, poor weather forced the group back to Yokosuka each day for four consecutive days. It 

was not until 20 June that they landed on Iwo.136 Upon arriving, they discovered that the 

runways were lined by planes and there was no room for parking on the first airfield. They 

had to taxi to another field for apron space. “I felt ridiculous as I jockeyed the Zero along 

the road,” fighter pilot Sakai Saburo wrote in his memoirs.

This was my first—and my last—experience climbing the side of a mountain in a 

taxiing fighter plane. And in a convoy of thirty fighters. A battalion of Army troops 

watched our queer convoy with its clouds of dust and blatting motors, their mouths 

gaping laughing loudly and jeering. It was hardly funny to us. Taxiing the Zero up 

that tortuous slope with a fighter in front of me and a whirling propeller immediately behind, while we all tried to negotiate the hairpin curves, was as hazardous as 

maintaining tight formation in a thick fog.137

After arriving, Sakai recalled that “for three days the war spared Iwo . . . Not that it was 

a place any sane man would voluntarily want to remain,” he continued.

It was as dreary, hostile, and uncomfortable as Rabaul, if not more so. But we were 

left to our own devices, and took advantage of the lull in the fighting to soak in 

the hot springs which bubbled through the rocks from one end of the island to the 

other. The war never seemed stranger to us. We knew by now that our fleet had 

been shattered in the Marianas sea fight and that practically all of the carrier pilots 
68

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

in the battle had died. There was no doubt that the overwhelming might of the 

American invasion forces, supported by many hundreds of planes and thousands 

of heavy guns on the ships, would annihilate our troops on Saipan to the last man. 

And we soaked in hot baths on Iwo Jima.

This did not mean that the pilots were not aware of the need for help on Saipan nor that 

they did not wish to strike at U.S. forces on and near Saipan. “We could not sit comfortably 

. . . while our friends were blasted to bits,” one pilot wrote, “but what could we do? A mass 

assault by our fighters would have only a temporary and meaningless effect. . . . [and] if we 

left Iwo Jima unattended by dozens of fighters ready for an instant flight, then the Americans could—in those unguarded hours—storm the island’s defense and move in against 

weak opposition.”

Most Japanese planners and Iwo Jima’s few defenders expected an attack at any time. 

“The fact that Iwo Jima was not invaded in the summer of 1944 surprised us all,” Sakai 

recalled.138 “The island was barely able to defend itself! A fraction of the force which took 

Saipan could have stormed Iwo’s beaches and crushed the token resistance which our skeleton forces then on the island could have mustered. . . . That was all! Yet no invasion came. 

We considered this turn of events nothing less than a miracle.”

At this point, there were still civilians on the island, although instructions had been given earlier in the year to complete the evacuations by 30 May. By chance, some 230 people 

had left Iwo Jima the day before the raid, on 14 June.139 There were still more than 1,000 

to go.140 On 16 June, Kuribayashi ordered the school closed and the children evacuated to 

the mainland.141 Following the raids on the islands, the central government recommended 

the evacuation of all people under the age of 15 and over the age of 60; all women; and all 

others who did not need to be there.142 The remaining civilians on the islands were evacuated between 1 and 29 July.143 The mayor left on 7 July, with the second large evacuation.144

While the Japanese government was avoiding one potential tragedy by wisely evacuating 

the residents, it ended up creating a new, albeit lesser, tragedy for them, as the former residents of Iwo Jima were never allowed to live again on the island (even today, at the time of 

this writing).

The personable Kuribayashi seems to have enjoyed speaking with the residents with 

whom he came into contact. However, for both humanitarian as well as tactical reasons, he 

was probably glad to see them depart. As seen in the letters to his wife, son, and daughter, 

Kuribayashi was a family man and certainly did not wish to see noncombatants, especially 

women and children, caught on the island when the American assault eventually came.145

Tactically speaking, with water and other supplies already low due to the limited capacities 

of the island, Kuribayashi did not want noncombatants (with the exception of able-bodied 

men who could help with growing food, tunnel construction, and other projects) on the 

island as their presence would serve no useful purpose and would be a drain on resources. 

“To him,” Kuribayashi’s counterpart, General Holland M. Smith, wrote after the war, “Iwo 

Jima was solely a military base.”146 This included having “comfort women” evacuated.147

Kuribayashi even later refused extra forces seeing them as taxing the already low water 

supply.148
69

The War and the Battle of Iwo Jima

Until shortly after his arrival, Kuribayashi continued to assume that as long as the Japanese Combined Fleet was intact, supplies could be expected to be delivered. But he learned 

from his subordinate, Major Horie Yoshitaka, who had arrived in late June and had served 

as an army liaison to the navy in Tokyo, that the Imperial Navy had effectively been destroyed in the Battle of the Philippine Sea on 19 and 20 June. Kuribayashi was in a state of 

disbelief: “I did not know of these things.”149 Shortly thereafter, he cut water rations and 

restricted his own hygiene requirements to one cup per day.150 Horie was impressed with 

his “strong will,” guessing it probably came from “the blood of the Kuribayashi family.”151

His leadership abilities and austerity were seen in other ways as well. According to 

Smith, writing in his memoirs, “[Kuribayashi’s] personality was written deep in the underground defenses he devised for Iwo Jima and in the island’s resistance, which made us fight 

for every yard. Iwo Jima was the only island where organized resistance did not collapse 

after the first few days, but continued to the end.”152 Kuribayashi, Smith goes on to observe, 

“permitted none of the illicit pleasures of camp life to undermine the morale of his men. 

No women were found on the island . . . he permitted no mad charges inspired by the sake 

bottle. We found no large stocks of liquor on Iwo Jima, as we did on Guam and Saipan. As 

a matter of fact, I fail to recall that anyone picked up a single bottle on the island.”153

Using the troops and supplies he had, Kuribayashi began to undertake a masterful defense plan and ambitious construction project. He started by studying the island and walking around it. He flung himself down on the beaches, as if he were the enemy and had just 

disembarked from landing craft. Horie, who went with Kuribayashi on these walks, recalled 

the general, holding his walking stick like a rifle, declaring, “The enemy must come here. 

There will be no alternative.”154 It was the same beaches, northeast of Suribachi, that the 

Americans did in fact assault.

After hearing regular status reports about the fighting on Saipan, Kuribayashi understood that taking on the enemy at the shores was not enough—the inner parts of the island 

had to be fortified and defended. On 20 June, he instructed the Ishitai to begin making 

those preparations. That same day, he also ordered Major General Osuga, who had been 

placed in charge of the 2d Mixed Brigade, to come to Iwo Jima and bring his men with 

him.155 Osuga arrived on the 25th, and the next day, assumed the Ishitai’s work.156 As one 

member of Kuribayashi’s staff said after the war, “in those days we did not have any strong 

defense fortification on this island and it was as hazardous as a pile of eggs. At that time, 

if American forces had assaulted Iwo Jima, it would have been completely occupied in two 

or three days.”157

While U.S. forces did not land at this time, they did mount numerous air raids on Iwo 

and the nearby Bonins. One on the 24th, met head on by the Zero fighters, resulted in the 

loss of 40 Japanese planes.158 Further raids took place on 2 and 4 July.159 An attack from 

the sea, “a thundering salvo . . . at point blank range,” by 16 warships was seen in early July, 

too.160 One Imperial Navy flyer captured the scene in the following way:

For two days we cowered like rats, trying to dig ourselves deeper into the acrid volcanic dust and ash of Iwo Jima. For forty-eight hours the warships cruised slowly 

back and forth, their sides livid with flashing fire, belching forth masses of scream-
70

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

ing steel which shook the island from one end to the other. Never have I felt so 

helpless, so puny, as I did during those two days. There was nothing we could do, 

there was no way we could strike back. The men screamed and cursed and shouted, 

they shook their fist and swore revenge, and too many of them fell to the ground, 

their threats choking on the blood which bubbled through great gashes in their 

throats. Virtually every last structure on Iwo Jima was torn to splintered wreckage. Not a building stood. Not a tent escaped. Not even the most dismal shack 

remained standing. Everything was blown to bits. The four fighter planes which 

had returned from our last sortie were smashed by shells into flaming pieces of 

junk. Several hundred Army troops and naval personnel were killed, and many 

more injured. We were virtually without supplies. We were short on ammunition. 

Iwo lay dazed and helpless. The men’s ears rang shrilly from the ceaseless detonations of the thousands of shells which had shrieked onto to the small island. There 

remained on hand to defend the vital island of Iwo Jima less than a battalion of 

Army troops. These men walked about in shock, stupefied by the bombardment 

they had suffered. Their brains were addled; they spoke incoherently. Iwo Jima 

lay naked. Equally dazed was the small group of naval fliers who had survived the 

terrible shelling. We were few in number, but we were determined to defend our 

island against the invasion which every man believed was but perhaps hours away, 

perhaps days at the most. We formed a tiny “Iwo Marine Company” of pilots 

without planes. Our pathetic little group vowed to fight to the last man alongside 

surviving Army troops. We received weapons and ammunition, and accepted that 

our cause was lost.161

In the meantime, with Saipan about to fall and the decision against retaking it made, 

Imperial General Headquarters (IGHQ) issued Directive No. 1038 on 26 June, which said 

effective 1 July, the Ogasawara Area forces (Ogasawara Chiku Shudan) would become the 

Ogasawara Corps (Ogasawara Heidan) and would be placed directly under the IGHQ as 

it was becoming impossible for the 31st Army to be in effective command.162 In essence, 

the headquarters decided to give up its plan of repossessing Saipan and instead chose to 

reinforce Iwo Jima.163

The following week on 30 June, the 31st Army, based on the lessons learned from the 

fighting in Saipan and under instructions from the Imperial General Headquarters, ordered 

Kuribayashi to do all he could “to make sure the enemy was not able to use the airfield.”164

Kuribayashi decided to make Suribachi and the Motoyama districts his strongholds.

Imperial General Headquarters began dispatching forces in July to Iwo as Kuribayashi 

would need more men to help with the construction as well as prepare the defenses. One 

ship, the Nisshu Maru, filled with members of the 26th Tank Brigade and others would have 

its difficulties. It tried to depart Tokyo Bay on 10 July, but had to turn back because of engine problems. On the 14th, it successfully left Yokohama Port only to be attacked by the 

submarine USS Cobia (SS 245) about 18 miles northwest of Chichi Jima. Although there 

were few reported deaths, 28 tanks of the brigade of Lieutenant Colonel (and Baron) Nishi 

Takeichi, a Los Angeles Olympic equestrian, were lost.165 Marines would be forever grateful to the crew of Cobia, launched just eight months before in November 1943, for prevent-
71

The War and the Battle of Iwo Jima

ing those tanks from arriving on Iwo.166 Had all of these tanks been successfully landed, the 

casualties on the U.S. side would certainly have been that much higher.167

Numerous pleas by the navy pilots for planes and other reinforcements on Iwo were also 

made: “We begged for more fighters. We begged for anything which could fly! Yokosuka 

could do nothing. . . . There were no more. Chaos reigned within the high command in Tokyo.”168 When several transport ships appeared over the horizon, the men on the island ran 

down to shore in excitement. However, the ships erupted in “geysers of flames and water, 

sunk before our very eyes by American submarines which had waited in anticipation of just 

such a move.” To Sakai, who witnessed this,

This catastrophe was decisive. It was obvious to us all that we could offer only token 

resistance, that within an hour or two after a landing the Americans would control 

Iwo. Who then, of all the men on the forsaken hump of volcanic ash, with its bubbling sulphur springs, could have foreseen the actual turn of events? Who among 

us would have dared to prophesy that the Americans would throw away their priceless opportunity to take the island with minimum casualties on their side? We felt 

we had but a few days in which to remain alive.

Over the next six months, the forces on the island were gradually increased to the point 

where, by the beginning of February, army personnel numbered 13,586.169 Individuals also 

left, due to illness and being relieved of their commands. Kuribayashi eventually replaced 

33 of the staff officers who did not support his defense plans, and brought in many younger 

and more flexible men.170

Relations with the Imperial Navy were also sometimes difficult, particularly when it 

came to tactics, strategy, and command relations, necessitating an agreement between the 

two services on the command issue in late August.171 The need for such an agreement was 

particularly clear after a visit by a staff officer of the navy’s 3d Aircraft Fleet, Commander 

Urabe Kiyoshi who called for the building of pillboxes around the first airfield, also known 

as Chidori. Kuribayashi’s staff did not agree with the navy’s idea, and Kuribayashi himself 

was not satisfied with it, but only concurred when told it was higher headquarters’ decision 

and that all the supplies and weapons would be provided by the navy, and any extra materials and weapons the army could use.172 According to Horie, Kuribayashi may have agreed 

to it in order to draw the enemy fire to the less important installations and fortifications, 

allowing him to protect his real assets at Suribachi and Motoyama.173 If so, Sun Tzu would 

have been proud. In the end, the amount of cement and the number of 25mm machine 

guns that actually arrived was modest, and did not have the intended effect on combat operations.174 After the war, Horie, who had close relations with the Imperial Japanese Navy, 

was quite critical of that decision, writing: “In fact, this airfield was trodden by American 

forces in only two days. If we had infused this great strength, many materials and three 

months of labor which were used on the airfield, into the defense of Motoyama District and 

Mount Suribachi, we could have been able to make these areas much stronger.”175

As Kuribayashi watched the war progress in the Pacific, he became convinced that the 

United States would attack after October, and ordered on 13 October that defense preparations be completed by the end of the month.176 In these preparations, Kuribayashi was aided 
72

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

in getting supplies and men through the help of Major General Sanada Joichiro, the Operations Chief of the Army General Staff, who visited Iwo Jima in mid-August. Sanada had 

been surprised at the lack of combat readiness he observed there, and recorded in his diary, 

“Kuribayashi warns that if an American task force the size of the July 4th fleet returns with 

a division and a half of troops he could sustain the defense for at best a week to ten days.”177

In addition to more troops, weapons, and ammunition, the influential Sanada was able to 

provide mining engineers, quarry experts, fortress units, and labor battalions.178 Sanada also 

helped Kuribayashi by carrying back a secret message (eventually unsuccessful) to the Imperial General Headquarters that relayed “what I really think,” namely that it was necessary for 

Japan to “urgently appraise the fighting power of American forces, and the economic strength 

of the United States, and make efforts to conclude peace after the fall of Saipan.”179

Cave specialists from Japan were flown in to advise Kuribayashi on the fortification 

building and important considerations, such as ventilation, made all the more difficult for 

the heat and high sulfur content that the volcanic island produced.180 Because of the fumes 

and heat, work was slow, but the 15,000 men who were eventually mobilized to work around 

the clock for this intensive building program had several advantages—the soft pumice-like 

volcanic rock could be cut relatively quickly even with hand tools and the volcanic ash mixed 

well with cement to provide a readily available building material that, when reinforced with 

steel wire, could provide thick defensive protection.181 The plan was to make, according to 

Horie, as many as 28,000 meters [17.4 miles] of tunnels, but it is unclear exactly how far 

the building had advanced.182 In the nine or so months that Kuribayashi had to prepare the 

defenses, an amazing complex of tunnels, caves, gun emplacements, pill boxes, command 

posts, hospitals, etc., were built, mostly underground. Some of the tunnels and command 

posts, linking positions hundreds of yards apart, went 75 feet deep, and included wiring for 

electricity and communications.183 Spider traps, in which Japanese snipers would pop up 

out of one hole, often beyond what was thought to be the frontline, were common threats. 

Marines advancing on pillboxes sometimes got shot in the back from a Japanese soldier 

peering out from one of these holes. “There was no cover from enemy fire,” one account 

relates.184 “Japs dug in reinforced concrete pillboxes laid down in interlocking bands of fire 

that cut whole companies to ribbons. Camouflage hid all enemy positions. The high ground 

on either side was honeycombed with layer after layer of Jap emplacements . . . Their observation was perfect; whenever a Marine made a move, the Japs would smother the area in a 

murderous blanket of fire.”185

During the nights, Marines could hear sounds and voices underneath them, as Japanese 

troops rested or moved in the tunnels below their lines. The defenders, in other words, were 

not on Iwo Jima, they were “in Iwo Jima,” goes one oft-repeated quote of the battle. Richard Wheeler, who served in the 28th Marines, added, “This was surely one of the strangest 

battlefields in history, with one side fighting wholly above the ground and the other operating almost wholly within it . . . The strangest thing of all was that the two contestants 

sometimes made troop movements simultaneously in the same area, one maneuvering on 

the surface and the other using tunnels beneath.”186

According to military historian Robert Leckie, Kuribayashi became convinced of the need 

for a fight to the death, a last stand after the Marianas fell.187 Kuribayashi knew Iwo Jima was 
73

The War and the Battle of Iwo Jima

impossible to defend over the long run, realizing he could not prevent the Americans from 

landing there—as the United States had too many ships, equipment, and men for that—or 

its eventual fall. But he could delay their final victory and planned to make the battle a costly 

one for the Americans. It would be a battle of attrition that might impress upon U.S. forces 

the troubles that would await them if they attempted to invade the mainland. To ensure this, 

Kuribayashi issued the “Iwo Jima Courageous Battle Vow,” which read, “Above all else we 

shall dedicate ourselves and our entire strength to the defense of this island. We shall grasp 

bombs, charge the enemy tanks, and destroy them. We shall infiltrate into the midst of the 

enemy and annihilate them. With every salvo we will, without fail, kill the enemy. Each man 

will make it his duty to kill ten of the enemy before dying. Until we are destroyed to the last 

man, we shall harass the enemy by guerilla tactics.”188 In undertaking this type of fighting, 

Kuribayashi hoped to delay as long as possible the U.S. invasion of the mainland. Perhaps he 

wished to see a diplomatic solution reached in the meantime before such an invasion took 

place. Ironically, the great losses suffered by U.S. forces in Iwo Jima and later in Okinawa 

instead caused American political and military leaders to use the atomic bomb.

Kuribayashi studied American strategy and in particular Marine Corps tactics in previous battles, especially the battles for Guadalcanal (1942–43), Tarawa (1943), Kwajalein 

(1944), Peleliu (1944), and the Marianas (1944). He saw how the Marines had learned 

from past mistakes and refined their assaults.189 He was also aware that U.S. industry had 

now given the nation the largest navy in the world, with an almost unending quantity of 

supplies, equipment, and highly trained personnel.

Equally important, Kuribayashi also knew traditional Japanese strategy for defending 

islands, or better put, the failure of that strategy. In the past, Japanese strategy had been to 

“fight the enemy at the water’s edge,” which meant trying to prevent enemy forces from 

landing. If the enemy did make a successful landing, which was always inevitably the case, 

Japanese forces would attack them with a bayonet charge during the night screaming “banzai.” The banzai charges never succeeded in removing or killing off the enemy. Indeed, as 

a result of these wasteful attempts, the commanders would not have enough troops alive 

to defend the island.190 Kuribayashi correctly saw that approach had been too costly and 

would not help in his efforts to delay the Americans and make them pay the ultimate price 

for Iwo Jima. Instead, he decided to do the opposite. He would first let the Americans land 

essentially unopposed, and then after the men, landing craft, equipment, and ammunition 

had assembled and been crowded together on the beaches, attack them from numerous 

points with all the weapons he had around the island.

A similar strategy had been employed earlier in Peleliu by Lieutenant General Inoue 

Sadao, who himself had been influenced by Colonel Tada Tokuchi, considered one of the 

most original strategists in the Imperial Army.191 The commander had conducted a retreat 

into the Umurbrogal Mountains and fought a battle of attrition in the caves, valleys, rocks, 

and gorges.192 The strategy called for taking advantage of terrain, previously prepared and 

planned positions, and strong counterattacks before the enemy could begin to consolidate 

its men and equipment. (A similar strategy had been pursued on Tarawa in November 

1943, and later on Okinawa in April 1945.) It was meant to delay and punish, as victory 

was impossible against America’s overwhelming force.
74

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Adopting this approach, and firing any and all senior officers who disagreed with him, 

Kuribayashi transformed Iwo Jima into “one of the strongest fixed positions in the history 

of warfare.”193 Lieutenant General Smith’s staff was aware of Kuribayashi’s skill; an aide 

said “Let’s hope the Japs don’t have any more like him.”194 Writing some time after the 

battle, Lieutenant General Harry Schmidt called Kuribayashi “one of the most resolute 

and professionally able soldiers of the Japanese Army, a master of defensive tactics.”195 Yet 

another said he was “the best damn general on this stinking island.”196 After the battle, 

Smith unsuccessfully spent a whole day looking for Kuribayashi’s body to pay his respects 

and to perform a proper burial.197

A Marine colonel said with grudging admiration, “You might say that he served his 

country well.”198 This respect was transferred to Kuribayashi’s troops as well. A U.S. Navy 

official in Japan, during a visit to Mt. Suribachi 60 years after the battle, mused, “What 

went through the minds of the Japanese defenders stationed on that same hill in 1945? 

They must’ve looked out at the panoramic view of the ocean and seen the hundreds of U.S. 

warships surrounding the island on all sides . . . What a lonely, sinking feeling the Japanese 

must have had—they knew there was no escape, they knew they were going to die . . . To 

fight on, as hard as they did, after that, really says something about human courage in the 

face of utter hopelessness.”199

It was this strategist and this strategy that the United States would face.

The Battle

After the 4th and 5th Marine Divisions finished their training, the joint expeditionary 

force began assembling in January at Oahu prior to departing for Saipan where they were 

to conduct final rehearsals for the landing operations and rendezvous with the 3d Division. Just prior to assembling, the Honolulu Advertiser had, in a “glaring breach of security,” 

published two photographs released by the Army Air Corps over an island target, which 

for those who were familiar with the layout of “Island X,” now knew their destination was 

Iwo Jima.200 As a result, counterintelligence officers were forced to spread different rumors 

in the Honolulu bars and hotels that Formosa was actually the next target.201 Despite the 

security precautions, the Japanese, including the infamous and tragic Tokyo Rose, were able 

to identify the specific units headed for Iwo.202

The day after departing Hawaii, the men on the ships had finally been told where they 

were headed.203 “Iwo Jima? Where the hell’s Iwo Jima?” the Marines in one group said in 

unison.204 Talking about the landing, another explained that Iwo “had been bombed 60 

straight days by the Air Force. It’s going to be a cakewalk, the Navy says we should take 

it in four days. Then we’ll be held in reserve for the next invasion, which was going to be 

Okinawa. No problem at all.”205 One Marine doubted this, telling a surgeon with the 27th 

Marines, “Don’t let them hand you a snow job, Doc. Right now the Nips are settled down 

deep in their cave system having a pleasant dinner of curried rice washed down with sake. 

They’ll pass the evening hours sharpening their trench knives and sorting out their ammunition.”206 While the island’s defenses would eventually succumb to the invasion force, the 

battle would take far longer than expected.
75

The War and the Battle of Iwo Jima

By the early morning of D-Day, 19 February, the 485-ship armada carrying the V Amphibious Corps had assembled off the coast of Iwo Jima. Anyone seeing the pictures and 

documentaries of the ships’ arrival today cannot help but be surprised at the overwhelming 

force that was brought to bear on the island. It would be necessary, for as described above, 

Iwo Jima had become perhaps the most heavily fortified place on earth.

At 0645 that morning, Vice Admiral Turner gave the order, “Land the Landing Force.”207

Many of the men had only a fitful sleep, knowing it might be their last day alive. Others 

were awoken by the big naval guns that began shelling the island from about four in the 

morning. After having a traditional breakfast of steak and eggs, the men lined up to get in 

to their various landing craft, which carried between 18 and 36 [LVT-1, 24; LVT-2, 18; 

LCVP, 36] Marines, corpsmen, and their equipment and wait to hit the beaches. Upon getting into one of them, the men found a message painted with a heavy brush in bold letters 

on the inside of one of the ramps: “TOO LATE TO WORRY.”208 Indeed it was, but they 

were still worried, despite attempts to joke about the situation. One short, freckle-faced 

lieutenant said “it was a pity we couldn’t settle these real estate squabbles by legal means.”209

Yet another described the landing by writing that Japan was about to face “a major immigration problem!”210

The day before D-Day was a Sunday. Many of the Marines and sailors on board the 

USS Eldorado (AGC 11), the command ship of Vice Admiral Turner, had been given a card 

by the ship’s chaplain, Curt Junker, which included a prayer from the year 1645 composed 

by one of Oliver Cromwell’s generals, Sir Thomas Astlie, before he went into battle: “Lord, 

I shall be very busy this day. I may forget Thee, but do not Thou forget me.”211 God certainly 

came through for one Marine, Second Lieutenant Patrick F. Caruso, a rifle company officer 

with K Company, 9th Regiment, 3d Marine Division, whose Bible in his left breast pocket 

saved him from serious injury or death when a bullet struck him there.212

In a further attempt to make sure that some survived by man-made means, the landing 

beaches were softened up before the Marines landed when 120 carrier planes attacked at 

0800, using napalm among other weapons.213 At 0825, the final naval bombardment began, 

and over the next 30 minutes a total of 8,000 shells hit the island. At exactly 0830, Marines 

waiting in 68 armored track landing vehicles (LVTs), left the line of departure, formed an 

hour before. Some two minutes after the naval bombardment of the beaches ended at 0857, 

they began their landings at 0859 and the Navy shifted its firing farther inland.214 Within 

45 minutes, 9,000 Marines were on the sands of Iwo Jima.

According to Marine historian Jerome T. Hagen, the “soft, sucking sand started to swallow the feet of the heavily loaded Marines” after about 50 yards.215 The weight they carried 

varied—a mortarman carried 122 pounds of equipment, a corpsman about 51, with everyone 

else having packs in between those two weights—but they were heavy and the sand made 

maneuvering difficult, even for tracked vehicles. The men “just flopped down where they were 

and waited for orders,” according to Hagen.216 With the volcanic sand so soft and granular, 

they could not dig foxholes. It was “like trying to dig a hole in a barrel of wheat.”217

Offering little resistance initially, Kuribayashi waited until the Americans were congested on the beaches before he fully let loose, all according to plan. With several thou-
76

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

sand Americans on the beaches, it meant there were about two Marines for every yard of 

beach.218 It became a killing field. In the barrage and firefights that ensued that day, thousands were wounded and killed. In the words of Time and Life magazines’ reporter Robert 

Sherrod, “They all died with the greatest possible violence. Nowhere in the Pacific War had 

I seen such badly mangled bodies. Many were cut squarely in half.”219

In another surreal scene, the landing beaches were also covered in Valentine cards, “so 

out of place scattered among the dead. We had received our last mail call on St. Valentine’s 

Day,” Private First Class Otis Thomas of the 5th Marine Division recalled, “and the fellows 

had stuck them in their pockets to read again.”220 Many wouldn’t have that chance. “The 

Japs were determined not to let us leave that beach area,” one Marine recalled.221 “They 

wanted to hold us there until they pounded us into oblivion with their shelling. We were 

just as determined to escape that fate, and so we charged ahead to meet them on more equal 

terms.”222 Another Marine explains what drove them forward:

It is in situations like this that Marine Corps training proves its value. There probably wasn’t a man among us who didn’t wish to God he was moving in the opposite 

direction. But we had been ordered to attack, so we would attack. And our obedience involved more than just a resignation to discipline. Our training had imbued 

us with a fierce pride in our outfit, and this pride helped now to keep us from 

faltering. Few of us would have admitted that we were bound by the old-fashioned 

principle of “death before dishonor,” but it was probably this, above all else, that 

kept us pressing forward.223

Despite the damage inflicted on the invaders, one battle historian suggests that Kuribayashi made his “only serious mistake of the battle . . . he had waited too long to counterattack.”224 Tatum, who was in the first wave, agrees with this statement, although if it 

had been any other way, he might not have been alive to hold this opinion. “A powerful 

and sustained enemy counter-attack in the first hour of the American assault,” the former 

machine-gunner in the 27th, writes, “could have driven our confused troops pinned on the 

shore line back into the surf. Until the morning of D+1, the Marines’ hold on Iwo’s beaches 

was as fragile as a pie crust.”225 Tatum adds that the failure of the Japanese forces “to defend 

Iwo’s invasion beaches cost its commander . . . the battle for Iwo Jima.”226

If Iwo Jima was hell, then the first night of the battle could only be described as a 

“nightmare in Hell.”227 That first day, the Marines succeeded in putting ashore more than 

30,000 men. But it had been a bloody day; they had suffered 2,312 causalities. When told 

of the initial casualty figures, President Franklin D. Roosevelt shuddered. “It was the first 

time in the war, through good news and bad, that anyone had seen the president gasp in 

horror,” one associate at the time said.228

It must be remembered, however, that Smith had anticipated the difficulty all along. 

“There was no hope of surprise, either strategic or tactical. There was little possibility for 

tactical initiative; the entire operation was fought on what were virtually the enemy’s own 

terms,” he acknowledged, continuing:

The strength, disposition, and conduct of the enemy’s defense required a major 

penetration of the heart of his prepared positions in the center of the Motoyama 
77

The War and the Battle of Iwo Jima

Plateau and a subsequent reduction of the positions in the difficult terrain sloping 

to the shore on the flanks. The size and terrain of the island precluded any Force 

Beachhead Line. It was an operation of one phase and one tactic. From the time 

the engagement was joined until the mission was completed it was a matter of 

frontal assault maintained with relentless pressure by a superior mass of troops and 

supporting arms against a position fortified to the maximum practical extent.229

Smith, however, had expected a banzai-like countercharge during the night or in the 

early days of the fighting. “We will be ready for an early counterattack in one of three places. We welcome a counterattack. That is generally when we break their backs,” he said.230

When it did not come, Smith noted to reporters, “I don’t know who he is, but the Jap general running the show is one smart bastard.”231 In the end, there was no formal organized 

counterattack, and instead U.S. forces had to drive ahead, foot by foot, yard by yard.

That does not mean that there were not individual counterattacks or nighttime attacks. On 

the evening of the first night, things began to get quiet. “Our assault force was . . . digging in 

and preparing to defend the ground that had been taken from the enemy during the daylight 

hours. I knew what the Japanese were doing too, [as] we had been trained to expect them 

to begin their counterattacks now that it was dark. They would rush our positions, attempt 

to disrupt communication lines, take prisoners for interrogation and try to kill our higher 

ranking officers . . . that’s exactly what happened.”232 “We sat there for the rest of the night,” 

a Navy corpsman explained, “and we could hear the Japanese moving around, trying to mark 

our positions for an artillery bombardment the next day. The Japs would call out to us, ‘Dirty 

Marine Bastards’ or ‘Marine Son-of-a-bitch’ they would say, hoping to get an answer so that 

they could throw a grenade toward us.”233 In typical American bravado, the “doc” whispered 

to the sergeant next to him: “They don’t mean me, I’m a U.S. Navy hospital corpsman!”234

The nighttime infiltration attacks were particularly frightening for the Marines, corpsmen, Seabees, and later Army forces on the ground, but at the same time, an air attack on 

the ships gathered off Iwo by the Second Mitate (“Sacred Shield”) Special Attack Force on 

21 February caused both great fear and damage. Reconnaissance conducted by the 5th Air 

Fleet of the Japanese Navy on 15 February had sighted the U.S. carrier fleet south of Iwo 

Jima. A new 32-man group designated Unit 2 Mitate was formed on the 18th, consisting 

of 12 fighters, 12 carrier bombers, and 4 carrier torpedo-bombers, among others. The unit 

departed Hitori Air Base, and after refueling at Hachijo Jima, struck at dusk, sinking the 

escort carrier Bismarck Sea (CVE 95), and damaging the USS Saratoga (CV 3), USS Lunga 

Point (CVE 94), USS Keokuk (AKN 4), and LSTs 477 and 809. Several hundred men were 

killed in the attacks.235

With the beaches still piled with bodies, supplies, and damaged equipment, the invading forces felt like sitting ducks, and progress was all too slow. Morale, however, significantly picked up when the Stars and Stripes was raised on Mount Suribachi on the cold 

drizzly morning of D+4 or 23 February. Marines all over the island and sailors from their 

ships watched the assent. One said, “those guys oughta be getting flight pay.”236 When the 

first flag went up at 1020, cheers, sirens, and whistles were heard throughout the island and 

offshore from the ships. Significantly, of the 40-man patrol responsible for the first flagraising, 36 were killed or wounded in later fighting on Iwo Jima.237
78

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

An important visitor who witnessed the initial flag-raising was Secretary Forrestal, the 

first civilian Navy secretary to appear on the front line of an overseas battle.238 Forrestal’s 

diary account of his visit to Red Beach on the morning of 23 February was terse; the editor 

of the diary explains that Forrestal “was not a vivid descriptive writer, and his diary notes . . . 

hardly do justice to the occasion.”239 Nevertheless, when he saw the flag-raising, Forrestal, 

“proud as hell to be wearing my Marine dungarees,”240 turned to Smith and said “the raising of that flag means a Marine Corps for another 500 years.”241

In his time with Forrestal, Smith had also come to respect the secretary with the two 

of them talking for hours onboard the Eldorado. “He astonished me with his knowledge 

of combined operations and his grasp of technical matters,” Smith wrote, adding, “It was 

evident the secretary had delved deeply into the theory and practice of combined operations . . . ‘Mr. Secretary,’ I told him one day, ‘you missed your calling. You should have been 

a Marine. You would have had a great career.’ ”242 Forrestal responded that he had at one 

point considered it, but banking caught his interest first, and then added, “anyhow, thanks 

for the compliment.”243 In his memoirs, Smith added prophetically, “After my experience 

with Secretary Forrestal, I hoped that other civilian members of our Government would see 

the services under actual wartime conditions, instead of sitting back in Washington, relying 

upon official dispatches and their service aides to enlighten them. How much sense of reality is lost between a battleground and a glistening Washington desk!”244

Back on the beaches, a loudspeaker used by the beachmaster to direct the unloading 

operations blared “Mount Suribachi is ours. The American flag has been raised over it by 

the 5th Marine Division. Fine work, men. We have only a few miles to go to secure the 

island.”245 “Only,” one Marine repeated, “only . . . ”246

One of the things that made the fighting difficult for the Marines was the fact that the 

Japanese defenders were hidden. A Marine in the 3d Battalion, 25th Marines, complained, 

“How the hell can you fight something you can’t see?”247 Another noted, “the thing that 

made it so tough was the Japs were completely concealed in caves, pillboxes carved out of 

the rock, or crevasses and there were so many of them you could never tell where the next 

shot came from.”248 Death came from all directions on Iwo.249 A BAR [Browning Automatic Rifle] man in the 4th Division who was wounded by shrapnel in the face on his third 

day in the battle and taken to a hospital ship stated “during the whole of my time on Iwo 

Jima I never saw a Jap.”250

An example of not seeing the Japanese was experienced in trying to get the Japanese 

military leadership on the island to surrender. Major General Clifont B. Cates of the 4th 

Division called out via loudspeakers for Major General Senda Sadasue, commander of the 

2d Mixed Brigade, to surrender:

You have fought a gallant and heroic fight, but you must realize the Island of Iwo Jima 

has been lost to you. You can gain nothing by further resistance, nor is there any reason to do [so] when you can honorably surrender and live to render valuable service to 

your country in the future. I promise and guarantee you and the members of your staff 

the best of treatment. I respectfully request you accept my terms of honorable surrender. I again appeal to you in the name of humanity—surrender without delay.251
79

The War and the Battle of Iwo Jima

Unfortunately, Senda did not give up.252 Another officer who did not surrender was 

Colonel Ikeda Masuo, commander of the 145th Imperial Infantry and in charge of the 

western sector. Major General Erskine entrusted a two-page note typed in English on 

the left and handwritten in Japanese on the right to two Japanese soldiers who had been 

captured, stating,

Our forces now have complete control and freedom of movement on the island 

of Iwo Jima except in the small area now held by the valiant Japanese troops just 

south of Kitano Point. The fearlessness and indomitable fighting spirit which has 

been displayed by the Japanese troops on Iwo Jima warrants the admiration of all 

fighting men. You have handled your troops in a superb manner but we have no 

desire to completely annihilate brave troops who have been forced into a hopeless 

position. Accordingly, I suggest that you cease resistance at once and march, with 

your command, through my lines to a place of safety where you and all your officers 

and men will be humanely treated in accordance with the rules of war [Geneva 

Convention].253

Although one of the soldiers got cold feet, the other, nicknamed “Smith-chui,” or Lieutenant Smith, passed the note to someone standing guard at the cave and saw to it that it 

got to Ikeda.254 Ikeda and his forces apparently chose not to give up, and the battle, death, 

and suicides continued.

By 9 March, a patrol with the 3d Division had reached Iwo’s northern end. They filled 

a canteen with sea water and sent it back to General Schmidt with a note: “For inspection, 

not consumption.”255 It had taken 18 days to reach that point. There was still much fighting 

to go.

That night, Kuribayashi wrote to Tokyo explaining that “all surviving units have sustained heavy losses,” and added that he was “very sorry that I have let the enemy occupy one 

part of Japanese territory, but I am taking comfort in giving him heavy damages.”256 Indeed 

he was causing extensive damage to U.S. forces as his purpose was to delay their advance as 

long as possible and make the Marines pay for every yard.

Among those landing with the assault forces were some 4,000 Seabees, whose job with 

their heavy equipment was to get the airstrips in working order in the shortest amount of 

time and to transform the island into an American base amid all the fighting. The Seabees, 

in the words of William Bradford Huie who wrote about their role in World War II, were 

a “construction army,” one that “carried with it many more shiploads of equipment than the 

Marines carried; an army composed of the country’s most skilled machine-users; an army 

fully capable of mopping up all the Jap stragglers while it worked. When 1,000 Seabees per 

square mile moved onto an island with the kind and volume of equipment that they carried, 

and when they began using 10-ton bulldozers where the Japs used hand carts, then the real 

superiority of America became apparent.”257

Troops heading to the back lines and beach landing area did not recognize the landscape after the Seabees had begun their work. An 800-foot runway was built and 20 miles 

of roads constructed, including a two-lane road up to the top of Suribachi.258 “[You] might 

as well level the whole damned island off, blacktop it, and then just paint the airstrips in,” 
80

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

one reporter joked with one of the commanding officers.259 In addition, using former Texas 

oil-rig workmen, wells were dug to get fresh water, and harbor specialists worked to create 

piers to handle all the cargo and equipment. One Seabee explained how all this was done: 

“It is easy when you’ve got the organization and the men and the machines. This kind of 

war is right down the American alley . . . I say we won this war when we built Boulder Dam, 

the TVA projects, the skyscrapers, and all the other big things we’ve got. While we were 

building our country we trained the men and developed the machines and acquired the 

know-how to do just the kind of job we have to do here on Iwo Jima.”260

The first aircraft to use the captured airstrip were two light observation planes from 

Marine Observation Squadron (VMO) 4 based on the escort carrier USS Wake Island

(CVE 65), on 26 February, and several more the next day.261 Sixteen additional aircraft 

from that unit and VMO-5 arrived on 1 March. Advance elements of the Army Air Forces 

VII Fighter Command arrived on 27 February, and 28 P-51 Mustangs of the 47th Fighter 

Squadron arrived on 6 March. The first B-29, Dinah Might, landed on 4 March.262 “In 

terms of American morale,” Alexander writes, the arrival of the Dinah Might “could not 

have come at a better time.”263 The next day, Schmidt ordered a general standdown to enable the Marines torest and take on replacements.

It was around the same time that Kuribayashi wrote to Imperial Headquarters, “I am 

not afraid of the fighting power of only three American Marine divisions, if there are 

no bombardments from aircraft and warships. Send me these things, and I will hold this 

island. Without them, I cannot hold.”264 Some days before, the Diet had passed a resolution cheering Kuribayashi on, but what he really needed was not so much the words of 

encouragement but rather the military equipment to hold off the U.S. assault. Nevertheless, 

with or without this equipment, he was exacting a heavy toll on the Marines and American 

public opinion as well.

While there was strong support for the war in the United States and for the advancements being made in the Pacific and Europe, there was also increasing concern about the 

high costs in human life. When the War Department released casualty figures for the Battle 

of Iwo Jima, a public outcry, led by pro-MacArthur newspapers, was heard over the unprecedented casualties for the little piece of real estate. Smith was labeled a “cold-blooded 

murderer, indiscriminate waster of human life” by Robert R. McCormick, publisher of the 

Chicago Tribune, who had joined with others of the “pre-Pearl Harbor isolationist lobby” to 

promote MacArthur over his military rival, Nimitz.265

With the battle still going on, all Smith could do at this point was ignore the criticism 

and carry on.266 This does not mean that he was not affected, however. Observing the horrific fighting at Cushman’s Pocket on 14 March, he turned to General Erskine and said, 

with tears streaming down his face, “this is the worst one yet, Bobbie.”267 In his memoirs, 

Smith added, “I was not afraid of the outcome of the battle, I knew we would win—we 

always did. But contemplating the cost in lives caused me many sleepless nights.”268

Ironically, 14 March was the day that the island was declared “secure” by Admiral Nimitz in what appears to be a bow to public opinion. That morning, a little north of Suribachi, 

an honor guard of 24 Marines (8 from each division) oversaw a flag-raising ceremony amid 
81

The War and the Battle of Iwo Jima

the sounds of gunfire.269 With fighting still going on, an officer on Schmidt’s staff, Colonel 

David A. Stafford, read from a prepared statement:270

I, Chester William Nimitz, Fleet Admiral United States Navy, Commander-inChief of United States Pacific Fleet and Pacific Ocean area, do hereby proclaim 

as follows: United States forces under my command have occupied this and other 

of the Volcano Islands. All powers of government of the Japanese Empire in these 

islands so occupied are hereby suspended. All powers of government are vested in 

me as military governor and will be exercised by subordinate commanders under 

my direction. All persons will obey promptly all orders given under my authority. 

Offenses against the forces of occupation will be severely punished. Given under 

my hand at Iwo Jima this fourteenth day of March 1945.271

The ceremony atop the demolished bunker to witness the official raising of the flag was 

over in five minutes. Iwo Jima became U.S.-occupied territory at this point.

In Washington, Roosevelt received word of Nimitz’s proclamation when he was on 

Capitol Hill reporting to Congress about his meetings with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet Union Premier Joseph Stalin at the Yalta Conference. Turning 

to the Pacific, Roosevelt said, “The Japanese warlords know they are not being overlooked. 

They have felt the force of our B-29s and our carrier planes. They have felt the naval might 

of the United States. The Japs know what it means that ‘the United States Marines’ have 

landed. And I think I may add, having Iwo Jima in mind,” Roosevelt continued, adding a 

familiar and beloved Marine Corps expression, “that the situation is well in hand.”272 Essentially it was, but the battle would rage on for almost another two weeks, with Japanese 

stragglers being picked up for days, weeks, months, and in at least one case, years later on 

the island.273 Nimitz’s proclamation was timely politically, but premature militarily, as many 

more casualties would be had been.

The period after this was officially called “mopping-up operations.” On the 17th, Nimitz 

declared that Iwo Jima had officially been secured at 1800 and Japanese resistance was at 

an end.274 “If this damn place has been secured,” one incredulous Marine asked, “where the 

hell is all this gunfire coming from?”275 Despite Nimitz’s statements that the end was near, 

the fighting continued to be brutal and bitter. Perhaps because things were in its final phase 

that those Japanese still alive, including Kuribayashi himself, were resisting to the extent 

they were.

Kuribayashi had learned of Nimitz’s proclamation by radio broadcast from Tokyo. The 

announcer implored Imperial forces on Iwo to “Hold out to the last man as valiant sons of 

Nippon, killing repugnant Americans as you die for Emperor and homeland.”276 Schoolchildren from Kuribayashi’s hometown in Nagano closed the special broadcast by singing 

the “Iwo Jima Song,” written at one point by the men on the island:

Where dark tides billow in the ocean / a wink-shaped isle of mighty fame / guards 

the gateway to our Empire / Iwo Jima is its name. We brave men who have been 

chosen / to defend this island strand / filled with faith in certain triumph / yearn to 

strike for Fatherland. Thoughts of duty ever with us / from dawn to dusk we train 

with zeal / bound by Emperor’s commanding to bring the enemy to heel. Oh, for 
82

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Emperor and homeland / there’s no burden we won’t bear / sickness, hardship, filthy 

water / these are less to us than air. Officers and men together / work and struggle, 

strive and trust / till the hated Anglo-Saxons / lie before us in the dust.277

Kuribayashi, obviously moved, wrote back his message of thanks to the “brave and gallant people of Japan” sending it to the Imperial General Headquarters, which subsequently 

released an edited version to the press. In the original version, he stated:

The battle is entering its final chapter. Since the enemy’s landing, the gallant fighting of the men under my command has been such that even the gods would weep. 

In particular, I humbly rejoice in the fact that they have continued to fight bravely 

though utterly empty-handed and ill-equipped against a land, sea, and air attack 

of a material superiority such as surpasses the imagination. One after another they 

are falling in the ceaseless and ferocious attacks of the enemy. For this reason, the 

situation has arisen whereby I must disappoint your expectations and yield this 

important place to the hands of the enemy. With humility and sincerity, I offer my 

repeated apologies.278

Kuribayashi also called for the island to be “retaken,” saying Japan would “never be safe” 

if Iwo Jima was not, and said he hopes “my soul will be a spear-head for the future renewed 

attack.”279

On 21 March, Kuribayashi wrote again to Tokyo, “We have not eaten nor drank for 

five days but our fighting spirit is still running high. We are going to fight bravely till the 

end.” That same day, effective 17 March, Kuribayashi was promoted to full general.280 His 

chief of staff, Major Horie, who monitored the fighting on Iwo, tried communicating this 

over the next couple of days, but he received no reply. The efforts to send the message “were 

probably in vain,” Horie said after the war, “because the wireless on Iwo Jima was hurrying 

too much to send their messages and did not try to receive our telegrams.”281 The last message Kuribayashi had sent was the one on 23 March: “To all friends of Chichi Jima, Goodbye.”282 Although Horie tried to communicate with Kuribayashi for several days afterward, 

there were no more messages from the Japanese defenders on Iwo Jima at that point.283

One private first class with the 4th Division wrote,

The Japs were good fighters, they had good equipment. We beat them mainly because we overpowered them. They had some terrific sights. When we got up in 

the hills, and took their guns, their artillery pieces could almost pick out a button 

[on] a man’s pants on the beach. It was just hand-to-hand, you just had to fight for 

everything you got. They didn’t give up easy. But you still did what you had to do. 

I don’t know what makes you do this. We Americans, we fight because we have to. 

We were fighting the Japanese, they were different. When they got killed, they’d 

take as many [Americans with them] as they could. We were fighting to kill, but 

we were trying to fight to stay alive. There’s a big difference when you’re fighting 

somebody with that type of a background, where they’ll die for their emperor, as 

they were doing. They were good fighters. They fought hard.284

The battlefield deaths became numbing, however. “Dead Japanese soldiers became fly 

spots to us,” one American wrote.285 He continued,
83

The War and the Battle of Iwo Jima

They mattered not at all except for the annoyance of having them lying too close 

to us when we lay prone or crawled by. I noticed that we passed by a number of the 

dead, who suffered severe damage to their lower jaws and hands. I wondered what 

kind of weapon we had that did that to them. Eventually, we came to learn the 

injury was caused by them holding a live grenade to their throats and exploding it 

in order to die quickly. It was said they were afraid of being tortured if taken alive. 

I don’t believe there were tortures. Americans don’t like to torture, kill maybe, but 

not torture.286

Sadly, in the heat of a “war without mercy,”287 several stories of abuse of Japanese prisoners and unjustified shootings emerged. Richard E. Overton, a participant in the battle, 

writes of being in an engagement in which a Japanese soldier, whose white flag had been 

tied to the end of a rifle and was visible, had been shot, likely by the nearby Marines, as he 

emerged out of the shell crater. While admitting that he felt “no remorse over [the soldier’s] 

death” as he had just lost a comrade himself, Overton observed “the hatred that developed 

in our troops toward the Japanese showed itself clearly beginning immediately after our 

landing on the island. The feeling intensified as each day came and passed and that hatred 

interfered with the military tactic of capturing the enemy for interrogation.”288

The hatred was in part spurred by the anger over the killings of U.S. Marines and others 

taken prisoner, sometimes in a particularly cruel way, whose bodies were found by comrades 

later, or due to similar experiences on other islands in the Pacific over the past three years. 

As a result, many wanted to exact revenge. There are other Marines, however, who deny 

there was any hatred. “No, I have no hatred. I have no hatred for the Japanese whatsoever. 

I had no hate then or now.”289 Another, speaking of his childhood, said, “I grew up with 

Japanese as friends and I liked them. I am told we’re supposed to fight them. That’s what 

my country says. That’s what I tried to do.” A third Marine looking back stated “I don’t 

think we knew what hate was. It was more a battle of survival.”

Despite the intensity of the killing, there were moments when humanity and compassion emerged, if only briefly, before the mission was resumed. After Marines shot a 

Japanese soldier who had lobbed a grenade at them, they removed his helmet and found a 

picture of his family in Japan in the top. “He was standing erect with his helmet under his 

arm, wife and six children—cute-looking little children. Even after all we went through, all 

these tough Marines started to tear up a little bit . . . they choked up seeing that.”290

James S. Vedder, a surgeon with the 27th Marines, wrote of a Japanese sailor who had 

blown himself up nearby.

His billfold contained ninety-five yen and several photographs. One poignant photo showed our recent adversary dressed in a white uniform of the Imperial Navy. 

He appeared as a handsome young man seated in a formal Japanese garden. Two 

small boys, each in the three- to five-year range, balanced happily on either knee 

as they fixed their adoring attention in their father’s direction. Behind them stood 

a smiling young woman dressed in a gay, flower-patterned kimono. It was hard to 

believe that the mutilated corpse at my feet was the same individual, though not so 

hard for me to identify with his family. The husband would never return to his wife, 
84

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

and the children would never get to know their father. My thoughts then turned to 

my wife and two boys waiting for me back in San Diego. If fate had so ordained, 

our roles could have easily been reversed. I gave silent thanks to God that my 

children were not yet orphaned or my wife widowed. The body was disposed of in 

a nearby shell hole and covered with the rubble that had been excavated from our 

foxholes yesterday. A plasma box propped up at the end of a broken bayonet [bore] 

this epitaph, “Here lies one good Jap.” Although the grave site lay in the center of 

our medical working area, my men avoided trampling on or desecrating his last 

resting place in any way.291

A Navy corpsman wrote of the aftermath of an attack by a Japanese solider whom he 

killed in the altercation. “I crawled out [of my foxhole] to examine [him],” Richard E. 

Overton began.292 “The man was young, I’d guess that he was about eighteen years old, and 

I felt a jolt hit me in my chest. He looked very much like a Japanese-American friend of 

mine back home. I wondered what this young soldier’s mother was doing right now in their 

home in Japan and how she would react when informed of her son’s death.”

One machine gunner with the 9th Marines, 3d Division, spoke of spotting a Japanese 

soldier who was pinned down by U.S. gunfire. “Every time he tried to make a move, we cut 

loose,” the Marine said. “But very clearly, I can remember thinking at that point, I wonder 

how old he is? I wonder if he’s married?”293

One Marine in K Company, 3d Battalion, 9th Regiment of the 3d Marine Division, had 

similar thoughts:

I remember searching the enemy dead for possible valuable military information . . . I 

hoped for military data, but most often what struck me would be the pictures contained 

in their wallets. I would think, he belongs to someone back home: a wife, children, 

parents, all probably waiting for him just as our families were hopeful of ours. Yet just 

minutes before these men were trying to take our lives. I then visualized that “someone” 

in Japan would soon receive notice that their loved one was killed in combat and not 

returning. It did not make sense.294

That Marine’s introspection did not end here. Wounded while on Iwo Jima, he was 

eventually taken to the naval hospital at Aiea Heights in Hawaii (the future site of Camp 

H. M. Smith), which contained facilities to treat wounded Japanese prisoners of war:

A short time ago we had been in combat trying to kill each other. Now the enemy 

was receiving medical care from our doctors and was protected by our own military 

police. It was conceivable that we might have met on Iwo through each other’s 

rifle sights. Now we could see them receiving blood plasma donated by American 

citizens and intended for the use of our own wounded . . . I had to pass the prisoners’ barrack on the way to the mess hall. It didn’t take long before I began to 

recognize some of the faces as they peered through the windows, our eyes meeting 

through that barbed wire. Over a period of time, a faint smile or a reluctant gesture 

of acceptance passed between us. Eventually, this recognition was manifested in a 
85

The War and the Battle of Iwo Jima

distant and deliberate wave of the hand. Within days, our means of communication had changed from rifles and bullets to smiles and waves. I thought that, after 

all, they as individuals did not want the war any more than we did; they merely 

had followed orders. Though there was no exchange of words, I felt that each of us, 

through silent communication, was acknowledging that the other was also human. 

Perhaps we sensed a spark of hope for the future along with a measure of mercy 

for the enemy.295

This “measure of mercy” or respect was found in another scene from the battle. In one 

of the accounts of surgeon Vedder, he recalled an interrogation of a Japanese prisoner by 

an American interpreter who had been born in Osaka of American missionary parents 

and spent 15 years there. The interpreter said the prisoner “feels it is a bad mistake for the 

Americans and Japanese to be fighting each other. With the many American planes and 

ships, plus the superior fighting qualities of the Japanese soldier, we should join forces . . . 

and together we could conquer the world.”296 Vedder agreed, telling the interpreter as he 

finished his interrogation: “I sure hope the Nips will be fighting on our side when the next 

war comes along.”297

A Marine from New Jersey had this to say in his memoirs, a quote that best captures the 

essence of the human element behind the clash on Iwo:

We had a gross misconception of the enemy before we encountered them. Since 

the bombing of Pearl Harbor and throughout the war, our media created a distorted image of the Japanese fighters and their leaders . . . These image molders led 

us to believe we were fighting a third-rate, ill-trained enemy with outdated equipment and ineffective weaponry. None of this was true. To the contrary, the Japanese 

fighters were well-trained, combat-wise, expert marksmen, well disciplined, ingenious, uncanny, crafty, and programmed to fight and die for their ultimate purpose: 

their duty to their emperor. We certainly underestimated their ability and misunderstood their extreme loyalty and dedication to their emperor. They were not at all 

what our image molders back home made them out to be. They were not jokes; they 

were not inept. We hated them enough to kill them, but we did respect their ability. 

I often thought if we had to go to war again, I would want them on our side.298

The Cost and Significance of Iwo Jima

This foul-smelling, ash-covered, barren, ugly place was to others, especially B-29 pilots and 

their crews, the “sweetest little island in all the world.”299 A crewmember told a Seabee, who 

had helped construct the runway, “All shot to hell, we couldn’t have stayed aloft another ten 

minutes. Now we are as good as new. Yessir, that’s a sweet place.”300 The B-29 crews would 

jump out of their damaged planes to hug and kiss the ground. Iwo was, in short, “the difference between life and death” for many of them.301

Iwo Jima, in the end, was also “the most expensive piece of real estate the United States 

ever purchased . . . We paid 550 lives and 2,500 wounded for every square mile of this volcanic rock.”302 America’s ability to “purchase” the island, albeit expensively, being a given because of the superiority in industrial capacity, military equipment, and training, was echoed 
86

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

by Erskine, one of the commanders who participated in the fight. “Victory was never in 

doubt. What was in doubt in all of our minds was whether there would be any of us left to 

dedicate our cemetery at the end, or whether the last Marine would be knocking out the 

last Japanese gun and gunner.”303 It probably felt like that as well to the men fighting on 

Iwo. A battle that was supposed to take only a few days ended up lasting more than five 

weeks. At the end of the battle, a total of 6,821 Americans had been killed, and 19,217 were 

wounded (Marines 5,931 dead, 17,272 wounded; Navy 881 dead, 1,917 wounded; Army 9 

dead, 28 wounded).304

On the Japanese side, while the figures vary, about 20,000 were killed. The most reliable 

number, that by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, lists 20,129 deaths (12,723 for the 

Imperial Japanese Army and 7,406 for the Imperial Japanese Navy). Had medical services 

been available, and the injured been evacuated, many more would have survived, one Japanese veteran of World War II reminded the author.305 According to the Iwo Jima Kyokai, 

the remains of some 13,000 have yet to be recovered.306

Erskine’s 3d Marine Division Cemetery was officially dedicated on 14 March 1945, with 

the battle still not over. Prior to the invasion force’s departure for Iwo, pre-painted white 

crosses had been loaded onto the ships, out of the Marines’ sight. These crosses would be 

immediately necessary with the start of the battle, although most bodies had to be left where 

they fell in the first few days because of the dangerous conditions that existed. Those that 

could be were “reverently collected” and laid in rows under ponchos.307 Nevertheless, the 

graves registration teams, who were responsible for recording and burying the dead, were 

shortly on the scene, with the first team arriving on D-Day with their own bulldozers.

Based on experiences from previous battles, military planners had preselected sites where 

cemeteries were to be built. Those for the 3d and 4th Divisions, complete with a special 

corner for war dogs killed in action, were located off the runway of Airfield No. 1. The 5th 

Division had its cemetery on the southern end of the same runway, “under the shadow of 

Mt. Suribachi.”308 Before they could be built, however, the designated areas had to be first 

cleared of mines and unexploded ordnance, and then bulldozed level—all this while being 

exposed to enemy fire. As fighting shifted to the northern part of the island and the airfield 

situation had stabilized, the Seabees built stone arches at the entrances to the cemeteries, 

with fences made from wood salvaged from packing cases ringing the perimeter.309

There was a specific burial process for those killed. One dog tag was removed and the 

other left with the body. If the body had an index finger, a fingerprint was taken, but if there 

were no fingers, the bodies were identified by clothing, tattoos, birthmarks, scars, or any 

other possible methods, such as items carried. The body was wrapped in a blanket or poncho and placed in a six-foot trench, three feet from those on either side. Each row, placed 

three feet apart, contained the bodies of 50 Marines.310 It was through these cemeteries 

filled with their fallen comrades that Marines, who could walk or were carried, passed as 

they left the island.

At the 5th Division memorial service also held on 14 March, a Jewish chaplain from 

New York City, Roland B. Gittelsohn, stated,
87

The War and the Battle of Iwo Jima

This is perhaps the grimmest, and surely the holiest task we have faced since DDay. Here, before us lie the bodies of comrades and friends. Men who until yesterday or last week laughed with us, joked with us, trained with us. Men who were on 

the same ships with us, and went over the sides with us as we prepared to hit the 

beaches of this island. Men who fought with us and feared with us. Somewhere in 

this plot of ground there may lie the man who could have discovered the cure for 

cancer. Under one of these Christian crosses, or beneath a Jewish Star of David, 

there may rest now a man who was destined to be a great prophet—to find the 

way, perhaps, for all to live in plenty, with poverty and hardship for none. Now they 

lie here silently in this sacred soil, and we gather to consecrate this earth in their 

memory. It is not easy to do so. Some of us have buried our closest friends here. We 

saw these men killed before our very eyes. Any one of us might have died in their 

places. Indeed, some of us are alive and breathing at this very moment only because 

men who lie here beneath us had the courage and strength to give their lives for 

ours. To speak in memory of such men as these is not easy. Of them too can it be 

said with utter truth: “The world will little note nor long remember what we say 

here. It can never forget what they did here.” These men have done their job well. 

They have paid the ghastly price of freedom. If that freedom be once again lost, 

as it was after the last war, the unforgivable blame will be ours, not theirs . . . Too 

much blood has gone into this soil for us to let it lie barren. Too much pain and 

heartache have fertilized the earth on which we stand. We here solemnly swear: 

This shall not be in vain! Out of this, and from the suffering and sorrow of those 

who mourn this, will come—we promise—the birth of a new freedom for the sons 

of men everywhere. Amen.311

The dedication ceremony was concluded. “They raised the flag and then ordered it to 

half-mast. Everybody broke up and just sort of wandered through the cemetery looking at 

crosses to locate members and buddies they knew. There were a lot that I knew. Serving so 

closely, united so to speak, part of a team—there is a love that is hard to explain. I cried. It 

was pretty touching to think you were among the living, and all my close friends were no 

longer around. I still reflect on that day,” one Marine said years later.312

It was these memories—for some it was the first time they realized how large of a sacrifice had been made to take the island—and the related memorials later built on the island, 

that made the return of Iwo Jima to Japan 23 years later such an emotionally and politically 

trying experience. One saying about the Marines goes, “To find a true Marine, you have to 

dig for him.”313 There were a lot of true Marines who paid the ultimate price on Iwo Jima.

There were 27 Medals of Honor awarded for Iwo Jima, the highest number ever given in 

one battle. Only 14 of the recipients survived the combat, 13 were honored posthumously. 

Of these recipients, 22 were Marines, 4 were Navy corpsmen, and 1 was a naval officer.314

Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson stated, “The price has been heavy. But the military 

value is inestimable. Its conquest has brought closer the day of our final victory in the 

Pacific.”315 Iwo Jima’s loss meant that the invasion of the homeland was not far off. Only 

Okinawa had to be taken in the meantime, a couple of weeks later.
88

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

When the war was finally over, President Harry S. Truman said at the end of a Medal of 

Honor award ceremony at the White House on 5 October 1945, “We have won two great 

victories and we face another fight, a fight for a peaceful world. The fight for peace is necessary so we won’t have to go to war again, so we won’t have to maim the flower of our young 

men and bury them. Now let us go forward and win that fight, as we have won these two 

victories, and this war will not have been in vain.”316

Truman’s quote was not as famous as that by Nimitz at the end of his 17 March statement when he observed, “Among the Americans who served on Iwo Island, uncommon 

valor was a common virtue.” The same thing could easily be said for the Japanese side as, 

although without the success of the 2006 movie, Letters from Iwo Jima, the story of the 

Japanese defenders would have remained known to only their families, military historians, 

and a relatively few others.

For the Japanese, an equally emotionally trying aspect has been the inability, at the time, 

to properly bury their dead, and in later years to recover early on, and in some cases, not at 

all, their dead. Today, family members and friends still travel annually to Iwo Jima to help 

search for the bones and personal objects in what is known as ikotsu shushu (bone collection). For them, the return of Iwo Jima in 1968 was less a political statement than it was 

the ability to help give a final resting place to Japan’s own warriors. For more than 10,000 

Japanese soldiers whose remains have yet to be found or excavated, their final resting place 

has yet to be provided.

Notes

1

“World Battlefronts: Battle of the Pacific,” Time, 5 March 1945, 25–28. Chapter 14 of Frank O. 

Hough’s The Island War: The United States Marine Corps in the Pacific (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott 

Co., 1947) is similarly titled “The Inevitable Island: Iwo Jima.”

2

Robert A. Aquilina, “Marine Corps History: ‘Uncommon Valor Was a Common Virtue’,” Marines, 

February 1985, 24–25. Various figures are used for the number of U.S. casualties. The author refers 

to the figures cited by Aquilina, former head of the Reference Branch of the Marine Corps History 

Division, to whom the author is indebted for his generous assistance in this research.

3

This claim needs to be clarified: more Japanese soldiers and sailors died than Americans, but in 

terms of overall casualties (dead and wounded), there were more among U.S. forces. Many of the 

Japanese forces died due to the inability to receive proper medical care. The United States was able 

to employ its full resources in treating its fallen and wounded, including evacuation to hospital 

ships offshore and facilities in Saipan and Guam (where 5,000 hospital beds were readied), Hawaii, 

and the continental United States. Japan, due to the lack of men and materials, was unable to do 

the same, although it had medical facilities in the caves and a limited number of medics among 

the troops. However, as Joseph H. Alexander points out, the “luxury of having first-rate medical 

assistance so close to the front lines took a terrible toll [on the U.S. side],” as 23 doctors and 827 

corpsmen were killed or wounded at Iwo Jima, or twice the casualty rate as Saipan. See Joseph H. 

Alexander, Closing In: Marines in the Seizure of Iwo Jima (Washington, DC: Marine Corps Historical 

Center, 1994), 38–39.

4

Holland M. Smith, Coral and Brass (New York: Bantam Books, 1987), 226.
89

The War and the Battle of Iwo Jima

5

Robert S. Burrell, The Ghosts of Iwo Jima (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2006) and 

his earlier article, are the most recent contributions to the debate. His controversial book won the 

Marine Corps Historical Foundation Award in 2007. Burrell’s argument was first introduced in his 

article, “Breaking the Cycle of Iwo Jima Mythology,” The Journal of Military History, vol. 68, no. 4 (October 2004): 1143–86, which also attracted interest. See Max Boot, “Rethinking the Iwo Jima Myth,” 

Los Angeles Times, 10 March 2005 (around the time of the 60th anniversary of the battle). The author 

is indebted to Burrell, now a major and until a few years ago, stationed in Okinawa, for the numerous 

conversations about his research by e-mail and in person in Okinawa and Iwo Jima. Although he was 

exposed to much criticism by former members of the Marine Corps for challenging the literature on 

Iwo Jima, the author believes he was personifying what Marines as individuals and as an organization 

do best—challenge the status quo with thought-provoking insights and arguments.

6

Holland M. Smith and Percy Find, “Howlin Mad’s Own Story, 3: Iwo Jima Cost Too Much,” Saturday Evening Post, 20 November 1948, 32.

7

Smith, Coral and Brass, 226.

8

Interview with Dean Voight, 2d Raider Battalion, 27th Marines, 5th Marine Division, in Patrick K. 

O’Donnell, Into the Rising Sun: In Their Own Words, World War II’s Pacific Veterans Reveal the Heart of 

Combat (New York: The Free Press, 2002), 242.

9

Some of these points are listed in Robert Leckie, The Battle for Iwo Jima (New York: Ibooks, 2004, 

originally published in 1967), 9–10.

10Leckie, The Battle for Iwo Jima, 11–12.

11Joseph H. Alexander, Storm Landings: Epic Amphibious Battles in the Central Pacific (Annapolis: 

Naval Institute Press, 1997), 131.

12Horie Yoshitaka, Tokon: Iwoto [Fighting Spirt: Iwo Jima] (Tokyo: Kobunsha, 2003), 114, 117–18. 

These passages can be found in chapter 10 of Eldridge and Tatum, eds., Fighting Spirit.

13Maj Y[oshitaka] Horie, “Explanation of Japanese Defense Plan and Battle of Iwo Jima, January 25, 

1946,” Folder: Exploitation of Japanese Documents, Iwo Jima Papers, Marine Corps History Division. This document appears as appendix II, in Eldridge and Tatum, eds., Fighting Spirit. Some of 

the U.S. planners had an equally bold idea—to use poison gas on Iwo Jima to eliminate the need for 

a forced seizure of the island. Neither Japan nor the United States had signed the Geneva Protocol 

(Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of 

Bacteriological Methods of Warfare), signed in 1925 and going into force in 1928, against the use 

of poison gas, and the United States had some stockpiles of mustard gas in the Pacific theater in 

light of Japan’s alleged use of it in its war on China. Nevertheless, President Franklin D. Roosevelt 

considered poisonous gas a barbarous weapon and, while willing to use it in retribution, did not want 

the United States to be the first to do so. He thus did not support the Joint Chiefs’ studying its use 

on Iwo. For more, see Alexander, Closing In, 48. Moreover, as the battle raged on, a newspaper in 

Washington, DC, called on the president and the military to “Give our Boys a Break—Gas the Japs.” 

Smith, Coral and Brass, 265.

14Alexander, Storm Landings, 126.

15Burrell, Ghosts, 20.

16“Memorandum from Capt William A. Corn, USN, to Navy War Plans Division on the Seizure 

of Chichi Jima, December 19, 1942,” Strategic Plans, Boxes 40 and 153, Record Group 38.2.4, National Archives II, College Park, Maryland.
90

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

17Joint War Planning Committee 91/D, “Seizure of the Bonins,” 13 September 1943, cited in LtCol 

Whitman S. Bartley, USMC, Iwo Jima: Amphibious Epic (Washington, DC: Historical Branch, G-3 

Division, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, 1954), 19; and George W. Garand and Truman R. 

Strobridge, History of U.S. Marine Corps Operations in World War II, vol. 4: Western Pacific Operations 

(Washington, DC: Historical Division, Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps, 1971), 462.

18Joint Staff Planners 312, “Seizure of the Bonins,” 30 October 1943, Microfilm, Records of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, 1941–1945, index heading reel 10, frame 0468, Seizure of the Bonins, JWPC (30 

October 1943), 2.

19Japanese forces had overrun Guam in December 1941.

20Joint War Plans Committee 244, “Immediate Occupation of Iwo Jima,” 24 June 1944, Enclosure 

1–3, Microfilm, Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1941–1945.

21Ibid. Also see Burrell, The Ghosts of Iwo Jima, 27–28.

22Interview with Charles W. Tatum, 6 May 2008, Stockton, California; Charles W. Tatum, Iwo Jima: 

Red Blood Black Sand (Stockton: Chuck Tatum Productions, 2002), 51. Emphasis original.

23Joint Chiefs of Staff 924, “Operations against Japan Subsequent to Formosa,” 30 June 1944, Records of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1941–1945, reel 9, 4.

24“Weekly Staff Meeting of Twentieth Air Force, June 29, 1944,” cited in Haywood S. Hansell Jr., 

Strategic Air War Against Japan (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1980), 107–8.

25Garand and Strobridge, History of U.S. Marine Corps Operations, 463.

26Ibid.

27Joint Chiefs of Staff 924 and “Operations against Japan Subsequent to Formosa,” 11 July 1944, in 

Bartley, Iwo Jima, 20.

28Burrell, The Ghosts of Iwo Jima, 30.

29“Memorandum from Army Air Force for Joint Staff Planners on Fighter Escort for VLR Bombers,” 21 July 1944, cited in Bartley, Iwo Jima, 20.

30Bureau of Yards and Docks, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, “Joint Preliminary Study for 

Advanced Base Layout: Bonin Islands, Chichi Jima, and Haha Jima, August 1944,” Strategic Plans 

Division, Naval Historical Center, cited in Burrell, The Ghosts of Iwo Jima, 31.

31JWPC 91/3, “Plan for the Seizure of the Bonins, Notes from JPS 163d Meeting, August 16, 1944,” 

cited in Bartley, Iwo Jima, 20.

32Nevertheless, MacArthur and his staff in Australia, dissident members of the JCS, Army leadership, and some congressmen and senators were not happy with the decision. Unfortunately, their 

opposition was based less on military or strategic rationale than on the political desire to see MacArthur named as supreme allied commander in the Pacific. Ross, Iwo Jima, 14.

33Bartley, Iwo Jima, 21.

34Makalapa is the name of the area of Hawaii, near Pearl Harbor, where Nimitz’s headquarters 

was located. Today, the headquarters of Pacific Fleet remains there, although the Pacific Command 

headquarters is located just above Makalapa in Aiea Heights at Camp H. M. Smith. Camp Smith is 

named after “Howlin Mad” Smith, who served as commanding general of the expeditionary troops 
91

The War and the Battle of Iwo Jima

for the seizure of Iwo Jima. The author had the pleasure of working there at the colocated headquarters of the United States Marine Corps Forces, Pacific, as a scholar-in-residence in 2004–5 during 

his academic sabbatical.

35Thomas B. Buell, Quiet Warrior: A Biography of Admiral Raymond A. Spruance (Boston: Little, 

Brown, and Company, 1974), 305; and E. B. Potter, Nimitz (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1976), 

322.

36Buell, Quiet Warrior, 305.

37Garand and Strobridge, History of U.S. Marine Corps Operations, 464–65.

38Potter, Nimitz, 322.

39Ross, Iwo Jima, 15.

40Ironically, both men would end up dying before the end of the war. Harmon would later go missing 

in action a week after the Battle of Iwo Jima started, when his plane disappeared in a noncombatrelated flight on 26 February 1945, and Buckner would be killed in action in Okinawa on 18 June 

1945.

41Ross, Iwo Jima, 16.

42Ibid., 3.

43Ibid. For Nimitz’s background, see Edwin P. Hoyt, How They Won the War in the Pacific: Nimitz and 

His Admirals (Guilford, CT: Lyons Press, 2000), 32, and Potter, Nimitz.

44Ross, Iwo Jima, 16.

45Potter, Nimitz, 326.

46Buell, Quiet Warrior, 309.

47Potter, Nimitz, 326.

48Buell, Quiet Warrior, 310.

49Ross, Iwo Jima, 16.

50Potter, Nimitz, 326.

51JCS 713/18, “Future Operations in the Pacific,” 2 October 1944, RJCS, 1941–1945, reel 9, frame 

0514.

52JCS 713/19, “Future Operations in the Pacific,” 3 October 1944, RJCS, 1941–1945, reel 9.

53Nimitz and Spruance, as well as Turner, introduced below, were so close that they are buried together near San Francisco Bay. See Buell, Quiet Warrior, 426, 428.

54Bartley, Iwo Jima, 23.

55Ibid., 24.

56Ibid., 23; and Garand and Strobridge, History of U.S. Marine Corps Operations, 466. For more on 

Turner, see George C. Dyer, The Amphibians Came to Conquer: The Story of Admiral Richard Kelly 

Turner (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1969).

57Garand and Strobridge, History of U.S. Marine Corps Operations, 466.
92

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

58Richard F. Newcomb, Iwo Jima: The Dramatic Account of the Epic Battle That Turned the Tide of World 

War II (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1965), 26–27.

59The Army Air Forces, for whom the island was to be seized, helped soften the island up by bombing it for several weeks ahead of the assault.

60Smith, Coral and Brass, 21, 223, and 243. He had been commissioned a second lieutenant in 1906.

61Alexander, Storm Landings, 15. For more on the development of the amphibious doctrine, see 

Victor H. Krulak, First to Fight: An Inside View of the U.S. Marine Corps (Annapolis: Naval Institute 

Press, 1984), particularly part 2.

62Smith, Coral and Brass, 232.

63Bartley, Iwo Jima, 24.

64Ibid., 24–25. The 4th Division had recently returned to its camp on Maui, and the 5th Division was 

at Camp Tarawa on the big island of Hawaii.

65Alexander, Storm Landings, 128.

66A. A. Vandegrift, Once a Marine: The Memoirs of General A. A. Vandegrift, Commandant of the U.S. 

Marines in World War II (New York: Ballantine Books, 1964), 280.

67Alexander, Storm Landings, 128.

68Robert Sherrod, On to Westward: The Battles of Saipan and Iwo Jima (New York: Duell, Sloan, and 

Pierce, 1945), 259.

69Jeter A. Isely and Philip A. Crowl, The U.S. Marines and Amphibious War: Its Theory, and Its Practice 

in the Pacific (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951), 435.

70Ibid.

71Alexander, Storm Landings, 128.

72Ibid.

73Bartley, Iwo Jima, 25.

74Ibid.

75Ibid.

76The author is grateful to Alice Clark for providing a tour of the former grounds of Camp Tarawa 

and the memorial there during the author’s visit to Parker Ranch in August 2005.

77Alexander, Closing In, 6.

78Ibid.

79Ibid., 7.

80For more on air reconnaissance and its challenges, see Roy M. Stanley, II, To Fool a Glass Eye: Camouflage Versus Photoreconnaissance in World War II (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institute Press, 

1998), and from the sea, especially submarines, see W. J. Holmes, Double-Edged Secrets: U.S. Naval 

Intelligence Operations in the Pacific during World War II (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1979), 

especially 196–98.
93

The War and the Battle of Iwo Jima

81For more on prewar understanding of the Bonins, see Price, “Springboards to Tokyo,” and Hachisuka Masauji, “A Journey to the Bonin Islands,” Bulletin of the Biogeographical Society of Japan, 

no. 1 (1930), 69–80. Also see the reports, begun in 1927 and updated every several years, by the 

Department of Intelligence, Naval War College, “Studies of Strategic Areas: The Guam-Bonin Line 

(Int. 5-35), June 1935,” Folder: “Studies of Strategic Areas: The Guam-Bonin Line (Int. 5-35), June 

1935,” Box 33, Naval War College Instructional Materials, Records of the Strategic Plans Division, 

Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, National Archives II.

82Graff, Strike and Return, 8.

83Ibid., 7–9.

84Ibid., 8.

85Alexander, Closing In, 27.

86Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Navy Department, Civil Affairs Handbook: Izu and Bonin 

Islands OPNAV 50E-9, July 1944.

87For more on the UDTs, including Team 15, which suffered the heaviest losses of any team in the 

Pacific, see Wyatt Blassingame, The Frogmen of World War II (New York: Random House, 1964), 

108–21; and James Douglas O’Dell, The Water is Never Cold: The Origins of the U.S. Navy’s Combat 

Demolition Units, UDTs, and Seals (Washington, DC: Brassey’s, 2000).

88Smith, Coral and Brass, 233.

89Ibid.

90Buell, Quiet Warrior, 315.

91Ibid.

92Burrell, Ghosts, 36.

93Buell, Quiet Warrior, 315.

94Vandegrift, Once a Marine, 281–82. The “something” was a reference to the atomic bomb.

95Ibid., 281.

96Ibid., 282.

97Isely and Crowl, The U.S. Marines and Amphibious War, 441.

98Smith, Coral and Brass, 233–34.

99Dick Camp, Leatherneck Legends: Conversations with the Marine Corps’ Old Breed (St. Paul, MN: 

Zenith Press, 2006), 160.

100Isely and Crowl, The U.S. Marines and Amphibious War, 442.

101Smith, Coral and Brass, 234.

102Ibid.

103Wright, The Battle for Iwo Jima, 28–29. Marine air squadrons operating from the USS Essex (CV 9) 

and Bennington (CV 20) also participated in the attacks. See Robert Sherrod, History of Marine Corps 

Aviation in World War II (Washington, DC: Combat Forces Press, 1952), 343–46.
94

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

104Isely and Crowl, The U.S. Marines and Amphibious War, 448.

105Smith, Coral and Brass, 238. There were four major considerations for the Navy’s rejection of Marine requests: (1) the initial surface bombardment must be simultaneous with the first carrier attack 

upon the Tokyo area by the Fast Carrier Task Force (TF 58) in order to prevent Japan from launching air attacks against U.S. invasion shipping off Iwo; (2) the limitations on the availability of ships 

and difficulty of replenishing ammunition; (3) the Navy’s plan for three days of bombardment would 

accomplish all the desired objectives; and (4) protracted air bombardment might be considered at 

least as effective as one day of additional surface bombardment. See Bartley, Iwo Jima, 40.

106Smith, Coral and Brass, 238.

107Ibid.

108Ibid.

109Ibid., 239.

110Isely and Crowl, The U.S. Marines and Amphibious War, 464.

111Ibid., The U.S. Marines and Amphibious War, 465.

112Buell, Quiet Warrior, 339.

113See points 6 and 14 in “Appendix” to Maj Y[oshitaka] Horie, “Explanation of Japanese Defense 

Plan and Battle of Iwo Jima, January 25, 1946,” Folder: Exploitation of Japanese Documents, Iwo 

Jima Papers, USMC Historical Center.

114Gary M. Toyn, The Quiet Hero: The Untold Medal of Honor Story of George E. Wahlen and the Battle 

for Iwo Jima (Clearfield, UT: American Legacy Media, 2006), 14.

115Yoshida Tsuyuko, ed., Picture Letters from the Commander in Chief (San Francisco: Viz Media, 

2007), 59. This is a translation of Yoshida’s “Gyokusai Soshikikan” no Etegami, first published in 2002 

by Shogakukan in Tokyo.

116Richard Wheeler, Iwo (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1980), 10. Kuribayashi appeared fascinated by the size of New York City’s buildings and that of some American women. In Buffalo, New 

York, a tattooed woman who ran a boarding house he stayed at was “bigger than a sumo wrestler,” he 

recorded. She was also big-hearted, helping him during his time there.

117Ibid.

118“Taidan Senka no Iwo Jima Chinkon Imada Iezu [Dialogue: Ravages of War, Repose of Souls 

Yet Fulfilled], Kaiho: Iwo Jima Kyokai [Bulletin of the Iwo Jima Association], no. 37 (2007), 43.The 

transcribed conversation, which originally appeared in a pamphlet about the release of the movie, 

Letters from Iwo Jima, was conducted between Endo Kiyoshi, president of the Iwo Jima Kyokai, and 

Shindo Yoshitaka, grandson of Kuribayashi. The comment about the general was made by Endo, 

who was a former Imperial Navy lieutenant, and said he had met the general once on Iwo Jima, but 

did not have the chance to speak to him.

119See “Tairikumei Dai 950 Go (Order No. 950), 1944.2.21,” in Boeicho Boei Kenkyusho Senshishitsu, Senshi Sosho Chubu Taiheiyo Rikugun Sakusen, 2: Periryu, Angauru, Iwo Jima [War History 

Series Imperial Army Operations in Central Pacific, 2: Peleliu, Angaur, and Iwo Jima] (Tokyo: 

Asagumo Shinbunsha, 1967), 261.

120Ogasawarason Kyoiku Iinkai, ed., Ogasawarason Senseki Chosa Hokokusho [Report of War Rem-
95

The War and the Battle of Iwo Jima

nants in Ogasawara Village] (Ogasawarason: Ogasawarason Kyoiku Iinkai, 2002), 12–15; Joseph H. 

Alexander, “The Americans Will Surely Come,” Naval History, January/February 1995, 13.

121Takeichi, Iwoto, 37.

122Boeicho Boei Kenkyusho Senshi Shiryoshitsu, Senshi Gyosho Chubu Taiheiyo Rikugun Sakusen, 2, 

266–67.

123Takeichi, Iwoto, 38.

124Ogasawarason Kyoiku Iinkai, ed., Ogasawarason Senseki Chosa Hokokusho, 14.

125Ibid., 12–13.

126The dates for Kuribayashi’s appointment vary, but the Emperor’s instruction seems to be the 27th. 

See “Attsu Shima no Yoni Yatte Kure,” Kuribayashi Tadamichi: Iwo Jima no Tatakai [Kuribayashi 

Tadamichi and the Struggle on Iwo Jima] (Tokyo: Takarajimasha, 2006), 22. Another article in the 

same volume inconsistently says the date was 22 May. See Kami Hiroyuki, “Iwo Jima Sentoshi” [A 

History of the Battle of Iwo Jima], ibid., 54. His biographer uses the 27th. See Kakehashi Kumiko, 

Chiruzo Kanashiki: Iwo Jima So Shikikan Kuribayashi Tadamichi [Fallen and Sad: The Commanding 

General of Iwo Jima, Kuribayashi Tadamichi] (Tokyo: Shinchosha, 2005), 27.

127Leckie, The Battle for Iwo Jima, 11.

128Wright, The Battle for Iwo Jima 1945, 37. Another rumor, unsubstantiated, was that Tojo sent the 

generals he did not like or those he thought close to the United States to commands destined to be 

annihilated. See “Attsu Shima no Yoni Yatte Kure,” 22.

129Leckie, The Battle for Iwo Jima, 11.

130Takeichi, Iwoto, 42. Ogasawara Senyukai (p. 35) wrote the date as 10 June, but most accounts 

have the 8th. U.S. intelligence had apparently picked up information that the commanding general 

was going to arrive in the area in late June. Had the United States had actionable intelligence, it is 

possible that an ambush, like the one done against Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku, might have been 

carried out.

131Takeichi, Iwoto, 42.

132Nakamura Eiju, ed., Iwoto: Mura ha Kieta Senzen no Rekishi o Tadoru [Iwoto, the Village that Disappeared: Examining the Prewar History] (Tokyo: Iwoto Senzenshi Kankokai, 1983), 134.

133Graff, Strike and Return, 11.

134Saburo Sakai, Samurai! Flying the Zero in WW II with Japan’s Fighter Ace (New York: Ballantine 

Books, 1957), 198.

135Sakai, Samurai!, 199.

136Ibid., 200.

137Ibid., 201.

138Ibid., 198.

139Ogasawarason Kyoiku Iinkai, ed., Ogasawarason Senseki Chosa Hokokusho, 19.

140Iwo Jima had a prewar population of approximately 1,164, and Kita Iwo Jima of about 450.
96

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

141Nakamura, Iwoto, 134.

142Ogasawarason Kyoiku Iinkai, ed., Ogasawarason Senseki Chosa Hokokusho, 19.

143For more on their story, see Nakamura, Iwoto, and Ogasawara Shoto Kyosei Sokai Kara 50 Nen 

Kirokushi Henkansan Iinkai, ed., Ogasawara Shoto: Kyosei Sokai Kara 50 Nen Kirokushi [A History of 

the Forced Evacuation from the Ogasawara Islands, 50 Years Later] (Ogasawara Village: Ogasawara 

Shoto Kyosei Sokai Kara 50 Nen no Tsudoie Jikko Iinkai, 1995), particularly 199–223.

144Nakamura, Iwoto, 134.

145Yoshida, Picture Letters from the Commander in Chief.

146Smith, Coral and Brass, 246. According to Smith, rations for about 1,500 civilians had been prepared, but the Americans subsequently learned that almost all had already been evacuated.

147Sakai, Samurai!, 235–36.

148For more on the water situation, see Jack Vincent, “Water on Iwo,” Marine Corps Gazette, vol. 29, 

no. 10 (October 1945): 52.

149Wright, The Battle for Iwo Jima 1945, 39.

150Ibid., 41.

151Ibid.

152Smith, Coral and Brass, 245.

153Ibid., 246.

154Wright, The Battle for Iwo Jima 1945, 39.

155Takeichi, Iwoto, 43.

156Ibid., 45.

157Horie, “Explanation of Japanese Defense Plan and Battle of Iwo Jima.”

158Sakai discusses the engagement in great detail in Samurai!, 202–12.

159Ibid., 212–18.

160Ibid., 235.

161Ibid., 236.

162Takeichi, Iwoto, 46.

163Horie, “Explanation of Japanese Defense Plan and Battle of Iwo Jima.”

164Takeichi, Iwoto, 45.

165Ibid., 54–55.

166For more on the Cobia, see the website of the Wisconsin Maritime Museum, where the Cobia is 

on display, http://www.wisconsinmaritime.org/sub.htm.

167Discouraged, Nishi, who was already in Chichi, did go back to the mainland to request more 

tanks, 22 of which he did receive by the end of August. These were subsequently buried. See Take-
97

The War and the Battle of Iwo Jima

ichi, Iwoto, 55; and Jerome T. Hagen, War in the Pacific, vol. 2: People and Places (Honolulu: Hawaii 

Pacific University, 2002), 272.

168Sakai, Samurai!, 236.

169Takeichi, Iwoto, 56.

170Hagen, War in the Pacific, 273.

171The agreement, signed on 27 August, is introduced in Takeichi, Iwoto, 62–63.

172Takeichi, Iwoto, 57–58, and Horie, “Explanation of Japanese Defense Plan and Battle of Iwo 

Jima.”

173Takeichi, Iwoto, 60.

174Ibid., 62.

175Horie, “Explanation of Japanese Defense Plan and Battle of Iwo Jima,” 6.

176Takeichi, Iwoto, 70.

177Cited in Alexander, “The Americans Will Surely Come,” 14.

178Alexander, Storm Landings, 132.

179Kakehashi Kumiko, So Sad to Fall in Battle: An Account of War (New York: Ballantine Books, 2007), 

44–45.

180For more on Japanese fortifications, see Gordon L. Rottman, Japanese Pacific Island Defenses, 

1941–1945 (Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2003).

181Wright, The Battle for Iwo Jima 1945, 5.

182Ibid., 7.

183Ibid., 6.

184Alexander, Closing In, 23.

185Ibid., 23.

186Alexander, Closing In, 31, citing Wheeler.

187Leckie, The Battle for Iwo Jima, 11.

188Ibid., 15.

189Wright, The Battle for Iwo Jima 1945, 4.

190Leckie, The Battle for Iwo Jima, 12–13.

191Wright, The Battle for Iwo Jima 1945, 37.

192Ibid., 4.

193Leckie, The Battle for Iwo Jima, 13.

194Wright, The Battle for Iwo Jima 1945, 35.

195LtGen Harry Schmidt, U.S. Marine Corps, Commanding General, V Amphibious Corps Land-
98

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

ing Force, Iwo Jima, “Iwo Jima (undated),” Iwo Jima collection, Reference Branch, USMC History 

Division. At the time of the battle, Schmidt was a major general.

196Wright, The Battle for Iwo Jima 1945, 45.

197Ibid.

198Raymond Henri, et al., The U.S. Marines on Iwo Jima: By Five Official Marine Combat Writers

(Washington, DC: The Infantry Journal, 1945), 308.

199U.S. Navy official in Japan to author about a visit to Iwo Jima, e-mail correspondence, 17 March 

2003.

200Ross, Iwo Jima, 41.

201Camp, Leatherneck Legends, 161, citing Howard M. Conner.

202Ross, Iwo Jima, 42.

203Shively, The Last Lieutenant, 55.

204Interview with PFC Fred Schribert, 60mm mortarman, Company L, 3d Battalion, 25th Marines, 

4th Marine Division, cited in Lynn Kessler, ed., Never in Doubt: Remembering Iwo Jima (Annapolis: 

Naval Institute Press, 1999), 39.

205Ibid., 39–40.

206James S. Vedder, Surgeon on Iwo: Up Front with the 27th Marines (Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 

1984), 15.

207Newcomb, Iwo Jima, 93.

208Camp, Leatherneck Legends, 162.

209Henri, et al., The U.S. Marines on Iwo Jima, 37.

210Tatum, Iwo Jima, 143.

211Smith, Coral and Brass, 245.

212Patrick F. Caruso, Nightmare on Iwo (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2001), 110–13.

213Hagen, War in the Pacific, II, 279.

214Ibid., and Richard Wheeler, The Bloody Battle for Suribachi (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 

1994), 23.

215Hagen, War in the Pacific, II, 279.

216Ibid.

217Cited in Alexander, Closing In, 19.

218Hagen, War in the Pacific, II, 282.

219Cited in Alexander, Closing In, 28.

220Wright, The Battle for Iwo Jima 1945, 58.

221Richard E. Overton, God Isn’t Here: A Young American’s Entry Into World War II and His Participation in the Battle for Iwo Jima (Clearfield, UT: American Legacy Media, 2004), 158–59.
99

The War and the Battle of Iwo Jima

222Overton, God Isn’t Here, 159.

223Wheeler, The Bloody Battle for Suribachi, 109.

224Wright, The Battle for Iwo Jima 1945, 66.

225Tatum, Iwo Jima, viii.

226Ibid.

227Ibid., 80, citing Sherrod.

228Ross, Iwo Jima, 81. Roosevelt had a connection with the Marines on Iwo Jima—he had personally witnessed a major amphibious landing exercise at Marine Base Camp Pendleton, California, 

conducted by the 5th Marines. See Fred Haynes and James A. Warren, The Lions of Iwo Jima: The 

Story of Combat Team 28 and the Bloodiest Battle in Marine Corps History (New York: Henry Holt and 

Co., 2008), 31–32.

229Alexander, Closing In, 52.

230Leckie, Strong Men Armed, 450.

231Hagen, War in the Pacific, II, 285.

232Overton, God Isn’t Here, 26–27.

233Ibid., 188.

234Ibid.

235Raymond Lamont-Brown, Kamikaze: Japan’s Suicide Samurai (London: Rigel Publications, 1997), 

86–92. Japan’s submarines, however, were less successful and basically prevented by American antisubmarine warfare from participating in the fight. See Carl Boyd and Akihiko Yoshida, The Japanese 

Submarine Force and World War II (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1995), 171–72.

236Alexander, Closing In, 27.

237Toyn, The Quiet Hero, 111.

238Walter Millis, ed., The Forrestal Diaries (New York: Viking Press, 1951), 29.

239Ibid.

240Ross, Iwo Jima, 99.

241Alexander, Closing In, 27.

242Smith, Coral and Brass, 242–43.

243Ibid., 243.

244Ibid., 242.

245Robert Leckie, Strong Men Armed: The United States Marines vs. Japan (New York: De Capo Press, 

1997), 448.

246Ibid.

247Camp, Leatherneck Legends, 167.
100

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

248Ibid.

249Ross, Iwo Jima, 270.

250Wright, The Battle for Iwo Jima 1945, 6.

251Leckie, Strong Men Armed, 460.

252Senda is believed to have committed suicide or died in an unsuccessful charge. One unverified 

account says his remains were found in 1983.

253Leckie, Strong Men Armed, 461.

254Frank O. Hough, The Island War: The United States Marines in the Pacific (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1947), 354–55.

255Leckie, Strong Men Armed, 460.

256Ibid.

257William Bradford Huie, From Omaha to Okinawa: The Story of the Seabees (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1999), 35–36.

258Ibid., 59–60.

259Ibid., 59.

260Ibid., 61.

261The 26th of February was the same day that the first raid by carrier aircraft and fights from Iwo 

(approximately 1,200 planes in total) took place. See Akira Yoshimura, Zero Fighter (Westport, CT: 

Praeger, 1996), 195.

262Lynn Kessler, ed., Never in Doubt: Remembering Iwo Jima (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 

1999), 32.

263Alexander, Closing In, 34.

264Leckie, Strong Men Armed, 456.

265Wright, The Battle for Iwo Jima 1945, 24. MacArthur, who was made supreme commander for the 

Allied Powers for the occupation of Japan, did not invite Smith to the surrender ceremony aboard 

the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay on 2 September. Characteristically, Smith was less worried about the 

personal slight than the affront it caused to the Marines who had done so much to change the tide 

of war against Japan in the central Pacific. The Army also reportedly was bitter about Smith’s having 

relieved two of its generals of command for their “lack of aggressiveness” and thus certainly was not 

saddened by the attacks on Marine Gen Smith.

266Indeed, perhaps the criticism was off the mark if the Navy had done the proper bombing.

267Wright, The Battle for Iwo Jima 1945, 203.

268Ibid., 25.

269Ibid., 202.

270Nimitz was busy with a planning session for the attack on Okinawa (Operation Iceberg) and could 

not be there but eventually visited Iwo on 23 March. See Hoyt, Nimitz and His Admirals, 474.
101

The War and the Battle of Iwo Jima

271Ross, Iwo Jima, 322.

272Ibid., 323.

273For the holdouts who finally surrendered in January 1949, see chapter 7.

274Wright, The Battle for Iwo Jima 1945, 205.

275Ibid., 205.

276Ross, Iwo Jima, 328.

277William L. Chaze, “Iwo Jima After 40 Years: Still Teaching Lessons,” U.S. News and World Report, 25 February 1985, 41. Leckie, Strong Men Armed, 432–3. According to Ross, Navy interpreters 

monitoring the transmission were touched by the voices of the boys and girls singing. Ross, Iwo 

Jima, 328.

278Kakehashi, So Sad to Fall in Battle, xviii–xix. According to Kakehashi, there are several discrepancies in what was actually printed in the press.

279Horie, Tokon, 157. This appears in chapter 13 of Eldridge and Tatum, eds., Fighting Spirit.

280Yoshitaka Horie, “The Last Days of General Kuribayashi,” Marine Corps Gazette, February 

1955, 43.

281Ibid.

282Ibid., 40.

283Wright, The Battle for Iwo Jima 1945, 208.

284Interview with PFC William C. Doran, communications, 2d Battalion, 25th Marines, 4th Marine 

Division, cited in Kessler, ed., Never in Doubt, 173–74.

285Overton, God Isn’t Here, 276.

286Ibid., 276.

287See the book by the similar title: John W. Dower, War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific 

War (New York: Pantheon Books, 1986).

288Overton, God Isn’t Here, 275.

289Interviews appearing in DVD documentary, Iwo Jima: Red Blood, Black Sand (Stockton: Chuck 

Tatum Productions).

290Interview with Frank Caldwell, 1st Parachute Battalion, 26th Marines, 5th Marine Division, in 

O’Donnell, Into the Rising Sun, 251.

291Vedder, Surgeon on Iwo, 134.

292Overton, God Isn’t Here, 244–55.

293Interview with PFC William A. Bain, machine gunner, Company B, 1st Battalion, 9th Marines, 

3d Marine Division, cited in Kessler, Never in Doubt, 28.

294Caruso, Nightmare on Iwo, 116.

295Ibid., 116–17.
102

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

296Vedder, Surgeon on Iwo, 191.

297Ibid.

298Caruso, Nightmare on Iwo, 82–83.

299Huie, From Omaha, 63.

300Ibid., 63.

301Ibid., 62. For the story of one B-29 pilot who had to land on Iwo Jima, see Robert Morgan, The 

Man Who Flew the Memphis Belle (New York: New American Library, 2002), especially 320.

302Huie, From Omaha, 59.

303Wright, The Battle for Iwo Jima 1945, 189.

304“American Casualties Resulting from the Iwo Jima Campaign,” Folder: World War II, Iwo Jima: 

miscellaneous, Iwo Jima Papers, USMC Records Office, Quantico, VA.

305Author’s interview with Endo Kiyoshi, president of the Iwo Jima Association, Yokosuka, Japan, 

18 July 2007.

306Ibid.

307Wright, The Battle for Iwo Jima 1945, 112.

308Ibid.

309Ibid.

310Jack H. Lucas, Indestructible: The Unforgettable Story of a Marine Hero at the Battle of Iwo Jima

(New York: De Capo Press, 2006), 105–6.

311Henri, et al., The U.S. Marines on Iwo Jima, 311–12 (emphasis added).

312Interview with Robert “Moose” Maiden, 4th Parachute Battalion, 26th Marines, 5th Marine Division, in O’Donnell, Into the Rising Sun, 255.

313The remains of Marines who had been buried on Iwo Jima during the battle were returned between 1948 and 1951 to the United States and the cemeteries on Iwo Jima closed. The marker of at 

least one cemetery remains.

314R. R. Keene, “Medals of Honor, Iwo Jima,” Leatherneck, vol. 78, no. 2 (February 1995): 56. For the 

account of the youngest Medal of Honor recipient, a boy who had turned 17 five days before the 

Battle of Iwo Jima began, see Lucas, Indestructible.

315William L. Chaze, “Iwo Jima after 40 Years: Still Teaching Lessons,” U.S. News and World Report, 

25 February 1985, 41.

316Lucas, Indestructible, 135.
103

Chapter 3

The Bonin Islands During the War

I accept these swords in the name of the United States of America. The raising 

of the American flag and surrender of all officers’ swords signifies the actual 

termination of Japanese rule over all islands of the Ogasawara group . . . We shall 

demilitarize these islands for all time. We shall destroy all evidence of war. I hope 

these islands will be rebuilt into a peaceful land.1

—Colonel Presley M. Rixey, USMC, commanding officer of the occupation forces for

the Bonin Islands, December 1945

While Iwo Jima would be remembered—actually, revered—as a place of honor for the 

heroism displayed by both sides as well as the ferociousness of the battle, the Bonin Islands 

in the latter days of the war would go down in history as the site of some of the most sadistic behavior by the leadership of its defending forces, leading to war crimes trials in Guam 

after the war.

“The worst atrocities in the Pacific, even cannibalism, were committed on Chichi,” one 

islander who assisted in the investigation and trials and who would eventually emigrate to 

Guam, Frederick Savory, told interviewers in 1971.2

 The tragic fate of downed flyers was 

first widely reported in September 1946 by Time magazine in an article appropriately titled 

“Unthinkable Crime,” and in the local press, the Guam News, where the trials were being 

held.3 The Time story did not hold back on the shocking details, although the names of 

the captured flyers were not reported. Nevertheless, word got back to the families of missing flyers and their mothers began writing to President Harry S. Truman about the fates 

of their sons.4

 The administration decided to ban all stories that spoke of cannibalism. In 

addition, those attending the trials were forced to abide by a gag order put in place.5 Over 

the following decades, the families of the pilots said to be “missing in action” traveled to 

Washington and wrote letters, but they were never told the truth.6

 Robert Sherrod, in a 

section of his History of Marine Corps Aviation in World War II entitled “A Study of Depravity,” wrote of it without revealing the names of the U.S. pilots.7

 Anthropologist Mary 

Shepardson also discusses it in her chapter in The Anthropology of Power,

8

 but no names 

were reported. At least one other American scholar actually knew the names of the flyers 

based on his research but chose not to disclose them in his book published in 1991 out of 

consideration for the families.9

By this point, shortly after the return of the Bonin Islands in 1968, Japanese veterans 

had already begun to discuss what happened on the islands and recorded their recollections 

about their time there and what happened to the flyers.10 A decade later in 1979, Teraki 

Tadashi, a battalion surgeon who had been involved in dissecting some of the executed 

flyers published his memoirs about this crime, probably to clear his conscience.11 Horie 

Yoshitaka, then a major serving first under Lieutenant General Kuribayashi Tadamichi and 
104

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

then Lieutenant General Tachibana Yoshio, who helped write the 1969 book, subsequently 

wrote an article in 1984 specifically about the cannibalism incident drawing on Teraki’s account and his own experiences.12 In the early 1990s, the respected historian Hata Ikuhiko 

also addressed the issue in a series on the Showa Era (1925–89) in a Japanese journal, 

Seiron.

13 More recently, an article in Bungei Shunju by a biographer of Kuribayashi Tadamichi has helped to further remind Japanese audiences of the actions of its forces in the last 

year of the war.14

Fortunately, the story of what happened on the islands was not lost to censorship or 

age on the U.S. side. Thanks largely to an unpublished manuscript, Japanese Camouflage, by 

Colonel Presley M. Rixey, a career Marine born in Yokohama, Japan, in 1904, who served as 

head of the occupation forces in the Bonin Islands and worked to reveal the truth about the 

captured flyers, many researchers would not have known about what had happened to those 

men.15 Along with the declassification of the transcripts and other records of the Guam 

War Crimes Commission, it finally became possible to recreate the story of the tragedy on 

the Bonins.16

In 2003, the sad story of the pilots and their crews finally came to be revealed in the 

United States to a general audience through the publication of two works. The first was a 

national bestseller—Flyboys: A True Story of Courage by James Bradley, author of Flags of 

Our Fathers. The second was by military historian Chester Hearn titled Sorties into Hell. 

President George H. W. Bush (who narrowly escaped being captured by Japanese forces on 

Chichi Jima when his TBM Avenger was shot down) endorsed it as being on “my list of 

must-read books.”17

However, in the Japanese and U.S. accounts, both sides seem to be unaware of the existence of the writings on the same period and events “by the other side” and thus there 

appears to be numerous gaps in the literature.18

The Military Role of the Bonin Islands

and Their Fortification

The Bonin Islands, rugged, hilly, and heavily fortified, might have escaped the war if not 

for their supporting role of operations in the central Pacific, including Iwo, with their navy 

base and harbor at Futami Bay and small airfield at Susaki, and the existence of numerous naval monitoring systems that picked up U.S. communications and endangered U.S. 

operations in the area. Chichi Jima’s naval communications stations on Mount Yoake and 

nearby Mount Asahi were the critical link between Imperial Headquarters in Tokyo and 

Japanese forces in the central Pacific. The powerful short- and long-wave receivers had to be 

destroyed or else U.S. military activities in the area, including the flights of B-29 bombers 

to the mainland, could be monitored and Tokyo forewarned of attacks. With advance warning, defenses in Tokyo would be manned and the ensuing antiaircraft fire and aerial attacks 

by interceptors sent up to meet them much more effective. The result was an increase in 

damaged or downed American planes and the wear and tear on material, men, and morale 

of the American airmen. The radio facilities were so important, according to a member of 

the Tokyo air defense command, that “antiaircraft gunners were transferred from the Aka-
105

saka Palace of Emperor Hirohito” to Chichi Jima to defend them.19 As early as November 

1941, Navy code breakers at Pearl Harbor had begun to receive messages from the Chichi 

Jima communication stations, but it was not until mid-1944 that the United States was 

able to locate the radio towers through reconnaissance photos.20 By this point, the U.S. 

Navy had already given Chichi Jima a code name—“Visionary.”21

The Bonin Islands, being 150 miles closer to the mainland than Iwo, also served as an 

important transshipment point for men and material destined for the strategically critical 

islands. Haha Jima, between Chichi Jima and Iwo Jima, in turn, performed a similar function. Interdicting these activities would leave Kuribayashi’s forces less well-supplied and 

thus more vulnerable. Similarly, a small airfield begun in November 1932 (nominally for 

agricultural purposes) and completed on 1 June 1937, across the bay in Susaki would also 

need to be disrupted or U.S. forces would be susceptible to reconnaissance and harassment 

by Japanese planes.22

It does not appear, however, that the United States had any intention to actually invade 

or take Chichi Jima or Haha Jima, although an assault on the islands had been considered 

at one point since they were the next in the road to Tokyo after Iwo. It is probably good 

that they were not assaulted by sea as the fight would have been extremely bloody and long 

with guerrilla activities extending for months or even years. Iwo Jima had approximately 

21,000 defenders for its fairly flat surface on an area of eight square miles. Chichi Jima, 

on the other hand, had as many as 25,000 men stationed there, with rugged, mountainous 

terrain and very little flat land. Every feasible approachable beach was heavily defended by 

machine guns and other weapons.23 As the island’s beaches and bays curve inward, most of 

the fortifications faced inward as well and could only be seen once boats and other landing craft entered the kill zone. By then, it would have been too late, particularly with all 

of the anticipated crossfire. U.S. forces would be drawn in and then slaughtered, with little 

ability to reinforce them. High terrain (Mount Mikaeri) on neighboring Ani Jima, to the 

north, for example, would have allowed Japanese forces to wreak havoc on American forces 

gathered in Futami Bay like sitting ducks. “Iwo was hell,” one veteran told Bradley, “[but] 

Chichi would have been impossible.”24 It may not have been impossible, but it certainly 

would have been difficult, costly, and bloody with as many or more casualties as there were 

on Iwo Jima.

The Americans had intelligence about the islands through reconnaissance missions and 

other materials, but most of the fortifications were so well integrated into the landscape 

that many were found only after stumbling upon them after the war. While much of the 

build-up was done in the last year or so of the war after the central Pacific became endangered, the restrictions on visiting the islands after 1937 created gaps in U.S. understanding 

of the extent of the fortifications.

The military build-up of the Bonin Islands began in the early 1900s after the RussoJapanese War when Vice Admiral Shimamura Sokuo’s 2d Fleet was sent to investigate Chichi Jima’s geography and suitability for construction in 1909.25 The following year, the same 

fleet was sent to further investigate the capacities of Futami Bay and the ability to protect 

it against attack. With the start of World War I in July 1914, Japan, allied to Britain since 

1902, joined the war in August on the side of the Allied powers against Germany in AuThe Bonin Islands During the War
106

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

gust. The following month, the Imperial Japanese Navy established the Chichi Jima North 

Watchtower and began communications operations in November. In December 1917, the 

navy built a coaling station and, in June the following year, a wireless radio station was 

constructed to facilitate communications. The watchtower was the first military facility in 

the Bonin Islands.26

The new naval base was increasingly becoming an important interim base and, as a result, 

the decision was made in December 1919 to have the Imperial Japanese Army build a base 

there to protect the naval facility. In August 1920, the army established a detached office led 

by Major Monda Chokoe, an army engineer, to build the army’s fortifications. In October, 

his office began buying up land from the residents. As construction of the fortifications was 

a military secret, Kempeitai (military police corps) officials were sent to the island, with an 

Ogasawara Kempei branch office established under the command of the Tokyo Kempeitai 

Kojimachi Detachment.27 In order to preserve these military secrets, certain activities, such 

as photography, near military facilities in Chichi Jima and Haha Jima were banned beginning in March 1921.28 As war became imminent in December 1940, the respective limits 

were trebled for the different types of existing perimeters and bans.

Construction on the fortifications began in June 1921 with the No. 1 and No. 2 Coastal 

Artillery Battery in Omura begun in July and No. 3 and No. 4 in December. In February 

1922, Japan signed the five-power Washington Treaty (Conference on the Limitation of 

Armament), along with the United States, Great Britain, Italy, and France. As a result of the 

treaty’s Article 19, which called for the maintenance of the status quo of territories and possessions in the Pacific, construction on the fortifications temporarily stopped.29 In the latter 

part of the 1920s, however, as tensions increased with China, military officials responsible 

for the Bonins visited the islands and discussed how to fortify them without violating the 

treaty. In February 1928, about six months after Emperor Hirohito visited the islands, the 

navy built fuel facilities in Futami Bay for its ships as a fueling point. In the meantime, the 

army continued to develop its fortifications under the guise of “repair and replacement.”

In 1932, construction began on Susaki Airfield, designated as “Tokyo Metropolitan 

Agricultural Experimentation Site No. 1.” Site No. 2 was the airfield on Iwo Jima, with 

construction begun the following year.

In December 1936, the Washington Treaty of 1922 expired, removing restrictions on 

fortifying possessions in the Pacific. The navy built an airfield on Minami Tori Shima, 

expanded its runways on Iwo Jima, and completed the construction on the 500-meter 

(1,640-foot) Susaki Airfield, which required filling in part of the bay between Chichi Jima 

and an outer island. In April 1939, the Chichi Jima Naval Air Wing was created and placed 

in charge of the airfield. Prior to this in June 1937, the communications facilities were expanded on top of Yoake and Asahi, and sometime later a few of the buildings next to them 

were labeled as schools. A school gate and statue of Ninomiya Sontoku, a peasant boy who 

studied while he labored and a symbol of the importance of working hard in Japan, was 

placed in front to throw off reconnaissance planes and bombers.30

In the meantime, the army continued developing its fortifications and, as part of this expansion, increased restrictions were placed on photography and other activities. To handle 
107

these restrictions, as well as to deal with the increase in forces into the islands, the kempeitai presence was also expanded. Moreover, photography on Ani Jima, on which numerous weapons were being placed, was also banned.

Japan was clearly bracing itself for war as 1941 approached. Construction and expansion 

of facilities continued throughout the early 1940s and picked up again after the advances 

made by the United States in the Pacific in mid-1944. In early 1944, the army decided 

to increase its forces in Chichi Jima, Haha Jima, and Ani Jima and dispatched several 

groups in February and March. To prepare for the defense of the middle Pacific, the army 

established the 31st Army (under the command of Lieutenant General Obata Hideo) and 

placed the Ogasawara Garrison Force (Ogasawara Heidan), led by Major General Osuga 

Koto, under it. The 31st Army, in turn, was placed under the Japanese Navy’s Central Pacific 

Fleet’s command, led by Vice Admiral Minamikumo Tadaichi.

In May 1944, the army formed the 109th Division comprised of two combined brigades 

and numerous supporting units, which would be responsible for the defenses of the Bonin 

Islands, including Iwo Jima. As explained in the previous chapter, Kuribayashi was chosen 

to head this division and decided to locate its headquarters where the main fighting would 

be—Iwo Jima. A detached headquarters, led by Major Horie Yoshitaka, was maintained 

on Chichi Jima for communication, intelligence, logistics, and other purposes. According 

to Horie, Kuribayashi did not think Tachibana was a capable commander (and might have 

had other reservations about him), and thus appointed Horie to represent him on the island 

and order the appropriate directives under his name to the army and navy.31

In the Bonins themselves, the Ogasawara Garrison Force was formed on 26 June. Its 

exact number is unclear, but there were more 13,355 army troops repatriated from Chichi 

Jima at the end of the war.32 Additionally, 7,659 navy personnel were repatriated for a total 

of 21,014 of which 756 were conscripted workers. In the late fall, the garrison force began 

gearing themselves for a land battle, and that anxiety grew as Iwo Jima was assaulted and 

finally taken. One of the defenders, Major Horie, assumed that Chichi Jima (or Haha Jima) 

would be invaded the same time as Iwo.33 The Japanese did not know U.S. military leaders 

had already made the decision not to take Chichi Jima and instead try to neutralize and 

isolate it.

Chichi Jima and the surrounding islands were divided into several zones. The 304th 

Regiment was located on Ani Jima, immediately to the north of Chichi Jima across the Ani 

Jima Strait. The 308th was placed in the northwestern most part of Chichi Jima, and the 

305th in the southeastern-most area. The 306th was located directly north of the 305th, 

and the 307th was found immediately to their left, responsible for the southwestern area of 

Chichi Jima. The navy was responsible for the central areas, where most of the naval facilities such as the harbor and communication towers were found.34

At Haha Jima, after the start of construction of antiaircraft artillery on Furiwakeyama 

and Kiyose Ridge on Chichi Jima in May 1941, the Imperial Navy began work in June 

on coastal batteries to defend Oki Port at Shizusawa.35 In March the following year, four 

British manufactured Armstrong guns were sent there. At the same time, barracks, an ammunition storage area, and electric power station were constructed.36 In the words of one 

The Bonin Islands During the War
108

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

researcher, “this is when the real build-up of Haha Jima had begun.”37 In the meantime, the 

island’s Oki Port had been the rendezvous point in late November 1941 for ships destined 

to go to Guam for the attack on the American-controlled territory. The men of the army’s 

144th Infantry Regiment (based at Kochi Prefecture) and the navy’s 5th Basic Force (located 

in Saipan) practiced amphibious landings in and around Haha Jima prior to departing on 

4 December for the Guam strike scheduled on the 8th.38

Intelligence about the fortifications had been gathered, but it was not as detailed as was 

hoped. After the war and the surrender ceremony, when the Marines had the chance to 

inspect the fortifications, they were amazed. Colonel Rixey, who headed the initial occupation force and had seen the defenses at Tarawa and Iwo Jima firsthand, wrote,

Nothing previously seen can compare with the coast and artillery defenses surrounding Chichi harbor. Concrete emplacements high in the mountains with steel 

door openings are too numerous to count. Artillery and machine gun fire which 

could have been placed on the airfield would have prevented any . . . attempt at 

landing there. With camouflage as practiced by the Japanese in place, [naval gunfire] spotters would have had a very difficult time locating these cleverly placed positions. . . . The emplacements have to be seen to be appreciated. The Jap plan was to 

permit an entrance into the harbor or onto the airfield, then to give us the “works.” 

Most of these positions are inaccessible and many could not have been reached by 

[naval gunfire] as they are situated on narrow slopes facing east.39

Rixey’s account was echoed by another Marine who served in the occupation force. 

Describing the island’s fortification as “an impenetrable defense system,” he flatly states 

that “no amphibious landing assault could survive the fire from that armament. This was a 

bypassed island, thank God. There wasn’t a better one to skip.”40

The above accounts and others differ from that of Admiral Radford who, in his posthumously published memoirs, noted that Chichi Jima had been “fortified to ward off an invading fleet . . . Little emphasis had been laid on air defense. Once again, Japanese strategy was 

in error. As U.S. air strikes began to hit the islands, attention was directed toward meeting 

this threat, without much success.”41 In reality, several of the radio towers remained standing, and hardly a dent was made in the fortifications by the air campaign. Not only would 

Rixey and the others likely disagree with Radford’s description, but so probably would the 

downed pilots and their crews if they were still alive to speak about it.

The Air Campaign and the Tragedy of the Downed Flyers

Despite being on different and sometimes distant islands, the battlefields of the Pacific 

were very much interconnected and mutually supportive. Iwo Jima, for example, first became a target not in and of itself but because of the nearby invasion of Saipan, scheduled 

for 15 June 1944. Saipan was, as one history of air power in the Pacific War describes, the 

“impetus for the U.S. Navy to finally hammer Iwo Jima for the first time.”42 In the same 

way, it was also the driving force to hit Chichi Jima as well. Similarly, as Iwo Jima was invaded the following year, the airfield and radio towers on Chichi Jima also were attacked in 

an attempt to limit the ability of Japan to harass the operations.
109

The first of the bombing runs by Navy and Marine pilots against Chichi Jima took place 

on 15 June 1944, the same day that Operation Forager, the amphibious assault on Saipan, 

began.43 The attacks had been ordered by Admiral Raymond A. Spruance, who directed two 

carrier units under Vice Admiral Marc A. Mitscher be used for an independent operation 

against Iwo Jima, Chichi Jima, and Haha Jima. The units included Rear Admiral Joseph J. 

“Jocko” Clark’s Task Group 58.1, comprised of the USS Hornet (CV 12), Yorktown (CV 10), 

Belleau Wood (CVL 24), and Bataan (CVL 29), and Rear Admiral William K. Harrill’s Task 

Group 58.4, which included the USS Essex (CV 9), Langley (CVL 27), and Cowpens (CVL 

25). Initially the attacks were scheduled for a one-day hit on 16 June, but Clark and Harrill 

believed that would not be enough and started it a day early on 15 June.44

In this strike, no Japanese aircraft were encountered in the sky and most of those that 

were on the ground were destroyed. The fortress headquarters (Yosai Shireibu) in the hills 

above Futami Bay was seriously damaged and heavily burned as were several seaplanes.45

In addition to the military damage, the police station and elementary school were burned 

and 14 civilians killed.46 Due to the punchbowl shape of the bay and the horrific crossfire, 

at least four Navy planes were shot down during the raid. Two flyers, Lieutenant (junior 

grade) Calvin D. Terry and Petty Officer Oscar Long Doyle, bailed out safely and were 

captured.47 Being the first American airmen captured on Chichi Jima, the kempeitai were 

initially unsure what to do with them. After being incarcerated at Omura Radio Station, 

the captives were sent to Yokosuka Naval Base a few days later.48

Rear Admirals Clark and Harrill had scheduled a second day of strikes the following day, but the weather prevented itand, due to the tight timeline given by Mitscher, 

they were unable to return at this point. They instead concentrated on hitting Iwo Jima’s 

Chidori Airfield, an attack that allowed the 54 Grumman F6F Hellcats to destroy the 63 

Japanese planes on the ground.49 After rejoining Mitscher’s Task Force 58 to participate in 

the so-called “Marianas Turkey Shoot,” which essentially destroyed Vice Admiral Ozawa 

Jisaburo’s battle fleet of 5 heavy carriers, 4 light carriers, 5 battleships, 13 cruisers, and 28 

destroyers, Clark brought his group northward for another attack on the “Jimas” on 24 

June.50 Although a Japanese patrol plane, likely based out of Chichi Jima, spotted the fleet 

and alerted the radio control center there, the Japanese lost about 60 of the aircraft that had 

recently arrived from Japan for the defense of Saipan in the ensuing two-day dogfight.51

Clark was so obsessed with his mission against the Bonin Islands, including Iwo Jima, 

that the surrounding islands would become known in Navy circles as “Jocko Jimas.”52 Proclaiming “choice locations of all types in Iwo, Chichi, Haha, and Muko Jima,” naval aviators 

created mock “Jocko Jima Development Corporation” stock certificates. Admiral Chester 

Nimitz received Share No. 1 and the second was given to Clark.53

Clark launched another attack on the “Jimas” on the Fourth of July. Fortunately, Chichi 

Jima’s harbor was congested and full of targets when the attacks began in the early morning. In addition, few Japanese planes were able to respond and most of those—Nakajima 

A6M2-N floatplane fighters—were shot down because of their poormaneuverability.54

The raid was not without American casualities, however. Pilot Ensign Owen M. Hintz 

died when his Curtiss SB2C Helldiver was blown apart in the ensuing antiaircraft fire,55

The Bonin Islands During the War
110

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

a barrage that one pilot had described as lighting up the sky “like the Fourth of July fireworks at the local park.”56 Aviation Radioman Second Class Lloyd Richard Woellhof, who 

accompanied Hintz, survived, only to be captured and bayoneted in the shoulder by three 

Japanese soldiers when he swam ashore.

That same day Lieutenant (junior grade) Hershel C. Connell, a pilot, was captured when 

he lost control of his two-seat dive-bomber and bailed out into Futami Bay. His gunner, 

Ben Wolf, did not survive. After floating in the bay for about 45 minutes, the pilot from 

the USS Hornet was picked up by a small Japanese vessel with about 10 men who slapped 

and kicked him after they dragged him on board. They may have wanted to beat him even 

sooner but they had to wait to be sure that the bombing was done for the day before they 

went out to pick him up.57 After being blindfolded and bound to a tree and then to another 

for much of the day, Connell was eventually transferred to Tachibana’s headquarters where 

he spent the next six days. “They weren’t trying to kill me, but it was sure uncomfortable.”58

Terrorize him they did, however, with the occasional gun pointed at his head. On the seventh day, he was transferred to Iwo Jima and then on to Ofuna Prisoner of War Camp near 

Tokyo. He was the last known American off Chichi Jima alive.

One of the reasons for this seems to have had to do with a change of command that 

took place that summer. Major General Osuga Koto, who headed the 2d Independent Mixed 

Brigade and had let the flyers live and be sent to the mainland for interrogation and other 

purposes, moved to Iwo Jima to assume command under Kuribayashi. In his place, Major 

General Tachibana Yoshio, a hard-drinking and abusive veteran of the war in China, had 

assumed command of Chichi Jima’s defense. Not only did he treat his subordinates cruelly, 

he also had no respect for the lives of civilians, such as those in China, or enemy troops who 

came into his custody. The more the situation in Chichi Jima became desperate, the greater 

his willingness to seek revenge by killing the defenseless American airmen, who under the 

rules of warfare were to be afforded protection.59

According to Horie,

Lt. (jg) Connell, who had been shot down by our anti-aircraft guns and become 

a prisoner of war, was brought to me. According to him, Rear Adm Clark with 

his task force decided to launch raids on the Bonin Islands from the Hornet and 

Enterprise on this, the U.S. Independence Day. He said this attack was done ahead 

of the forthcoming invasion of Guam. However, it was difficult for me to catch 

everything he said. With difficulty, I could understand his main points when he 

wrote them down. Through the above conversation, I discovered just how poor my 

English knowledge was. Out of necessity I started practicing English conversation 

with the prisoners becoming my teachers. Thus my special English study began on 

the afternoon of 4 July 1944, with the help of Lt Connell. Later instructors #2 and 

#3 came . . . The three of them taught me diligently. One of them became the chief 

instructor and the other two became assistant instructors in turn. I studied for at 

least three hours every day. When the enemy air raids came, we went into the air 

raid shelter [and] started our English study. Many of [the] Japanese officers and 

men laughed out loud at me when I got stuck on words and had trouble with pronunciation . . . [The prisoners] were worry-free. They joked and hummed songs to 
111

themselves. They told me that as soon as the U.S. forces would land on Kyushu the 

war would be over and they could return home. They said if they did return home, 

they would be treated as heroes and be promoted. They felt their accumulated earnings would all be paid at once and they could use the money for their honeymoons. 

They even wanted to teach me to dance. One prisoner, an ensign, told me his father 

had died when he was young and his mother, who worked as a hairdresser, had sent 

him to college. He said he would like to get married as soon as [he] got home and 

please his mother. Nothing had ever surprised me as much as the psychology of the 

prisoners of war from a democratic country. It was diametrically opposite from the 

psychology of Japanese troops.60

During the summer of 1944, attacks on the airfields and other facilities on Iwo Jima 

and Chichi Jima (what Navy pilots called “heckler attacks”)61 became a regular occurrence, 

particularly after the U.S. airfield on Saipan, Isley Field, became operational on 14 July. That 

day, the first Consolidated PB4Y Liberator bombers from Navy Bombing Squadron (VB) 

109 arrived and after that a series of raids against “the Jimas” began in earnest to prevent any 

interference by Japanese forces during the invasions of Guam and Tinian in the latter part 

of July.62 By 21 July, D-Day for Guam, the Liberators had, in the words of Hearn, “reduced 

the airfields on Iwo and Chichi to piles of rubble.”63 However, they were quickly rebuilt.

Isley Field would serve another important function during this time as well, becoming 

the base of operations for Marine pilots flying North American PBJ bombers—the Navy 

and Marine Corps version of the Army Air Forces B-25 Mitchell—on reconnaissance missions in the Bonin Islands. With six-man crews per plane, three aircraft would participate 

in the missions to search for supply convoys traveling to and from Chichi Jima at night, 

which was the only relatively safe time that the Japanese found they could reinforce the 

islands. One plane flew in the area around Iwo, another around Haha Jima, and a third 

around Chichi Jima and when a convoy was spotted, three other planes loaded with bombs 

and on standby would be notified with the coordinates of the convoys and instructed to 

attack. These interdiction missions inflicted much damage on the Japanese military’s ability 

to fight. For example, in July 1944 Japanese troop ships carrying the 1st and 2d Battalions

of the 17th Mixed Infantry Regiment (Dokuritsu Konsai Dai 17 Ryodan) were sunk while en 

route to Iwo. Those who survived and made it to Chichi Jima were never able to join the 

3d Battalion on Iwo. Another attack—this one by a submarine—in the middle of July sank 

the transport vessel Nisshu Maru off Chichi Jima, sending 28 tanks destined for Iwo to the 

bottom of the sea. As mentioned earlier, there is no doubt that if they had reached Iwo, not 

to mention the two extra battalions, the cost to the American side in life and injuries would 

have been much higher.64

One of the more damaging attacks on Chichi Jima itself came on 4 and 5 August when 

members of then-Major General Tachibana’s 307th Battalion were killed.65 On the U.S. 

side, a Navy Liberator was downed at night on 5 August off of Chichi Jima.66 Only one of 

the aviators survived, the navigator whose identity has only recently been learned, Ensign 

Warren A. Hindenlang.67 At the time of his capture, he was ordered executed by the bitter 

Tachibana so quickly that his Japanese captors did not learn his name and he remained 

unidentified in the records.

The Bonin Islands During the War
112

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Hindenlang and Woellhof, who were still on the island, were tied to trees in front of 

Tachibana’s headquarters. Hitting the two airmen, Tachibana ordered their execution the 

next day as revenge for the air raids and demanded that all orderlies and clerks not required 

to perform other duties would be required to attend. Captain Higashigi Seiji, the senior 

adjutant to Tachibana, surmised the reason for this strange order to attend the executions: 

“The general mentioned that while he was a battalion commander in Manchuria, the execution of prisoners of war helped to build the fighting spirit of the troops.”68 Taken to 

the 307th Battalion’s rifle range near the pristine John Beach in the southernmost part of 

Chichi Jima, Woellhof and Hindenlang were walked up a small hill around 0800. They had 

not been told their fate, but if they had any doubts about that they were removed as they 

watched the stakes being pounded into the ground. After being lashed to the stakes and 

blindfolded with circles drawn around their hearts (not to make the target clearer but to 

show where not to stab in order to prolong the deaths), they were bayoneted repeatedly in 

the lungs and midsection. “They did not cry out or yell; they only groaned,” one eyewitness 

recalled later.69 While still alive, they were then beheaded by Lieutenant Colonel Ito Kikuji, 

who had been placed in charged of the executions. Their bodies and heads were thrown into 

a hole that had been prepared nearby.

The next concentrated carrier attacks on the islands occurred at the end of August and 

early September when Rear Admiral Ralph E. Davison’s Task Group 38.4 undertook a 

three-day air and naval bombardment. The strikes, meant primarily as a diversion to the 

invasion of Peleliu, included the plane piloted by 20-year-old Lieutenant (junior grade) 

George H. W. Bush. Bush’s plane was shot down on the morning of 2 September after a 

bombing run at the radio stations. After releasing the bombs on target, Bush ordered the 

crew to evacuate the damaged plane. He was the only one to survive. After landing in the 

waters to the northeast of Chichi Jima, the tide began to carry him back toward the island. 

Using a one-man life raft dropped from another plane, he began furiously paddling with 

his hands away from Chichi. Small boats had been sent out to capture him and would have 

if not for the USS Finback (SS 230) that had been standing by for this sort of emergency 

and the planes that swooped down and shot at the approaching boats. Bush had been aware 

of the fate of Australian and American prisoners of the Japanese and, although worried 

about the fate of his crew, was “happy to be aboard” the submarine.70

After this, the Bonin Islands were not the subject of a concentrated attack by air for some 

time, with the exception of the heckling runs of night sorties that would drop their ordinance if 

they did not find any shipping convoys to strike. Most of the fighter aircraft in the region were 

being used to assist in the recapture of the Philippines, which began in October. In the lead-up 

to the Battle of Iwo Jima, however, Rear Admiral Allan E. Smith’s Cruiser Division 5, composed 

of the heavy cruisers USS Chester (CA 27), Pensacola (CA 24), and Salt Lake City (CA 25) and 

six destroyers, began making regular visits to the Bonins starting in early January 1945 to look 

for convoys in the area. Subsequently, a few days before the Battle of Iwo Jima began, then-Rear 

Admiral Arthur W. Radford’s carriers from Task Group 58.4 approached the Bonins on 16 

February and launched fighter-bomber sweeps that disabled the airfield, destroyed numerous 

fortifications, and damaged several ships in Futami Bay. Two days later, two more carrier groups 

under the commands of Rear Admirals Davison and Frederick C. Sherman launched day-long 

attacks on Chichi Jima, causing the defenders to stay in air raid shelters for most of the time.
113

The attacks were not without problems, however. Seven Avengers and one Helldiver 

were knocked down with a number of pilots and their crews lost between Iwo Jima and 

Chichi Jima. One of the reasons for the losses was due to the presence of a highly trained 

unit with radar-aiming antiaircraft batteries of the Emperor’s Imperial Guard (originally 

designated for Iwo), who had recently arrived on Chichi. This unit possessed “unsurpassed 

marksmanship” and clearly earned its reputation that day.71 (This fact makes Radford’s 

claim, introduced above, about the weakness of Japan’s air defense all the more curious.)

The downed fliers had been listed by the Navy as dead, but in fact several of them landed 

on or around Chichi Jima. Of the eight shot down on 18 February, those who survived 

only to be captured included Aviation Radioman Third Class James W. Dye Jr., Aviation Ordinanceman Second Class Glenn J. Frazier, Ensign Floyd E. Hall, Aviation Radioman Third Class Marvie W. Mershon, and Aviation Ordinanceman Third Class Grady A. 

York.72 Several of them had had premonitions they would not be returning.73 For Hall, it 

had been his first (and last) time in battle.74 They had been told to expect “limited opposition” during their strikes on Chichi Jima’s airstrips, but the intelligence had been wrong.75

Hall, Mershon, and Frazier parachuted out of their aircraft and landed between Chichi 

and Ani Jima, to the north, Frazier swam to the uninhabited Ani Jima while Hall and Mershon swam to Chichi’s shores where they were rescued by a local fisherman and Warrant 

Officer Soya Saburo.76 They were eventually brought to the 308th Battalion Headquarters

to be kicked and slapped. Frazier eventually surrendered on 23 February to two fishermen, 

one of whom had rescued Hall and Mershon. Frazier had been without food since the 18th 

and, after having been exposed to the elements for five nights, was so weak his captors did 

not bother to tie him up.77 He, too, was taken to the 308th.

Two other fliers who crashed on the 18th, Dye and York, were captured by the 275th 

Battalion and taken to Tachibana’s headquarters. The next day, they were moved to Major 

Horie Yoshitaka’s headquarters, where they were interrogated.78 Hall and Mershon were 

brought to Tachibana’s headquarters and then moved to Horie’s as well that day. As Hall 

and Mershon came from the USS Randolph (CV 15) and Dye and York were attached to 

the USS Bennington (CV 20), they did not know each other.

Iwo Jima’s invasion happened to be the same day, 19 February. Carrier support was lent 

to the landings and thus Chichi Jima was spared any air attacks, but on the following day, 

20 February, Chichi and Haha Jima’s defenses were hit again. Over the next three days, 

aircraft from the carriers in Task Force 58 flew 545 sorties in 27 missions, dropping more 

than 116 tons of bombs and launching 1,331 rockets.79

On 23 February, Marine pilot Second Lieutenant Warren E. Vaughn, on his first mission over Chichi, did not return. After his plane was hit, he parachuted into the same strait 

as had Hall, Mershon, and Frazier. Swimming to shore, Private Ishiwata Yukutaro of the 

307th Battalion threw him a rope and pulled him out of the chilly waters. He was brought 

to Tachibana’s headquarters. This was the same day that Frazier eventually surrendered and 

was taken to the 308th Battalion Headquarters of Major Matoba Sueo as well as the day that 

Mershon was executed.

Some time after the start of the recent wave of attacks on Chichi or perhaps after the 

start of the Battle of Iwo Jima, Tachibana had decided to execute the flyers, with the enThe Bonin Islands During the War
114

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

listed men—Dye, York, and Mershon—going first.80 “A feeling of hatred was running high 

in the 308th Battalion and at Major General Tachibana’s headquarters,” Matoba told to 

investigators later.81 Adding to this “hatred” was the sense of anxiety among the Japanese 

forces on the island. Not aware that the United States had decided to bypass Chichi Jima 

and Haha Jima for Iwo Jima and would limit its attacks to the shipping and the small airfield, many Japanese “thought we were the next to die” and essentially were approaching 

“something like a nervous breakdown.”82

Mershon was turned over to Lieutenant Sueyoshi Jitsuro for execution, who in turn 

passed the duty on to Lieutenant Morishita Hironobu. Morishita decided the island’s cemetery above Omura village, the same cemetery in which the island’s original Western settlers 

were buried, was the best place to “dispose” of the prisoner.83 With a working party of soldiers 

carrying shovels and a samurai sword by Morishita’s side, Mershon most likely realized his 

fate. After having a final cigarette, he was told to kneel at the edge of his freshly dug grave 

and awaited his destiny. A few moments later, Morishita decapitated the 19-year old.84

As if this was not enough, one of the most despicable acts in World War II occurred the 

following day when Mershon’s body was exhumed and his liver removed and parts of his 

thigh cut off to supply a sake and sukiyaki party held by Tachibana and Matoba.85 Tachibana 

had told his guests that “One had to have enough fighting spirit to eat human flesh,”86 and 

Matoba echoed, “you have to eat this kind of meat to become a strong fighter.”87 While Tachibana was the more senior of the two, it was Matoba who has been called the “Tiger of Chichi 

Jima” for his actions. He often bragged about his beheadings of Chinese in Singapore and 

Nanking, as well as participating in the rapes and killings of women in the latter location. He 

also admitted he had grown fond of eating the flesh of prisoners when he was in China.88

A couple of days later, Tachibana directed that the three other flyers at his headquarters—Dye, York, and Vaughn—should be sent away to be executed by the respective battalions that suffered casualties. York was the next to be killed. Captain Yamashita Masao of 

the 307th was ordered to do the execution. York, also 19, was tied to a telephone pole while 

his grave was dug in front of him. He was then bayoneted numerous times in the chest over 

the next few minutes. He did not cry or groan. His executor admitted later, “He also did 

not show any tears from start to finish. He struck me as being a very brave man.”89 York’s 

mother was in church praying for him when a telegram from the Navy arrived to inform 

the family that their son had been shot down and was missing.

As York was being executed, Dye was transferred to Mount Yoake where he was supposed to assist in monitoring radio transmissions. He had spent a couple of days there when 

navy Captain Yoshii Shizuo ordered Dye to be executed. “For Yoshii,” explains Tamamura 

Fumio, a Japanese-American (born and raised in San Francisco) who was serving in the 

Japanese Navy as a radioman at Yoake,90

[executing the prisoner] was an effort to raise morale. He had to prepare everyone 

for dying. We were all going to die, we thought. We knew the American instruments of death were going to come at us and that we had no hope. We were all 

going to die together; the prisoner would go first. “It can’t be helped,” everyone 

thought. It’s a mass hysteria, wartime hysteria. It’s impossible to analyze it unless 
115

you were in that bizarre situation. The reactions of a cornered rat are not normal. 

And besides, when the Americans came and we were all going to die, how could 

we hold on to a prisoner?91

At 1600 on 28 February, Dye was escorted out of the radio station where he had just 

been talking to Tamamura. Trying to put the flyer at ease, Tamamura told him he was just 

going to be paraded around by Yoshii. However, Dye no doubt realized something was up 

when he was walked to the edge of a large hole and told to kneel. Yoshii ordered his men 

to take turns at decapitating the young man from New Jersey. Saluting the prisoner before 

doing so, they did as told but clearly did not enjoy it. After Dye had been killed, “there was 

just silence.”92

Unfortunately, not only was Dye executed, but he became the second victim of cannibalism, this time by Yoshii, who had heard about it from Matoba. It was a premeditated 

decision—Yoshii had talked about it previously and had instructed the unit’s doctor Sasaki 

Mitsuyoshi to dissect the body and remove the liver. Yoshii consumed it that night at a 

drinking party and ordered his disgusted subordinates to do so as well.

Yoshii was not satisfied with this one execution, however. The next day, having learned 

Horie still had two prisoners in his custody, Vaughn and Hall, the captain informed Tachibana he wanted another prisoner, initially for interrogation purposes. Tachibana assented 

and allowed him to take one. Yoshii chose Vaughn, and brought him to the radio station 

atop Mount Yoake.

Vaughn had been on his first combat mission and did not possess or at least share 

particularly important or relevant information. He was kept alive for a few weeks more, 

protected in a sense by several people along the way, including Tamamura and Iwatake 

Nobuaki, also an American citizen by birth (Hawaii),93 and Horie. It was Vaughn who 

heard the announcement on 14 March that all organized resistance on Iwo Jima had ended and informed the other radio monitors.94 Quoting Iwatake, Bradley writes of the irony 

of the situation: “ ‘Warren told us the news calmly, but inside he must have felt differently. 

Tamamura-san was with us, so he gave the message to Captain Yoshii.’ Yoshii immediately 

passed the message up the chain to imperial headquarters in Tokyo. So in all probability, 

the emperor learned that Iwo Jima was lost as a result of a message interceptedby a Flyboy 

on Chichi Jima.”95 Three days later, Vaughn was executed.

The Marine pilot, who was part Cherokee, seemed to know his time was up when the 

navy truck came up the mountain to get him. He was taken down to the torpedo boat 

squadron headquarters at Futami Bay, and after stating he had no last words while rolling 

down his own collar in a show of defiance, was beheaded in front of approximately 150 Imperial Navy personnel. The crowd had probably been forced to assemble by Yoshii, who had 

ordered the execution. When asked for volunteers to do the beheading, no one stepped forward.96 Iwatake, who had remained up at Yoake, was devastated by his newfound friend’s 

brutal execution. He later adopted the name “Warren” in his honor.

After the killing, the unit doctor, Matsushita Kanehisa, was ordered by Yoshii to remove 

the liver for the meal that evening. One rumor afterward suggests that other parts of his 

body were cut up and put in the soup for the men as well.

The Bonin Islands During the War
116

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

With Vaughn’s beheading, only one flyer—Hall—remained on Chichi Jima. He and 

Horie had become particularly close, but the closer they were, ironically the more vulnerable Hall became. As long as Horie was Kuribayashi’s representative on Chichi Jima, 

Hall—who was called “Horie’s pet” by others on the island—was probably safe, but after 

the fall of Iwo Jima, his situation became precarious. Tachibana was promoted to lieutenant 

general on 23 March and replaced Kuribayashi as commanding officer of the 109th, and 

with this, Horie’s detached command was integrated into Tachibana’s hierarchy. Horie, in 

fact, became the new chief of staff. With Kuribayashi gone, he was no longer protected and 

thus could not protect Hall himself.

In the meantime, Hall’s death sentence had already been issued by Matoba on 9 March 

and on 24 March, the day after the above changes in the command structure were made, 

Hall was transferred to Matoba’s 308th Battalion Headquarters. Horie implored the battalion’s Captain Kanmuri Yoshikaru, who had been ordered to carry out the execution, to 

do it “humanely.”97 The next morning, Hall was beheaded. He had continued to talk and 

joke with his captors until the end, perhaps not wanting to believe that his death was near. 

Several of them refused orders to decapitate the flyer; one even went AWOL.98

Like some of the others, Hall’s body was dissected and his liver and thigh meat removed 

by Doctor Teraki. Matoba had the liver prepared for a party at Admiral Mori Kunizo’s 

headquarters that evening. At the party, Mori talked about how the human liver was eaten 

in China by Japanese forces. Matoba later stated that with the fall of Iwo Jima, “no one on 

[Chichi Jima] had the least idea of returning to Japan alive. Therefore it was just an understanding that all captured flyers were to be executed.”99

Hall was the last American on the island until Colonel Rixey and his men came to effect the surrender of the Ogasawara garrison force some seven months later in October. In 

March, two planes—a TBF and a P-51—went down but their crews were said to have died 

in the crashes. All in all, more than 100 Navy and Marine airmen went down in the area 

of Chichi Jima.100 According to the author of the well-researched Sorties into Hell, only 10 

were ever identified by investigators afterward.101

During the early spring, Horie began to feel that with the occupation of Iwo and the 

invasion of Okinawa, Chichi Jima would be “by-passed,” but he wanted the islands to be 

protected in any case against a “sudden attack” by the United States.102 By the summer, 

however, it was clear that Chichi Jima would not be invaded. Additionally, it was clear that 

the war was lost, especially following the reports of the late July Potsdam Conference and 

the Soviet entry into the war on 8 August. Horie heard of the Soviet entry two days later on 

10 August and that day requested Tachibana to approve the ending of rationing and allow 

the men to eat full meals again.103 To raise morale and pass the time, Horie and his staff 

also announced a summer O-bon dance competition for the next day (11 August) at Susaki 

airfield between the men of each prefecture with a Shidanchosho (Division Commander 

Award) going to the best prefecture.104 On the 14th, word came that there would be an 

important announcement the following day at noon and that everyone should listen to the 

radio. Horie told the staff that whoever wanted to listen to it was free to do so, but he said 

there was no point in listening to the announcement; in his opinion, “the war was already 

over a year ago on June 19.”105
117

Organizing these activities was not the only thing Horie was involved in, however. With 

the end of the war approaching, he suggested that he, Tachibana, and Mori meet to share 

information on the number of flyers captured and their fates, and to map out a strategy to 

avoid “a reprisal” by U.S. occupation forces when they eventually came.106 His proposal approved, the three met shortly after that and agreed to say that interrogations were done at 

the detached command and the prisoners were held at the 308th Battalion, where they were 

all killed by a bomb near the Kiyose caves. Furthermore, the story was to be, Matoba—who 

Horie wanted to be repatriated earlier to avoid punishment but who Tachibana said he 

needed with him—had their bodies cremated and buried in a cemetery. Those who were 

not a part of the dispatched headquarters or the 308th were to say they “saw nothing and 

heard nothing.”107 Nevertheless, during the summer, rumors began to spread on the island 

about what had happened, including the planned cover-up. “All I could think about in my 

position at this point,” Horie wrote, “was how to reduce the burdens of those to be accused 

of war crimes.”108

The Surrender Ceremony and Early Occupation

On 31 August, a few days before the official and main surrender ceremonies for Japan were 

held in Tokyo Bay on board the USS Missouri, representatives from the American and 

Japanese militaries met on the destroyer, the USS Dunlap (DD 384), to prepare the documentation and logistics of surrendering control of the Bonin Islands to U.S. forces scheduled for 3 September. Perhaps distrustful of diehards among the still-armed Japanese forces 

who might engage in sabotage or even in their despair undertake a last-minute ambush, the 

Dunlap anchored about three miles off Chichi Jima when making these arrangements and 

conducting the surrender ceremony.

The first issue to arise was the fate of the flyers who had parachuted around Chichi 

Jima.109 Horie, who headed the Japanese delegation, told his counterpart that they had “all 

perished.”110 The U.S. Navy official apparently did not follow up, but Horie noticed another 

member of the staff, a Marine lieutenant colonel glaring at him.

The surrender ceremony was held the next day. Exactly one year prior on 3 September 

1944, the 341-foot Dunlap was preparing to participate in the bombardment of the American territory of Wake Island, captured by Japanese forces in late December 1941. Now on 

her fantail, Commodore John H. Magruder Jr., and his staff were preparing to accept the 

surrender of the Japanese island chain more than 1,000 miles west of Wake. World War II 

had officially come to an end. The same day, a smaller surrender ceremony took place on 

Haha Jima when Colonel Masaki Hitoshi surrendered to his American counterpart.111

The Japanese delegation, led by General Tachibana as chief delegate, and Admiral Mori 

as the vice chief, and the other members of the group were ferried out to the Dunlap in a 

small landing craft in the morning and boarded it shortly before 0900. By 0905, Tachibana, 

acting “in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government, and the Japanese 

Imperial General Headquarters,” had signed the instrument of surrender entitled “Unconditional Surrender of the Japanese Held Islands under the Command of the Senior 

Japanese Imperial Forces Base in the Bonin Islands.”112 Magruder, on behalf of the United 

The Bonin Islands During the War
118

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

States “and in the interest of the other United Nations at War with Japan,” accepted it and 

added his signature at 0906. The nine-point document, among other requirements, called 

on all Japanese forces to “surrender unconditionally themselves and all forces under their 

control,” but unlike the surrender document for the Amami Islands a few weeks later, it did 

not spell out the geographical area of the islands.113 After the ceremony, several members 

of the U.S. and Japanese staffs met in the Dunlap’s wardroom to go over additional details. 

Indeed, there would be many details to work out, including repatriation, demilitarization, 

and destruction of fortifications.

It would be necessary to wait until a U.S. Marine battalion arrived to begin the demilitarization and demolition of the island’s fortifications. The Marines eventually came in midDecember but in the meantime, on a cloudy afternoon on 6 October, the commander of 

the occupation forces, Colonel Presley M. Rixey, leading an advance command element of 

Marines, arrived on board the USS Trippe (DD 403), a 1,500-ton Benham-class destroyer 

built in Massachusetts, the area from which Nathaniel Savory, one of the original settlers 

described in chapter 1, had hailed.114 Rixey, who was described as “tall, handsome, intelligent, 

and a ‘Poster Marine,’ ” was a veteran of the Tarawa and Saipan campaigns where he had commanded the 1st Artillery Battalion, 10th Marines, 2d Marine Division.115 His intellect would 

be necessary to deal with the particularly complex situation that Chichi Jima presented.

After the Trippe arrived in Futami Bay, several Japanese representatives, including Horie, 

boarded her to discuss the arrangements for fulfilling the September surrender terms. Tachibana, who after the surrender ceremony had returned to his headquarters and ordered that 

all articles belonging to the downed flyers be thrown into the sea, and Mori, who seemed 

to wish to avoid any responsibility whatsoever, did not attend the meeting in the Trippe’s 

wardroom. This probably angered the formal Virginia gentleman that Rixey was.

After discussing the issue of repatriating Japanese forces on the island, Rixey asked “the 

poker-faced” Horie about the fate of the flyers.116 To his “utter surprise,” Horie responded, 

“Yes, we captured six. All Navy, I think. They received very kind treatment. Two were sent 

to Japan by submarine. The last four were unfortunately killed by your own bombs in an air 

raid against these islands during the capture of Iwo Jima in 1945. They were blown up by a 

direct hit. I was very beloved of them and wished them no harm. We buried what remained 

of the bodies after cremation. This is a Japanese custom.” Rixey was surprised at the directness of Horie’s answer because he admitted that they had been captured. He and the Navy 

had had no specific information, and the Navy had assumed the flyers had gone down in 

the sea, particularly after Horie had told the Navy representatives the month before that 

they had all perished. Rixey guessed that Horie thought the United States had more information than it did. But as we know now, Horie was simply following the script that he, 

Tachibana, and Mori had devised in August before the surrender.

Rixey thought that Horie’s explanation “seemed plausible” as there had been air raids 

against Chichi Jima, and he and the three others on his team “nodded our heads in belief.”117 Rixey, however, felt that “somehow the story did not ring true” and he noticed that 

even the Japanese interpreter, Cadet Oyama Shigeyasu, who had been raised in Hawaii, 

blinked nervously whenever the flyers were mentioned.118 “[Oyama] had learned,” Rixey 

surmised, “too many Occidental ways and American fair play in Honolulu.”119
119

Prior to the meeting, Tachibana had apparently taken Horie aside and reinforced what 

was to be said at the meeting. Although Horie spoke some English, he was told to use only 

Japanese and that interpreter Oyama should deflect questions as best as possible. They were 

not to mention the prisoners or give any information unless asked.

Rixey let the members of the Japanese mission believe that he had accepted their story 

but he did request that the man who had been in charge of the prisoners, Matoba, be 

brought to the wardroom the following day for follow-up questions. After leaving the 

Trippe, Oyama told Horie that they had not fooled the Americans, and warned him, “They 

are thorough and you will hear more of this from them. I have lived among them.” Horie 

countered that “it was done. We must stick to our words. I believe our prepared story will 

deceive them. They will find no evidence. Bones and belongings have been thrown into the 

sea by orders of General Tachibana.”

Oyama’s words were prophetic. The next day’s meeting with Horie and Matoba, who 

had according to Rixey the “most cold-blooded eyes I had ever seen,” raised additional 

questions and necessitated further meetings with individuals charged with guarding the 

prisoners.120 When asked about the burial of the flyers, Horie said a large cross had been 

placed on the grave and that military honors had been rendered. Rixey informed Horie they 

would go ashore to view the grave and take photos for his report to the commander of the 

Marianas at Guam.

The next day, 10 October, Rixey and his staff arrived at the Bobitai naval base with about 

20 military policemen. Noticing Tachibana and Mori were not there, Rixey sent for them 

and they arrived shortly after that in their staff cars.121 Rixey and the others were driven 

to the civilian cemetery above the town of Omura high in the hills where they found a 

“neat grave covered with small rocks. Placed upright in the plot was a three-foot cross. 

Everything was in order as had been said—but—the cross itself was of new wood with no 

sign of having been exposed to the elements longer than the afternoon before . . . Now I 

knew that something was amiss! It had been erected over-night!”122 Later that same day, 

the testimony of the six-man machinegun squad was found to be odd, particularly because 

each account was identical—they had been given a script by Matoba to memorize and been 

coached by him. While all could repeat certain information, other questions, such as the 

color of the prisoners’ clothing, drew blank stares—Matoba had forgotten to coach them 

on that information.

With this, Rixey knew that a cover-up was occurring but he had difficulty learning new 

information. “‘Old Tachy’ was trying hard to cover his footprints,” Rixey said about the man 

he had come to dislike and distrust.123 However, he decided to wait until the rest of the 

Marines scheduled for occupation duties arrived before beginning an official investigation. 

He continued quietly to gather information, however. Rixey organized nightly parties with 

the 750 Japanese officers. Each evening, his senior staff would dine with about 15 or so. He 

would supply the meat and alcohol, and after dinner would play a movie.124

During the day, there were numerous projects for Japanese forces’ (or their Korean laborers’) participation, such as cleaning, salvage, and demolition. In addition, the issue of 

repatriation to the mainland had to be addressed.

The Bonin Islands During the War
120

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Repatriation had gone slowly. The Japanese had few ships to spare for moving military 

personnel. Those returning from the Marianas would stop by Chichi Jima and help in the 

repatriation but they were few and far between. Moreover, the United States did not assign any of its own ships for this purpose until its own men had been returned to America 

as part of Operation Magic Carpet, a year-long effort that began after V-E Day (Victory 

in Europe Day) to move home the approximately eight million troops stationed abroad. 

Comfort women, many from Korea or China, who had worked near Tachibana’s headquarters on the other side of Futami Bay in Nigyo, were among the first to leave Chichi Jima.125

In a further effort to cover his tracks, Tachibana had personnel involved in the flyers’ executions and cannibalism inserted into the repatriation lists in order to get them back to the 

mainland quickly and away from Rixey.126

Finally, on 13 December, three LSTs arrived carrying a reduced battalion of 500 Marines. Some were quite unhappy to be there—they had expected to be repatriated, but were 

given this additional task of disarming and demobilizing Japanese troops and destroying 

the fortifications. For Rixey, the Marines could not have arrived sooner. He immediately 

had them clean up at their new camp (erected by the Japanese under the supervision of 

Rixey’s staff ) and report to the headquarters for the official flag-raising ceremony.

The Japanese garrison, which included the officers and about 800 enlisted men representing the 20,000 on the island, had begun to assemble at 1000 on the grounds of the 

camp. The officers wore their finest uniforms and carried their swords for the last time. “The 

Japs loved a ceremony,” Rixey wrote, “even if they were on the losing end.”127 Across from 

them was the Marine battalion. One of the participants, Corporal Bill Monks, recalled that 

it was “an eerie sensation. There just a few yards from us were those God damn sons of 

bitches, out in the open at last . . . They appeared so small and harmless, yet we knew what a 

horrible fate we would have faced if the situation had been reversed . . . These bastards had 

never shown any mercy to their captives. Yet here they were: docile, compliant, and behaving like they had come to participate in a grand and festive event.”128

Monks went on to explain the feelings of some of the Marines who landed that day: 

“All our knowledge of the Japanese added up to a fearless enemy who showed no mercy. 

We rejected them as if they were not human. We wanted payback for the utter misery they 

had caused us. The atom bomb was not personal enough. I would not have been surprised 

when we landed on Chichi if some guy had yelled out ‘GET A ROPE.’ ”129 Fortunately, no 

problems emerged.

At 1015, the Rising Sun was lowered, and a two-person Japanese color guard presented 

the folded flag to Rixey, who then returned it to Tachibana. At 1025, the Marine drum and 

bugle section sounded colors and the Stars and Stripes were raised as both U.S. and Japanese forces saluted. Captain John H. Kusiak, the operations officer under Rixey, read the 

occupation proclamation that suspended all powers of the government but promised that 

all existing customs, religious beliefs, and other rights would be respected. Horie then read 

the same message in Japanese. The Japanese officers then stepped forward to surrender their 

swords individually, as per Rixey’s instructions. “All Japanese officers together with 800 

picked enlisted men,” Rixey recorded, “viewed the proceedings with visible emotion.”130
121

Monks remembered the event in a slightly different way: “Emotions you might say were 

mixed . . . Frowns were deep set on most faces. The military careers and ambitions of these 

men were now at an end. This realization was emphasized a moment later when all Japanese 

officers present, led by Major General Tachibana and Vice Admiral Mori, stepped forward 

in single file to surrender their ‘Samurai’ swords.”131

Upon the surrender of the last sword, Rixey stated,

I accept these swords in the name of the United States of America. The raising of 

the American flag and surrender of all officers’ swords signifies the actual termination of Japanese rule over all islands of the Ogasawara group. The establishment of 

United States occupation of Muko Jima Retto, Chichi Jima Retto, and Haha Jima 

Retto, is hereby proclaimed at ten minutes to eleven on 13 December 1945. We 

shall demilitarize these islands for all time. We shall destroy all evidence of war. I 

hope these islands will be rebuilt into a peaceful land.132

Navy chaplain Lieutenant James T. Sanders followed with a prayer in memory of those 

who died at sea and on land, and then a Marine bugler played taps. The ceremony was over, 

but the aftermath of war was not.

Investigation

With the arrival of the Marines, the investigation could now proceed but Rixey had no 

new information to go on, particularly as much of the evidence had been destroyed and no 

records apparently kept. Then on 16 December, the first of two breaks occurred that not 

only made the investigation of the mistreatment and executions of the flyers possible but 

brought new and disturbing information. Namely, not only were the prisoners abused and 

killed, but some of them had been eaten as well.

The first break was the arrival of an old Japanese coast guard cutter at the navy pier at 

Bobitai; five men were standing on the cutter’s deck: Frederick A. Savory, his three uncles, 

Samuel, Roger, and William, and a cousin, Richard B. Washington, all former inhabitants 

of the island.133 As soon as Fred disembarked, he asked to speak to the commanding officer. 

He was taken to the “White House,” a building near the navy base that had survived the 

air attacks, which served as Rixey’s headquarters. Rixey and his staff sat down with Fred, 

who was the son of Daniel Savory and the great-grandson of the original pioneer to the 

islands, Nathaniel.

Fred had gone to school at St. Joseph’s College in Yokohama (now St. Joseph’s International School) and worked temporarily for American companies (Ford Motors Company 

and R. H. Macy’s and Company) in Japan before returning to Chichi Jima in 1940.134

Evacuated in 1944, he worked in the Nagoya area as a painter before moving to Yokosuka 

at war’s end. “His New England features and knowledge of his forebears,” Rixey explained 

in his account of this time on Chichi Jima, “was enough to convince [us] of his sincerity and 

loyalty toward the United States.”135 Like many of the bilingual islanders, Fred worked for 

the occupation forces. In his case, he had been working for the U.S. Marines.136 He spoke 

“excellent English” with what Rixey detected was “a bit of a British accent” and would later 

The Bonin Islands During the War
122

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

serve Rixey as an interpreter during part of the investigations into the fate of the flyers. He 

began,

Sir, in Japan, I heard certain rumors talked about by soldiers whom you have 

shipped from Chichi. These stories are not nice ones. I must tell you what I have 

heard and believe. They are saying that their officers on Chichi executed perhaps 15 

American flyers. Some had even witnessed these executions. I have heard that two 

men were tied to stakes and bayoneted after having been speared by bamboo sticks. 

And, sir—there is a rumor most prevalent that in the area of the 306th Battalion, a 

Major Matoba ordered his medical officers to remove the aviator’s liver after execution and deliver it to his orderly. A member of this battalion believes that Matoba 

and a few of his officers ate this liver at a saki [sic] party the next day. From my 

knowledge of the Japanese military caste, I too believe this true. I am here to assist 

the Americans in bringing punishment to these officers. They have been cruel to 

my family and other Bonin natives of white blood. I will remain here on Chichi, 

my native land, as long as I can be of help. I am familiar with all areas and at one 

time served in the Japanese Army here when I was conscripted as a “gunzuko” [sic] 

(construction worker) during the seizure of Saipan and Guam. I interviewed an 

American naval flyer here but never learned his name. When the flyer refused to 

answer a question, the officer struck the American in the face with the scabbard of 

his sword.137

Rixey and his team were “flabbergasted.”138 Rixey wrote they had “suspected beheadings, 

of course. But never cannibalism! What manner of men were these? Polite and cooperative, 

obedient soldiers, brave and fearless, but beneath this veneer, barbarians and worse. We renewed our efforts now with added zest. It became a ‘must’ to uncover full facts. The world 

would know—must know—what bestial principles lay hidden under the cloak of ‘bushido.’ ”

The second break in Rixey’s investigation had been set in motion the day before, on 15 

December, when Horie complained that he was having problems with the Koreans who did 

not want to work and who said that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had promised before he died that Korea should be free and all Koreans liberated. Horie explained that “one 

bad troublemaker” wished to meet Rixey and present the Koreans’ case. Rixey met with the 

instigator and allowed those Koreans who wished to, move into the American occupation 

zone and work on projects that Rixey directed under their own leaders. The Koreans were 

given special privileges, and soon made friends with the Marines.

The “troublemaker” happened to be a Methodist divinity student before leaving Korea, 

Ahn Pyungchi. A few days after arriving in the American sector, Ahn spoke with Rixey’s 

intelligence officer, and after several conversations, asked to meet again with Rixey. Ahn 

explained that he had “created a situation” with the Japanese in the hope to meet the colonel and provide “information of value.”139 Speaking in English, Ahn “almost shouted” the 

stories he had heard when he met with Rixey one evening at his sleeping quarters at the 

weather station on the top of the hill above Omura.

I have heard of an execution of an American flyer near Okimura in July 1944. It 

is said that Colonel Ito supervised the beheading and that there were about 100 
123

Japanese troops at the scene. The American was very brave. He refused a blindfold. 

He was smoking a cigarette while they tied his feet. I believe he was an officer but 

I never heard his name. Other Koreans have heard of other executions. One at the 

wireless station high in the mountains supervised by Commander Yoshii who was 

sent to Japan seriously wounded in 1945 and another killed by the torpedo boat 

squadron near Ogiura. I have heard that in Major Matoba’s area, he ordered his 

doctor to cut out the liver of an American aviator after the beheading. This liver 

was cut into small pieces after drying and Matoba’s adjutant placed the pieces in 

the soup eaten by the enlisted men. I am sure that Matoba has eaten human flesh. 

He served it as a substitute for goat meat at the admiral’s mess. Many of the navy 

officers vomited when told of its true character. Rumor says that the major bragged 

about this trick on the navy. His men hate him. He kicks and hits them with his 

fist. They are afraid and will not talk.

Although Ahn’s account, like Savory’s, was based on hearsay, the fact that these stories 

from completely different sources had made it to Rixey’s ears was significant and could not 

be ignored. “We began piecing together each bit of information,” Rixey explained, “hoping to draw the net tighter around those Japanese who had violated all human ethics and 

principles of treatment of captured prisoners.” However, Rixey still lacked “positive proof ” 

of those identified as well as the names of all those involved.

The slow evacuation of Japanese forces happened to be a blessing in disguise, as Rixey 

had been ordered to “button up” Chichi and return to Guam after the repatriation and 

demolition work had been completed and U.S. had been troops evacuated.140 Nevertheless, he still needed more time, and requested a postponement of the return to Guam to 

allow for an investigation. His request was granted, but he was aware that with pressures 

for American demobilization, time was running short—“something had to be done and 

done quickly.” Rixey decided to play his “ace in the hole,” Major Horie, by befriending him 

through private conversations and gaining his confidence.

Rixey had to be especially careful not to let anyone know what he was doing, with the 

exception of his immediate staff, or else the “trap” would fail. “I could not take all into my 

confidence,” Rixey wrote, “and as a result, I know there were officers and enlisted men in my 

command who severely criticized my actions of friendship toward Horie. However, their 

silent censure did not change us from our planned course of maneuver. There was a higher 

prize to be reaped and we disregarded the stares of our associates in a determination to get 

to the root of the evil which hung over the dark mist of Chichi Jima.”

The stares that Rixey got were actually more severe than that. There were many under 

his command who were angered by the “Jap-loving” Rixey’s embracing of the Japanese.141

One flare-up occurred prior to one of the movie screenings, when as Rixey and some Japanese officers entered the building that had been converted into a theater, all the Marines 

walked out. Rixey had all the men “fall out on the black top” but being late at night and 

dark, Rixey was called names as the men felt he had “betrayed” them and “disgraced the 

uniform.”142 Rixey in turn accused them of mutiny and promised punishment. Sometime 

later, some of the men began to understand what Rixey was doing: “Things are done in the 

dark that have to be done in the dark. I’m sure the whole episode could have been avoided if 

The Bonin Islands During the War
124

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

the Colonel had found it feasible to reveal to us his strategy of obtaining witnesses against 

the cannibals.”143

Horie fell for the trap after a horseback ride and over drinks with Rixey on 31 December. Rixey told Horie that he viewed the investigation as a “crusade” and would not “rest 

until I know the full truth.”144 After Rixey appealed to Horie to come clean with the facts 

“as a true and brave soldier,” Horie “slowly and deliberately” replied,

Yes, Colonel, I have known that you must know all things soon. Cadet Oyama 

warned me. The Savorys and the Koreans must have told you something. Now you 

are my friend and I believe as you do. I am not a war criminal. I was beloved of 

your aviators. They were brave men. I tried to save them but the devil was in my 

general. He ordered all executions in retaliation for Japanese troops killed in your 

bombings. There were 11 total. Now give me a pencil and paper and I shall write 

for you all the names of those guilty of crimes on these islands. I shall go with you 

to arrest them tonight.

Horie wrote out the names of everyone involved, with Tachibana heading the list. The 

next day, New Year’s Day, 1946, those listed were apprehended.

Horie was in some ways an opportunist, but in other ways he has been seen, and correctly so, as “Chichi Jima’s only conscience.”145 His view of the treatment of prisoners was 

not an abstract legal view, but a universal moral oneabout good leadership and true courage. 

While in the Army War College, one of his military history instructors told the class that 

“abusing a defenseless prisoner is not an act of bravery, but a cowardly deed.”146 Unfortunately, not everyone in the Japanese military felt that way.147

On 6 January, Rixey instructed Major Robert D. Shaffer, who was in charge of the 

Marine battalion and who had been involved in arresting some of the accused, to convene 

a Board of Investigation to clarify the facts and make recommendations for the war crimes 

commission to be established in Guam. As part of his work, Shaffer even quietly traveled 

to the mainland to interview witnesses, some of whom had already committed suicide. The 

board met for the following six months conducting numerous interviews and presented 

its more than 1,000-page findings to Rixey in early June.148 On 6 June, he forwarded the 

information to the commander of the Marianas at Guam and recommended that the war 

crimes commission try the accused. Subsequently, he sent the 31 accused officers and enlisted men to Guam for trial and “buttoned up” Chichi.149

By the time the accused left for Guam, most of the other troops on the island had been 

repatriated. When Rixey and his forces left that summer, the Bonins once again became a 

no-man’s land. However, it would remain so only for a few months as plans had been in the 

works to repatriate the islanders of Western descent back to Chichi Jima. This was, in part, 

because of the discrimination they faced on the mainland and the fact that some of them 

had assisted in bringing charges against the Japanese military leadership on Chichi.

In the meantime, the trials in Guam began on 5 August 1946. Unlike the more famous 

Tokyo and Nuremburg trials, those in Guam garnered little attention. After receiving the 

Chichi Jima Board of Investigation’s recommendations, Rear Admiral Arthur G. Robin-
125

son, USN, who presided at the War Crimes Commission, decided to reduce the number of 

those to be tried from 31 to 25. He further decided to divide the prisoners into two groups 

and to hold two trials, as the numbers were too great.150

Robinson demanded details rather than “damning tales” and as a result, the trial on 

Guam became the longest war crimes trial on record, after those in Germany and Tokyo.151

Sixty-six witnesses were called and thousands of pages of new testimony created. These 

documents are now declassified.

The second trial, which included that of Tachibana, Mori, Yoshii, and Matoba, was the 

one that generated the most interest. In the first, the defense argued that Japanese moral 

standards were different and therefore the accused should be acquitted. In the second trial, a 

number of excuses were given for the cannibalism, including the lack of food, although testimony from Marines who had arrested Tachibana and the others said he was overweight 

at that point and that they had found stocks of food and sake in the caves.

Numerous pleas of clemency came for the defendants from Japan, but only one each for 

Tachibana and Matoba, the two most hated men on Chichi. Eventually, Robinson’s commission set four free.

Although the evidence supported convicting the men of cannibalism, the commission 

encountered difficulties in so charging the men. The Geneva Convention did not provide a 

penalty for cannibalism or cooking human flesh, as the delegates probably could have never 

envisioned such acts in war. As a result, no international or other law existed by which to 

punish them, nor was Rear Admiral John D. Murphy, Director, War Crimes, able to find 

any previous cases in which cannibalism was treated as a war crime.152 Thus, the defendants 

were charged and found guilty of murder and the prevention of honorable burials, with 

cannibalism as a matter of aggravation.153

Of the 21 defendants, 5 were hung without ceremony or publicity. Eight were convicted 

of eating human flesh or cooking it, but received lighter sentences, “perhaps for no reason 

other than to establish a precedent.”154 The other defendants received light sentences, ranging from 5 to 20 years, including those with the additional charge of “failing to provide 

proper burial for deceased prisoners of war.”155

In Hidden Horrors, Japanese historian Tanaka Yuki uses detailed statistics to demonstrate the horrific mistreatment of Allied POWs by Japanese forces. Looking at the number 

of POWs and number of deaths country-by-country for Australia, Britain, Canada, New 

Zealand, United States, and Holland, Tanaka finds that the average death rate was 27.1 

percent.156 In the case of the United States, second only to Australian prisoners in the study, 

the percentage increases to 32.9 percent. When we look at the percentage of those on Chichi Jima who were executed, the number jumps to a ghastly 75 percent.

One often hears the phrase “victor’s justice” used almost exclusively in a derogatory tone. 

The negative connotation of this phrase clearly does not apply to the situation on Chichi 

Jima. Victory made justice possible, as the horrors committed on the island were likely to 

have remained unknown had the investigation and trials not been conducted. Uncovering 

the truth about what happened on Chichi Jima during that dark time was, if anything, the 

victory of justice.

The Bonin Islands During the War
126

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Notes

1

Chester Hearn, Sorties Into Hell: The Hidden War on Chichi Jima (Guilford, CT: The Lyons Press, 

2003), 47.

2

Hammond and Shepardson, “Uncle Charlie Washington,” 12.

3

“Unthinkable Crime,” Time, 16 September 1946.

4

Horie Yoshitaka, “Chichi Jima Jinniku Jiken: Shidancho mo Kutta” [The Chichijima Cannibalism Incident: Division Commanding General Also Participated], Rekishi to Jinbutsu, vol. 14, no. 14 

(December 1984), 134.

5

James Bradley, Flyboys: A True Story of Courage (New York: Little, Brown, and Co., 2003), 4. The 

trial report itself remained secret for some time afterward, and thus hindered academic legal studies 

on the issue of war crimes trials. See George E. Erickson, “United States Navy War Crimes Trials 

(1945–1949),” Washburn Law Journal, no. 5 (1965): 89–111. Also see, Philipp Rocco Piccigallo, The 

Japanese on Trial: Allied War Crimes Operations in the East (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1979); 

and Timothy P. Maga, Judgment at Tokyo: The Tokyo War Crimes Trials (Lexington: University Press 

of Kentucky, 2001).

6

Bradley, Flyboys, 5.

7

Sherrod, History of Marine Corps Aviation, 350–56.

8

Shepardson, “Pawns of Power,” in Fogelson and Adams, eds., The Anthropology of Power, chapter 8. 

She and Blowden Hammond and Mary Shepardson also discuss it in their unpublished paper, “Uncle 

Charlie Washington” (1973). Ten years later, Shepardson was able to interview Maj Horie (introduced 

in chapter 2) in 1984 and writes about the incident in her unpublished book-length manuscript, The 

Bonin Islands: Pawns of Power (175–76) and includes the names of three of the airmen.

9

Robert B. Stinnett, George Bush: His World War II Years (Missoula, MT: Pictorial Histories Publishing Company, 1991), 115.

10Ogasawara Senyukai, ed., Ogasawara Heidan no Saigo, particularly 207–45.

11Teraki Tadashi, Kokuhaku no Ishibumi [A Confession] (Tokyo: Ningen to Rekishisha, 1979).

12Horie, “Chichi Jima Jinniku Jiken,” 120–35.

13Hata Ikuhiko, “Showashi no Nazo o Ou: Jinniku Jiken no Chichi Jima Kara Seigan Shita Busshu” 

[Looking Into the Mysteries of Showa History: How Bush Returned Alive from the Cannibalism 

Incident at Chichi Jima], Seiron, no. 228 (August 1991), 382–95. This article was part of a series that 

was eventually published in a two-volume book, Showashi no Nazo o Ou [Looking into the Mysteries 

of Showa History] (Tokyo: Bungei Shunju, 1993). Volume 2 included the chapter on Chichi Jima.

14Kakehashi Kumiko, “Chichi Jima Jinniku Jiken no Fuin o Toku,” [Opening Up the Closed History 

of the Chichi Jima Cannibalism Incident], Bungei Shunju, vol. 85, no. 9 ( July 2007), 282–96.

15Col Presley M. Rixey (USMC), Japanese Camouflage: We Penetrate a Prepared Story in the Occupation 

of the Bonin Islands (unpublished, undated manuscript), papers of BGen Presley M. Rixey, General 

Alfred M. Gray Marine Corps Research Center, Quantico, VA. Rixey died in 1989. A Japanese 

nurse whose family name was Hori relocated to the United States with Rixey’s family after he was 

born and lived with the family a long time, and thus Rixey grew up with a slight Japanese influence. 
127

Japanese who knew him on Chichi Jima said he was pro-Japanese, despite the war. This attitude, 

however, raised the ire of subordinates, many of whom lost friends in the battles in the Pacific 

against Japanese forces. See Ogasawara Senyukai, ed., Ogasawara Heidan no Saigo, 206.

16In addition to these materials, then-Maj Robert D. Shaffer carefully preserved one of only three 

copies of a three-volume 960-page report of the investigation that he led under Rixey. The author 

visited with the 92-year-old retired Marine Corps lieutenant colonel at his home in Salt Lake City 

in August 2009. See “Record of Proceedings of a Board of Investigation Convened at Headquarters 

of the Commander, United States Occupation Forces, Bonin Islands, Chichi Jima, Bonin Islands, by 

Order of the Commander, United States Occupation Forces, Bonin Islands, to Inquire into the Circumstances involving the Deaths of Allied Prisoners of War in Custody of Japanese Military Forces, 

Chichi Jima, Bonin Islands,” and hundreds of pages of other related files and personal records, 

including numerous photos and an unpublished diary, “Bonin Island Occupation Force.” Copy in 

possession of author.

17Bradley, Flyboys, and Hearn, Sorties Into Hell. Bush himself visited Chichi Jima on 18 June 2002, 

along with Bradley who was working on Flyboys at the time. For more on Bush’s connection to 

Chichi Jima, as well as his visit there, see the following accounts at http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs

/faq10-3.htm and http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/ss-230.html. The story of Bush’s connection to 

Chichi Jima also formed the backdrop to Kataki: A Novel of Revenge by Hank Searls, an Annapolis 

graduate, who visited the island in the 1980s to research the book. Author’s interview with Hank 

Searls, August 2000, Newport Beach, California. It also was the climax to Robert B. Stinnett’s biography about Bush entitled George Bush: His World War II Years, particularly parts 7–9.

18For example, while Kakehashi writes of Bradley’s book, she seems to be unaware of the more detailed accounts by Hearn. Furthermore, to the author’s knowledge, no Japanese writer on this issue 

has accessed the trial records of the Guam War Crimes Commission or knows about the short memoirs by Col Rixey, Camouflage, cited above. Similarly, while Bradley includes Horie’s edited book in 

his bibliography, he does not seem to be aware of Teraki’s account or Horie’s article. Hearn was aware 

of none of the Japanese language works it seems, as he does not reference any of them.

19Cited in Bradley, Flyboys, 153.

20Hearn, Sorties Into Hell, 20.

21For a glossary of U.S. naval code words, see the Naval Historical Center website at http://www

.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq79-1.htm.

22For more on the development of Susaki Airfield and the changes to the community of Susaki, see 

Kamijo Akihiro, “Chichi Jima Susaki no Henyo ni Tsuite” [On the Changes to Susaki, Chichi Jima], 

Ogasawara Kenkyu Nenpo, no. 32 (2008), 49–69, and “Chichi Jima Susaki no Henyo ni Tsuite, Sono 

2: Susaki Hikojo to Taiheiyo Senso” [On the Changes to Susaki, Chichi Jima, Part 2: The Susaki 

Airfield and the Pacific War], Ogasawara Kenkyu Nenpo, no. 33 (2009), 51–85.

23The author visited every beach on Chichi Jima by boat and personally saw the extent of the defenses during a long stay on the islands in August 2007, and also spent several days inspecting each of the 

known fortifications by land. Murai Tokushiro, a local expert on the island’s fortifications, guided the 

author. For more on the fortifications, see Ogasawaramura Kyoiku Iinkai, ed., Ogasawarason Senseki 

Chosa Hokokusho [Survey on War Remnants in Ogasawara Village] (Chichi Jima: Ogasawaramura 

Kyoiku Iinkai, 2002), and Machijima Ryo, Ogaswara Senseki Ichiran [A List of Ogasawara War 

Remnants] (Tokyo: Soeisha, 2003).

24Bradley, Flyboys, 5.

The Bonin Islands During the War
128

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

25Hara Tsuyoshi, “Ogasawara Shoto Gunji Kankeishi” [A Military History of the Ogasawara Islands], in Ogasawarason Kyoiku Iinkai, ed., Ogasawarason Senseki Chosa Hokokusho, 9.

26Ibid., 9–10.

27For more on the Kempeitai, or secret military police, see Richard Deacon, Kempeitai: The Japanese 

Secret Service Then and Now (Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Books, 1990).

28Hara, “Ogasawara Shoto Gunji Kankeishi,” 10.

29The relevant section of the article read, “The maintenance of the status quo under the foregoing 

provisions implies that no new fortifications or naval bases shall be established in the territories and 

possessions specified; that no measures shall be taken to increase the existing naval facilities for the 

repair and maintenance of naval forces, and that no increase shall be made in the coast defences 

of the territories and possessions above specified. This restriction, however, does not preclude such 

repair and replacement of worn-out weapons and equipment as is customary in naval and military 

establishments in time of peace.”

30The statue and gate remains on Yoake Hill. Inexplicably, the Ogasawara Board of Education, in its 

explanation of the statue at its base, does not mention the fact that there was no school in the area, 

instead writing that the statue was relocated to avoid damage. It does not explain why the statue was 

removed to the site of the area to be bombed, namely the radio stations.

31Horie, “Chichi Jima Jinniku Jiken,” 121.

32Hara, “Ogasawara Shoto Gunji Kankeishi,” 18.

33Maj Y. Horie, “Explanation of the Japanese Defence Plan of Chichi Jima, December 23, 1945,” 

2, http://www.pfweb.com/plf-usmc/jdefense.htm. This document appears as appendix I in Eldridge 

and Tatum, eds., Fighting Spirit.

34Ogasawara Senyukai, ed., Ogasawara Heidan no Saigo, 140.

35Ogasawarason Kyoiku Iinkai, ed., Ogasawarason Senseki Chosa Hokokusho, 12.

36Machijima, Ogasawara Senseki Ichiran, 77.

37Ibid.

38Ogasawarason Kyoiku Iinkai, ed., Ogasawarason Senseki Chosa Hokokusho, 12.

39Hearn, Sorties Into Hell, 44.

40John H. Monaghan, “How to Make a Canteen Cup Sparkle,” Gunny G.’s Vignettes, 10.

41See Arthur W. Radford, From Pearl Harbor to Vietnam: The Memoirs of Admiral Arthur W. Radford

(Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1980), 258–59.

42Graff, Strike and Return, 11.

43Hearn, Sorties Into Hell, 2.

44Ibid.

45Ibid., 3; Samuel Eliot Morison, History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, vol. 6 

(Boston: Little, Brown, 1952), 237–38; and Francis T. Miller, The Complete History of World War II

(Chicago: Progress Research Corporation), 651.
129

46Hata, “Showashi no Nazo o Ou,” 385.

47Hearn, Sorties Into Hell, 3.

48Ibid., 26. Accounts vary as to whether that was done by plane or submarine.

49Ibid., 3.

50Ibid., 2.

51Ibid., 4.

52Graff, Strike and Return, 18.

53Ibid.

54Hearn, Sorties Into Hell, 4.

55Bradley, Flyboys, 185.

56Hearn, Sorties Into Hell, 4.

57Bradley, Flyboys, 186–87.

58Ibid., 188.

59The Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (the so-called Geneva Convention) 

was signed on 27 July 1929, by several dozen countries in Geneva and went into effect in June 1931. 

Japan, however, neither signed nor ratified it. For the consequences of those military and civilians 

captured by Japanese forces, see Gavan Daws, Prisoners of the Japanese: POWs of World War II in the 

Pacific (New York: Quill William Morrow, 1994); Laurence Rees, Horror in the East: Japan and the 

Atrocities of World War II (London: De Capo Press, 2001); and Tanaka Yuki, Hidden Horrors: Japanese 

War Crimes in World War II (New York: Westview Press, 1996).

60Horie, Tokon, 90–91, 148. This discussion appears in chapters 8 and 13 in Eldridge and Tatum, 

eds., Fighting Spirit.

61Hearn, Sorties Into Hell, 4.

62Ibid., 5.

63Ibid.

64Ibid.

65Bradley, Flyboys, 189.

66Initially, the plane was misidentified as a B-24 Army Air Forces plane by Japanese forces on the 

island. The B-24 and the Navy Liberator (PB4Y-1) were made by the same company, Consolidated 

Aircraft Corporation, and had identical wingspan and other dimensions, as well as the same nickname. While there were slight variations between the Navy and Army models, Bradley (338) writes, 

“the misidentification is similar to mistaking the burned hulk of a Buick for an Oldsmobile.”

67Until Bradley was told of the identity of this man by a friend of Hindenlang, John Luke, he was 

simply referred to as the “unidentified airman” in all the records and accounts of this period, including the original edition of Flyboys. For more, see the “Afterword to the Paperback Edition,” in ibid., 

337–39.

The Bonin Islands During the War
130

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

68Ibid., 190.

69Ibid., 191.

70Ibid., 192–99. For more on Bush’s story, see George H. W. Bush, Look Forward: The George Bush 

Story (New York: Doubleday, 1987); Joe Hyams, Flight of the Avenger: George Bush at War (San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1991), chapter 7; and Stinnett, George Bush.

71Hearn, Sorties Into Hell, 8.

72The fates of four others, ARM2c Carroll C. Hall, USN; ENS Rudolph F. Rolfing, USN; Joseph 

E. Notony (rank and service unknown); and an unsubstantiated flyer by the name of Todd, are unknown. See Hearn, Sorties Into Hell, 199–200.

73Bradley, Flyboys, 205.

74Ibid., 204.

75Ibid., 204–5.

76Ibid., 206–7.

77Ibid., 220–21.

78Ibid., 209.

79Hearn, Sorties Into Hell, 8.

80Bradley, Flyboys, 219.

81Ibid.

82Ibid., 219–20.

83Ibid., 220.

84Ibid., 224. A year later, Morishita committed suicide at his home in Wakayama City, Japan, after 

he had received a summons from investigators.

85Ibid., 226–9. Also see Teraki, Kokuhaku no Ishibumi.

86Bradley, Flyboys, 226.

87Ibid., 228.

88Ibid., 200–201.

89Ibid., 235–36.

90Author’s interview with Tamamura Fumio, 5 June 2008, Yokohama, Japan.

91Bradley, Flyboys, 239–40.

92Ibid., 244–45.

93Author’s interview with Iwatake Nobuaki, 19 May 2008, Tokyo, Japan. For more on Iwatake, see 

Eric Talmadge (Associated Press), “Family’s Artificial Christmas Tree Has a Foundation of Roots,” 

Hawaii Tribune Herald, 22 September 2007.

94Bradley, Flyboys, 281.
131

95Ibid.

96Ibid., 281–82.

97Ibid., 285.

98Ibid., 286–87.

99Ibid., 285.

100Hearn, Sorties into Hell, 166.

101Ibid.

102Horie, “Explanation of the Japanese Defence Plan of Chichi Jima, December 23, 1945,” 2.

103Horie, “Chichi Jima Jinniku Jiken,” 128–29, and Ogasawara Senyukai, ed., Ogasawara Heidan no 

Saigo, 202.

104Horie, “Chichi Jima Jinniku Jiken,” 128–29.

105Ogasawara Senyukai, ed., Ogasawara Heidan no Saigo, 202–3.

106Horie, “Chichi Jima Jinniku Jiken,” 129.

107Ibid.

108Ibid.

109Ogasawara Senyukai, ed., Ogasawara Heidan no Saigo, 204.

110Ibid., and Horie, “Chichi Jima Jinniku Jiken,” 129.

111Ogasawara Senyukai, ed., Ogasawara Heidan no Saigo, 205.

112The surrender document, prepared by the Commander, Marianas, United States Pacific Fleet, 

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g380000/g386393.jpg.

113For more on the Amami surrender, see Eldridge, The Return of the Amami Islands, xv–xvi.

114According to one source, Rixey arrived with 650 Marines for duty on Chichi Jima. An additional 

250 Marines were assigned to work on Haha Jima. See Ogasawara Senyukai, ed., Ogasawara Heidan 

no Saigo, 205.

115Hearn, Sorties into Hell, 32.

116Rixey, Camouflage, 2.

117Ibid.

118Ibid.

119Ibid.

120Ibid., 3.

121Hearn, Sorties into Hell, 40.

122Rixey, Camouflage, 4.

123Ibid.

The Bonin Islands During the War
132

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

124Ogasawara Senyukai, ed., Ogasawara Heidan no Saigo, 206.

125See photo of their repatriation in Hearn, Sorties into Hell, 32. For the background to their arrival 

on Chichi Jima, see George Hicks, The Comfort Women: Japan’s Brutal Regime of Enforced Prostitution in the Second World War (New York: W. W. Norton, 1995), 112. Some photos of the women and 

Japanese troops can be found in Ogasawara Senyukai, ed., Ogasawara Heidan no Saigo, 167, but the 

purpose of their being there is unclear.

126Hearn, Sorties into Hell, 43.

127Rixey, Camouflage, 5.

128Monks, “Once Upon a Time,” 39.

129Bill Monks, “I Did Not Raise My Boy to Be a Soldier,” Excerpts from Grandpa’s Memoirs, 1 August 1999, published online as Marine Vignettes #77, at http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/vignettes19.html. Author’s interview with William Monks, 22 August 2006, New Jersey.

130Rixey, Camouflage, 5.

131Monks, 17. Each Marine who commemorated the surrender was given a sword the next day.

132Hearn, Sorties into Hell, 47.

133Ibid., 51.

134See Gilbert Cant, “Home to Chichijima: Yankee Trader’s Descendant Welcomes U.S. Flag,” Life 

Magazine, 24 June 1946, 19; and Martin Sheridan, “Sunday Telegram Writer Finds a Bit of New 

England in the Pacific,” Worcester Sunday Telegram, 17 October 1948, 8. In the prewar years, St. 

Joseph’s, which was run by the Brotherhood of St. Mary, had a faculty that was almost 90 percent 

American. See Sheridan, “Sunday Telegram Writer,” 12.

135Rixey, Camouflage, 5.

136Sheridan, “Sunday Telegram Writer,” 8.

137Rixey, Camouflage, 5–6.

138Ibid., 6.

139Ibid., 7.

140Ibid., 8.

141Bill Monks, Marine Vignettes by Gunny G: Bill Monks’ Story, http://gunnyg.wordpress.com

/2007/12/01/marine-vignettes-by-gunny-g-marine-bill-monks-story/, 1.

142Ibid., 2.

143Ibid., 7.

144Rixey, Camouflage, 10.

145Teraki, Kokuhaku no Ishibumi, cited in Hata, “Showashi no Nazo,” 386.

146Ogasawara Senyukai, ed., Ogasawara Heidan no Saigo, 218.

147For a discussion of the cannibalism, vivisection, and mutilation of civilian and military prisoners 

committed by Japanese troops, including those on Chichi Jima, see Lord Russell of Liverpool, The 
133

Knights of Bushido: A Short History of Japanese War Crimes (London: Cassell and Company, 1958), 

233–40.

148Author’s interview with Robert D. Shaffer, Salt Lake City, Utah, 17–18 August 2009.

149Appendix B in Hearn, Sorties into Hell (201–2), provides a list of the men recommended for trial.

150Ibid., 181.

151Ibid., 182.

152Erickson, “United States Navy War Crimes Trials (1945–1949),” 108.

153Ibid.

154Hearn, Sorties into Hell, 189.

155Ibid., 192.

156Tanaka, Hidden Horrors, 2–3.

The Bonin Islands During the War
134

Chapter 4

The Peace Treaty and Island Disposition

The United States currently possesses strategic control of the Pacific by reason of 

our necessary and extremely costly conquest of the islands and areas in question. 

This control can be relinquished, weakened, or in any way jeopardized only at the 

expense of our security.

—Joint Chiefs of Staff memo to State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee, 11 July 1946

When the Allied occupation of Japan, led by the United States, began in early September 

1945 with the signing of the Instrument of Surrender on board the USS Missouri (BB 63) 

in Tokyo Bay, it is likely that no one in Japan anticipated that the Bonin Islands would be 

separated from their country at the time of the future peace treaty and placed under the 

administrative control of the United States over the next two decades. Similarly, few of 

the displaced islanders of Japanese descent probably expected that most of them would be 

prevented from returning to their homes in Chichi Jima and Haha Jima for almost 25 years 

and never again for those from Iwo Jima and Kita Iwo Jima.1

The decision not to allow the return of most of the islanders was an early one, made in 

1945 after the end of the war. The indefinite administrative separation of the islands from 

Japan, first announced in late January 1946, would be confirmed through the San Francisco 

Peace Treaty of September 1951, and finalized through actual policy in the immediate 

posttreaty period.

U.S. Policy Regarding Japanese Territory

on the Eve of the Surrender

The United States had begun its studies on the postwar period prior to its entry into World 

War II following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941. Its guiding 

principle toward the ongoing war in Europe and Asia with regard to territorial issues was 

made clear with the announcement of the Atlantic Charter on 14 August 1941. In it, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill stated that the 

two countries “seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other” as a result of the war, “desire to 

see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples 

concerned,” and “respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under 

which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to 

those who have been forcibly deprived of them.”2

While Japan eventually was allowed to retain sovereignty over the Bonin and Volcano 

Islands, as per Article 3 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan, the United States would continue 

to exercise administrative control over them (as well as the Ryukyu Islands) for some time, 
135

permitting the United States to fortify the Bonin Islands as a “secondary base area.”3 While 

the clash that eventually emerged was not as severe as that over the disposition of Okinawa—there were at least two different factors at work: the absence of a large “Japanese” 

population on the Bonin Islands and the proximity of the islands to the Pacific Mandates, 

and thus some in the State Department were more amenable to the security arguments—

there were differences that emerged between the State Department and the military over 

the best way to handle the Bonins. The State Department would come to seek their retention by Japan, with the U.S. military desiring their keeping by the United States.

As noted, the U.S. government began studying the postwar period well before it was a 

full participant in the war that would eventually involve much of the entire world. In late 

1939, Secretary of State Cordell Hull approved the creation of a committee to study the 

“Problems of Peace and Reconstruction” for the postwar, which would look at territorial, 

economic, military, political, and other issues.4

 The committee, called the Advisory Committee on Problems of Foreign Relations, and its three subcommittees, came into being in 

January 1940. Due in part to the lack of resources and personnel, as well as the fact it met 

infrequently without an agenda, the committee was ineffective.5

This situation changed following the attack on Pearl Harbor and America’s entry into 

the war. Three weeks after the attack, President Roosevelt “heartily approved” the establishment of the Advisory Committee on Postwar Foreign Policy.6

 The new committee, which 

began its activities on 12 February 1942, served as an advisory committee for the president 

and entire government and comprised members from the State Department, Council on 

Foreign Relations, military, and non-governmental organizations.7

One of the subcommittees formed under this second advisory committee was the Territorial Subcommittee, or TS. Dr. Isaiah Bowman, a member of the Council on Foreign 

Relations and president of Johns Hopkins University from 1935 to 1948, headed the TS. 

According to Harley A. Notter, a career diplomat who was instrumental in the postwar 

planning and author of a detailed organizational history of this period and their work, the 

Territorial Subcommittee defined “territorial” in two ways. The first was as “land with people on it” and thus “boundaries could not . . . be ignored.”8

 Notter explained that boundaries 

“still meant what they always had, only to a lesser degree. Aviation and other modern developments of a military and economic nature had modified the significance but not entirely 

removed either the security or the economic implications of boundaries. These boundaries 

afforded, in particular, a reduced but still strategically vital period of military warning.”9

Second, “territorial” included the historical and contemporary economic, social, and political situation in a given country, as well as the area or region in which it was located, and 

thus the subcommittee “focused upon the requisite conditions for peace and stability both 

within and among countries.”10

It was primarily in this subcommittee that the disposition of the Bonin Islands was 

initially discussed. However, there were others, such as the Security and Political Subcommittees, which had an interest in the outcome of those discussions. Indeed, it was the Political Subcommittee, led by Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles, which first examined 

Japan’s modern history of territorial acquisitions in an effort to determine which territories 

The Peace Treaty and Island Disposition
136

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Japan had gained through “aggressive action.”11 The Bonins were found not to have been 

seized aggressively, and as a result, the subcommittee was “inclined, at present, to leave these 

islands under Japanese control.”12 However, there was the added concern about security and 

thus the subcommittee’s opinion was conditioned on the Security Subcommittee’s agreement that there were no “strategic reasons why this should not be done.”13

The Security Subcommittee took up the question of Japan’s territories at the request of 

the Political Subcommittee on 21 August1942, and one member, Japanese speaker Major 

General George V. Strong, argued that “Japan should be deprived of the Bonin and Marianas Islands due to their proximity to Guam,” and that the Bonins could serve as one area 

in a “ring of ‘police posts’ ” that would counter “potential Japanese aggression.”14 Norman 

H. Davis, a former chief delegate to the disarmament conferences in London and Geneva 

who chaired the Security Subcommittee, countered that if the “fortifications [on the Bonin 

Islands] are destroyed, and if the peace treaty prevented their rearmament by Japan, and if 

this treaty is implemented by adequate provisions for inspection, he felt that no advantage 

would be gained through the removal of Japanese sovereignty.” Several members of the 

subcommittee agreed with Davis, arguing that the issue was disarming Japan rather than 

separating the outlying island areas from Japanese rule. Even Stanley K. Hornbeck, a special advisor on Far Eastern problems normally known for his pro-China, anti-Japan views, 

stated that it is “important to the future peace and security of the Pacific not to deprive 

Japan of any more territory or economic opportunity than is necessary to insure adequate 

security. If extensive territories are taken away from Japan, and if the Japanese are deprived 

of fishing rights, the resulting situation will encourage Japan to contemplate another war. 

It was much better,” he continued, “to base a Pacific peace plan upon the effective disarmament of Japan than upon other territorial and economic restrictions.” According to the 

minutes of the meeting, this view was approved by several subcommittee members. The 

body decided to ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff ( JCS) for their views as well.

Admiral William D. Leahy, chairman of the JCS, responded on 15 September. His 

letter was read at the 18 September meeting of the Security Subcommittee. In it, the JCS 

argued,

It is imperative that Japan be prevented from controlling the sea and air routes 

across the Pacific and the western Pacific and conversely, that these routes be controlled by the United Nations. This indicates the necessity of depriving Japan of all 

islands south of latitude 30°. This includes . . . the Bonin and Marianas Islands . . . 

The Joint Chiefs of Staff consider that the United States should not commit herself 

as to the ultimate disposition of any territory suitable for air and/or naval bases of 

which Japan may be deprived until the strategic situation likely to exist after the 

war has been determined.15

The JCS evaluation was reflected in the Security Subcommittee’s recommendations, 

which were submitted to the Political Subcommittee for its reference on 22 September.16

That subcommittee, in turn, tentatively concluded on 1 October that strategically important areas should be placed under international control.17 It was unclear what form this 

“international control” would take, however.
137

The Peace Treaty and Island Disposition

Meanwhile, until early 1943, the Territorial Subcommittee had been involved in researching European problems and thus was not able to address Pacific issues. As a result, it 

was not until 25 May 1943, before the TS completed its study on the Bonin and Volcano 

Islands. The third in a series of studies and entitled “T-323, Nanpo Shoto (Bonin and 

Other Islands), Japan,” this secret report explained that “postwar adjustments of Japanese 

territory will involve consideration of the question of possible detachment of all or part of 

the islands known as the Nanpo Shoto.”18

The six-page paper briefly examined the history, government, education, and economy 

of the Nanpo Shoto Islands before turning its attention to the question of their disposition. While recognizing the islands to be “administered as an integral part of Japan” and 

“belong[ing] historically and ethnically to the Japanese Empire,” the paper noted that who 

controlled the islands would “depend on the weight given to the factor of security.”19 It then 

gave four “alternative solutions” for their disposition:

(1) Retention by Japan

This solution would give recognition to Japan’s historical claims to the 

islands, and to their cultural, administrative, and commercial association 

with Japan proper. If the mandated islands to the south are detached from 

the Japanese Empire, and if provision is made for the disarmament of Japan and for the demilitarization of the remaining outlying possessions, 

those islands should not constitute a threat against the security of other 

nations. This would be the case especially if arrangements are made for an 

overall Pacific security system.

(2) Partial Retention by Japan

For purposes of security, Chichi Jima, in the Bonins, and possibly other islands which have been utilized for naval and military purposes, might be detached while the remaining islands might be retained by Japan. The detached 

islands might be placed under the jurisdiction of a North Pacific Council or 

some other international agency to be established with authority in this area. 

The actual administration of the islands might be patterned after whatever 

arrangements may be made for other strategically important islands in the 

Pacific. Provision might be made for the continuation of Japanese commercial enterprise in any islands which pass to international control.

(3) Detachment of Ogasawara and Kazan Islands and Marcus Island

For reasons of security Japan might be deprived of all insular possessions 

south of 30゚North latitude. If this arrangement is followed, the Ogasawara 

and Kazan island groups, and Marcus Island, would be detached and Japan would retain possession of all of the Izu group, with the exception of 

an uninhabited rock called Sofu Gan (Lot’s Wife—29゚49’). This solution raises the problem of the disposition of the islands to be detached. If 

a North Pacific Council or other international agency is established, the 

islands might be placed under its jurisdiction. The administration might 
138

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

be based on the arrangements to be made for other strategically important 

Pacific Islands. Since the principal purpose of international administration would be to prevent Japan from employing the islands for military 

use, such administration might be limited to supervising and inspection. 

It might be possible accordingly to utilize Japanese personnel for normal 

administration purposes. Provision might be made also for the continuation of commercial enterprise in the islands.

(4) Conditional Retention by Japan

If Japan is permitted to retain the islands, provision might be made for dismantling all military and naval fortifications and for the establishment for 

such a period, as may appear adequate, of a system of periodic investigation 

by an international agency in order to prevent the utilization for military 

purposes of such facilities as may be required for legitimate commercial 

enterprise.

The paper, prepared by John Masland Jr., a professor of political science and international relations at Stanford University who had joined the Far Eastern Unit of the Division 

of Special Research in 1943, did not conclude with a recommendation, but simply spelled 

out the different courses. It would be another year and a half before the territorial disposition of the Bonins could be studied in greater detail and specific recommendations appear.

In the interim, Secretary Hull realized by the summer of 1943 that “the results of our 

discussions to date be brought together in the form of documents which can serve as the 

basis of a more specific consideration of policies and proposals” and decided to dissolve 

the Advisory Committee and create the Post-War Programs Committee (PWC).20 The 

PWC would meet 66 times during 1944 prior to the establishment of the State-War-Navy 

Coordinating Committee (in November that year). It was chaired by Secretary Hull, and 

comprised all the senior officials in the State Department. Because of the high rank of the 

committee, once it approved a recommendation, it became State Department policy, and 

needed only presidential approval to become official U.S. policy for that area unless coordination with the military was necessary.21

Underneath the PWC were the Country and Area Committees (CAC)—what the leading historian of this period Iokibe Makoto has described as the PWC’s “backbone”—which 

had come into being in the summer and fall of 1943.22 One such committee was the InterDivisional Area Committee on the Far East (IDACFE), which came into being in October 

1943. It was in this committee that territorial issues were further studied and specific policies formulated for the Far East, including the disposition of the Bonin Islands.

The IDACFE was headed by Dr. George H. Blakeslee, an authority on the history 

and international relations of the Far East, who had chaired the Far Eastern Unit of the 

Territorial Problems Group within the Division of Special Research. Dr. Hugh Borton, a 

Japan expert at Columbia University, who had worked as a missionary and later studied in 

Japan in the 1930s, served as secretary.23 The committee first addressed the question of the 

territorial disposition of the Bonins in October 1944, a year after its formation. The first 

draft appeared on 6 October 1944, which coincidentally was the same week that Admirals 
139

The Peace Treaty and Island Disposition

Chester W. Nimitz and Ernest J. King had decided to develop plans to seize Iwo Jima, as 

examined in the previous chapter.

Like the earlier paper prepared by Masland in the Territorial Subcommittee, this study, 

entitled “Japan Territorial Problems: Bonin and Volcano Islands (CAC-304 Preliminary)” 

and written by Blakeslee, recognized that “Japan has a strong claim to the Bonin and Volcano islands on the basis of long-time possession, propinquity, nationality, and cultural, commercial, and administrative attachment to Japan proper.”24 In addition, Blakeslee (who had 

long-followed the issue of the Mandates),25 argued that if the islands were demilitarized 

and Japan were deprived of the Mandated Islands and Formosa, Japan would probably not 

constitute a threat to the security of other nations.

Suggesting that perceptions about the strategic value of the islands had changed noticeably in the past year, the paper pointed out that the “strategic location of these islands and 

their suitability for naval and airplane purposes are so outstanding,” however, “that it may 

appear advisable to use at least one of them for bases for the United Nations.”26 Blakeslee 

suggested that one or more of the bases could be used by the United Nations as part of what 

he called a “general security system in the Pacific.” Discussing the administration of the 

bases, the paper stated that it could be placed directly under the international organization 

or that the areas could be assigned or leased to one state, such as the United States, which 

would be in charge of the base under the supervision of the international organization. 

Other members of the United Nations would be permitted to use the base as well. Along 

these lines, the paper also suggested that one or more of the islands could be “transferred” 

to the United States “in full sovereignty” with the condition that naval and air stations be 

made available for use by the other members of the international organization.

Blakeslee pointed out that there were considerations against the United States acquiring 

sovereignty and as his recommendation, introduced later, shows, he felt these reasons strong 

enough to discourage the United States from acquiring sovereignty.

The first reason had to do with his concern that the acquisition of sovereignty would be 

seen as a violation of the “no territorial aggrandizement” provision of the Atlantic Charter 

and the similar one in the Cairo Declaration. The second consideration is that the use of 

a trusteeship for the islands would weaken the “principle of trusteeship,” which Blakeslee 

defined as helping “certain territories which may be detached from the present enemy 

states” become independent. The third reason was his concern that the United States would 

be forced to pay “a substantial price” for sovereignty, namely the “corresponding nationalist 

demands” of other states in the region, such as, interestingly, Australia and New Zealand, 

“for hegemony in wide areas of the South Pacific.” The final consideration mentioned was 

that “even after the establishment of a government devoted to peace,” Japan would likely see 

“foreign national bases in close proximity” to it “as a military menace.”

In light of the above concerns, Blakeslee recommended that Japan be permitted to retain the Bonin and Volcano Islands, conditioned on their being demilitarized. However, he 

also hedged by saying that “if developments should raise officially the question of the suitability of transferring from Japan some area in the islands for security purposes,” the United 

States should give “careful consideration” to this possibility.
140

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Blakeslee and Borton met a couple of weeks later with representatives of the Navy to 

find out its thinking with regard to international bases. At the 18 October meeting where 

they were shown a Joint Chiefs of Staff map, the two State Department officials learned 

that the Navy planned to establish a “blue base” in the Bonin Islands.27 This referred to a 

base that would be under “exclusive United States control” rather than joint administration 

under an international organization, the details of which were being worked out as part of 

following the Dumbarton Oaks Conference. Admiral Harold C. Train, who headed the 

Office of Naval Intelligence, explained that the base would probably be on Chichi Jima and 

that since the island was small, it would probably include the entire island. Furthermore, he 

pointed out, a base in the Bonins would necessitate control of all the islands in the Bonin 

and Volcano groups by the United States. Since the “small civilian population would be 

largely destroyed or dispersed after the fighting,” Train stated the two island groups should 

probably be “united to the Japanese Mandated Islands,” and placed under the sovereignty of 

the United States.28 Essentially this is what would happen in the latter 1940s—the islands 

would be separated from Japan and administered as an “appendage” of the Trust Territory 

by the United States, although a form of nominal sovereignty would remain with Japan.

It would not be until the end of December before the eight members of the IDACFE 

were able to discuss the Bonins again. Blakeslee began the 28 December meeting by saying 

that he had recommended in the earlier (6 October) paper against U.S. sovereignty over the 

islands, and that his views were supported by the Security Group of the Council on Foreign 

Relations as well as by Eugene Dooman, who had served as Counsellor of Embassy from 

1937 to 1941 under Ambassador Joseph C. Grew and had joined the IDACFE when it was 

created in 1943. Blakeslee had drafted the recommendations, he said, “so that [the islands’] 

permanent retention by Japan would be possible.” Almost all of the members agreed with 

him; only one unnamed member did not vote.

The committee also discussed the question of the type of base—international (a base 

for use by several countries or established by the United States for that purpose) versus 

American (a base established unilaterally)—in the Bonin Islands, and voted five-to-two in 

favor of international bases. On a third question, whether the bases should be temporary or 

permanent, the committee was divided—two members argued the bases should be there for 

“a period of control following the period of occupation,” two members believed they should 

be there longer than the period of control but not permanently, one member believed that 

the base should be permanent, and one member “opposed the establishment of bases of any 

kind on the islands.” On a final question, the committee voted four-to-three in favor of the 

return of the islands to Japan in the future if conditions permitted such a transfer. Furthermore, bases established should be both temporary and international in nature.

One thing was apparent—committee members were of different minds on the various 

issues concerning the islands. Blakeslee’s summary showed as much: “The problem of the 

disposition of the Bonin and Volcano Islands greatly perplexed the Committee . . . The 

Committee concluded that the problem of the disposition of these islands needed further 

study.” Essentially, however, the committee was united on the question of the United States 

not acquiring sovereignty over the islands, but unsure about whether Japan should be allowed to keep them.
141

The Peace Treaty and Island Disposition

At a follow-up meeting on 4 January 1945, the committee reaffirmed its recommendation of the inadvisability of the United States to acquire sovereignty, approving in a vote of 

seven-to-two that it would be inadvisable to accept for inclusion in the paper the proposal 

that an exclusive U.S. base be established on the islands. Instead, the committee recommended that the islands be placed under the projected international organization which 

would designate the United States as administrator of the islands and grant it exclusive 

authority over the base.29 Under this arrangement, the base would be made “exclusively 

American,” but other powers could use it.30 The committee also felt that in the event the 

islands were placed under the authority of an international organization, the arrangement 

would not prejudice the sovereignty of the islands.

The Bonins came up again the following week at the IDACFE’s next meeting held on 

9 January. The principal question concerned whether Japan should be required to place the 

islands directly under the authority of the international organization, which the committee 

preferred, or to cede them to the principal victorious states which would then place them 

under the international organization. In debating the issue, the question was raised about 

sovereignty and whether placing the islands under international control “would imply a 

transfer of sovereignty.”31 Borton, who chaired that day’s session, did not answer the question directly, but instead said it was “his understanding that the committee did not want 

sovereignty to remain with Japan.” It is unclear why he said this as the committee’s 28 

December meeting notes show that while three members were against sovereignty remaining with Japan, four were in favor of it. In other words, the majority were in favor of Japan 

retaining sovereignty. However, the vote was close and no decision was made at that time. 

Noting this, Dooman chimed in and said that “there would be considerable nuisance value 

in settling the question of sovereignty once and for all and that it would be better to leave 

the matter open.” As a result, no decision was taken and the chance for Japan to retain sovereignty over the Bonins remained.

Over the next couple of weeks, the committee met several times to discuss the legal issues and language of the final paper and recommendations. On 11 January, the committee 

decided that the United States “w[ould] have exclusive authority over an area larger than 

the base area.”32 Dooman also informed the group that the Department of the Interior 

had demanded the administration of all Pacific Islands as soon as they were occupied, but 

the committee “thought this would raise serious complications and would tend to give 

the impression that the islands were already acquired by the United States.”33 In its next 

meeting on 17 January, the committee discussed “at length” the question as to whether U.S. 

sovereignty over the islands would be “detrimental to our influence in the Far East.”34 No 

consensus was reached on the issue, but the chairman was asked to draft a paragraph that 

suggested “annexation might well create a suspicion among Far Eastern people that the 

United States was embarking on an imperialistic policy and the fact that United States sovereignty would make us vulnerable to propaganda which seeks to make Far Eastern peoples 

believe that we are imperialistic.”

On 23 January, the committee held its 185th meeting, which was devoted to considering the question as to what U.S. policy should be in the case an international organization 

was created without adequate trusteeship functions. The committee believed in that case, 
142

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

the State Department would have to “recommend that the areas concerned be held in 

some other status.”35 A few days later, the committee met and “finally decided” to bring 

the recommendations for the Bonin Islands “as closely as possible in line with” the recommendations for the Japanese Mandated Islands.36 The committee approved the following 

solution to do that:

1. Japan be required to renounce all her rights and titles over the Bonin, Volcano, 

and Marcus Islands in favor of the leading victorious powers—the United States, 

Great Britain, China, and the Soviet Union if it enters the war against Japan.

2. These leading powers place the islands as a trust area under the international 

organization by an instrument or instruments which shall contain a provision 

that the United States:

a) shall be the permanent administering authority and

b) shall at all times be free to establish for security purposes at such points 

within the islands as it may determine, bases over which it shall have exclusive jurisdiction in all matters affecting the security of the bases.37

As a result of this “long and careful consideration” by the IDACFE on the question of 

the disposition of the Bonins and other groups of islands, the secretary’s staff committee 

prepared the final position of the State Department on 17 April 1945, about three weeks 

after the end of the Battle of Iwo Jima, in a document titled “The Disposition of Certain 

Islands Controlled By Or Under the Sovereignty of Japan.”38 It prefaced the section on the 

Bonin, Volcano, and Marcus Islands by writing that the recommendations were necessarily 

tentative because the projected international organization had yet to be established and its 

function with regard to the trust areas undetermined. Noting that the value of the islands 

“is almost entirely strategic,” and the desire of the JCS as well as the War and Navy Departments to annex the islands altogether, the Staff Committee believed the following recommendations would “best serve the political interests” in regard to bases in the Pacific:

1. Japan shall be required to renounce all her rights and titles over the Bonin, Volcano, and Marcus Islands in favor of the leading victorious powers—the United 

States, Great Britain, China, and the Soviet Union if it enters the war against 

Japan.

2. These leading powers shall place the islands as a trust area under the projected 

international organization by an instrument or instruments which shall contain 

a provision that the United States:

a) shall be the permanent administering authority, and

b) shall at all times be free to establish for security purposes at such points 

within the islands as it may determine, bases over which it shall have exclusive jurisdiction in all matters affecting the security of the bases.

3. The American government should initiate negotiations with the other leading 

powers to make certain that they agree upon taking the action outlined above.
143

The Peace Treaty and Island Disposition

4. The Department of State shall submit the above recommendations to the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff for their consideration prior to the final acceptance of these recommendations as the policy of this government.

5. If other leading United Nations should decline to place under the projected 

international organization areas of comparable strategic importance to them 

which have been taken from enemy states, the United States government should 

review the whole question of the disposition of the Bonin, Volcano, and Marcus 

Islands.39

In the meantime, the State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee (SWNCC) had also 

been considering “the politico-military problems which now, or soon will, confront the 

United States,” and began a series on “territorial adjustments” later given the designation 

“SWNCC 59” and named “Disposition of Areas to be Removed from Japan’s Sovereignty.” 

On 13 March 1945, SWNCC’s Subcommittee on the Far East (SFE) submitted the paper 

“Disposition of Areas to be Removed from Japan’s Sovereignty” to the committee’s secretariat. In it, the SFE pointed out that any future paper on territorial adjustments should examine “the political and security interests of the United States in the future status of certain 

areas of the Japanese Empire, such as . . . the Bonin and Volcano Islands,” and recommended 

that the committee have the State Department prepare a paper on the subject.40

It was not until June 1946, however, before the State Department was able to complete 

the study and submit it, due in part to the “hectic period . . . prior to Japan’s surrender”41 and 

also because of the fact that territorial adjustments usually did not take place until the time 

of a peace treaty which was still a far way off. Another reason was the fact that the trusteeship system under the United Nations was still being discussed (and would not be officially 

established until early 1947). In the meantime, the JCS continued with its studies of overall 

base requirements and control over the Japanese islands, building on a March 1943 study 

that argued the United States “in the Pacific, should select, equip, and fortify a line of naval 

and air bases west from Hawaii to and including bases in the Philippines and Bonins . . . 

[which] are essential to the defense of our position in the Far East, and valuable for international military purposes.”42

President Harry S. Truman furthered the discussion by stating in a radio broadcast on 

6 August 1945, that

though the United States wants no territory, or profit or selfish advantage out of 

this war, we are going to maintain the military bases necessary for the complete 

protection of our interests and world peace. Bases which our military experts deem 

essential for our protection and which are not now in our possession, we will acquire. We will acquire them by arrangements consistent with the United Nations 

Charter.

The president followed this statement with a second one at the Navy Day celebration on 

27 October 1945, in New York in which he said, “We have assured the world time and time 

again—and I repeat it now—that we do not seek for ourselves one inch of territory in any 

place in the world. Outside of the right to establish necessary bases for our own protection, 

we look for nothing which belongs to any other power.”43 A few months later, on 15 Janu-
144

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

ary 1946, Truman reiterated, “The United States would insist that it be sole trustee of enemy Pacific Islands conquered by our forces and considered vital to this country’s security. 

Other former enemy islands now held by us but not considered vital to this country will be 

placed under United Nations Organization Trusteeship, to be ruled by a group of countries 

named by UNO (United Nations Organization).”44

The Navy in particular was quite sure of the need for a number of bases in the Pacific, a 

view it also explained publicly around this time. Immediately after Japan’s surrender, Assistant Secretary of the Navy H. Struve Hensel announced at a press conference in Washington, DC, what the Navy considered were the “absolute minimum” number of bases necessary 

in the Pacific.45 Iwo Jima was one of several Pacific areas the United States “should intend 

to maintain and which are susceptible to defense.”46 Drawing on the lessons from the past 

war, and fearful of a possible new one with the Soviet Union, Hensel also stated that the 

Navy would recommend more bases be kept in order to “prevent them from being used by 

any other nation.”47

Hensel’s comments were certainly a reflection of the discussions going on within the 

government at the time. That same month, in September 1945, the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

approved JCS 570/34, later revised as JCS 570/40, “Over-All Examination of U.S. Requirements for Military Bases and Rights,” which designated the Bonin-Volcano Islands 

as a “secondary base area,” and noted that “All Japanese Mandated Islands and Central 

Pacific Islands detached from Japan, including the Bonins and Ryukyus, will be brought 

under exclusive United States strategic control.”48 A “secondary base area” was one deemed 

“essential for the protection of and/or for access to primary bases and for the projection 

of military operations.”49 With JCS 570/40’s approval on 25 October 1945, the chiefs requested through SWNCC that the State Department seek the necessary international arrangements through its diplomatic channels, noting that “the comprehensive base system 

which will result from obtaining the desired rights is not only an inescapable requirement 

for United States security in the event of a failure of the United Nations Organization to 

preserve world peace, but that the provision of this system will contribute materially to the 

effectiveness of that organization in maintaining peace throughout the world.”50

JCS 570/40 did not define what sort of strategic control was envisioned, and it would 

be left undefined for three months until 17 January 1946, when the JCS, responding to a 

request the day before by the new Secretary of State James F. Byrnes, directed the Joint 

Strategic Survey Committee ( JSSC) to restudy the question of strategic control over the 

Nansei and Nanpo Islands with reference to Article 82 of the UN Charter, which concerned trusteeships.51 In JCS 570/50, approved on 21 January, the joint chiefs informed the 

secretary of State that they “considered it essential to our national defense that the United 

States have strategic control of the Japanese Mandated Islands by assumption of full U.S. 

sovereignty; and that the United States have strategic control over the Nansei Shoto, Nanpo Shoto, and of Marcus Island through trusteeship agreements designating those islands 

as strategic areas.”52 The document became SWNCC 249/1 the next day.

Although the trusteeship system was still being discussed in early 1946, there were 

many individuals in the U.S. government, particularly in the military, who doubted whether 

a trusteeship would be able to safeguard U.S. strategic interests. Moreover, there were oth-
145

The Peace Treaty and Island Disposition

ers, such as those in the State Department, who thought it unwise to place Japanese territory under U.S. control following a peace treaty as it would damage the prestige of the 

United States by making it look like it sought to acquire territory. These concerns would 

continue over the following year and as a result, although the United States successfully 

submitted its request for a strategic trusteeship over the Japanese Mandated Islands with 

the United States as the sole administering authority after the trusteeship agreement was 

approved on 2 April 1947, it did not submit a request for trusteeship over the Nanpo and 

Nansei Islands at this point.

The military, nevertheless, continued to view the Bonin Islands as strategically important. In a report prepared by the Joint Strategic Survey Committee on “Strategic Areas 

and Trusteeships in the Pacific,” the Nansei and Nanpo Islands were described as “vital . . . 

as regards our need and our ability to deny them to a future potential enemy. In short, the 

Nansei Shoto and Nanpo Shoto are areas which must be denied to any enemy to prevent 

his harassing our own vital line of communications, which can be maintained only by unquestioned strategic control in the former Mandates.”53

JCS 1619/1, a report prepared by the joint staff planners in collaboration with the Joint 

Strategic Survey Committee and dated 24 May 1946, explained the thinking further in 

paragraphs 11 and 12:

11. The keystone upon which the entire U.S. base system in the Pacific, as approved 

by JCS 570/40, is built is the assumption that all Pacific islands formerly under mandate to or sovereignty of Japan, less Formosa and the Kuriles, will be 

brought under U.S. exclusive control. Such strategic control can be gained either by acquisition of sovereignty or by being granted a United Nations trusteeship, in which the United States is the sole administering authority, over these 

territories, collectively or severally.

12. The purpose of U.S. strategic control over the subject Pacific islands is twofold: 

a) to provide for the establishment of military bases thereon, considered necessary for the security of the United States; b) to prevent the military utilization 

of these territories by any other nation. The most positive means of ensuring 

the fulfillment of these two objectives would be for the United States to acquire 

sovereignty over the subject islands. The United States, however, is committed 

to promoting the principles of the United Nations, and, in all instances where 

applicable and where it will not seriously affect her security, should offer for 

trusteeship those former Japanese islands which she now controls.54

The same report stated that a trusteeship for the Nanpo Shoto,

under sole U.S. administration, with the Volcanos and Bonin Islands designated as 

a strategic area would be preferable from the military point of view; although the 

designation of only the island of Iwo Jima as a strategic area would be acceptable. (emphasis added) There would be no objection to continued Japanese sovereignty over 

the Izu Islands, even to include Sofu Gan to the southward, if they be permanently 

demilitarized. Marcus Island, being uninhabited and, as far as is known, without 

economic value, should be acquired under full sovereignty of the United States.55
146

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

1619/1 goes on to explain that

The Bonin-Volcano Islands are designated in JCS 570/40 as a secondary base. However, except for possible air warning installations, Iwo Jima of the Volcanos group 

(southernmost) is the only island intended for military base development. This position protects the primary base in the Marianas. Of the Nanpo Shoto, the Bonins 

(Ogasawara Gunto) and Volcanos (Karzan [sic] Retto) are sparsely populated by 

natives of British, American, and Hawaiian origin, descendants of an early whaling 

colony, whereas the Izu Island (northernmost) natives are of Japanese stock. Except 

for Iwo Jima, only the first objective of paragraph 12 [see above] must be attained 

in the Nanpo Shoto. However, because of the British and American origin of the 

inhabitants of the Bonins and Volcanos, it does not appear that there could be any 

question of their mistreatment by an American administration and because of the 

sparseness of the population, their preparedness for independence is not foreseeable in the future. Thus, a U.S. trusteeship over the Nanpo Shoto, with the Volcano 

and Bonin Island groups designated as strategic areas, appears the preferable solution from the military viewpoint, but the strategic area could be reduced to only 

the island of Iwo Jima, if necessary, and still be acceptable. Moreover, the United 

States has no particular military interest in the Izu Islands, and, because of their 

geographical and cultural nearness to Japan, these could be left demilitarized under 

that government, if such action appears propitious.56

After some revisions, JCS 1619/4 was approved on 27 June and submitted to SWNCC 

for its consideration. A few days earlier, the State Department had completed its own study, 

“Policy Concerning Trusteeship and Other Methods of Disposition of the Mandated and 

other Outlying and Minor Islands Formerly Controlled by Japan,” and submitted it to 

SWNCC, where it became “SWNCC 59/1.” The State Department paper concluded that 

“The Japanese Mandated Islands, and Marcus and the Bonin and Volcano Islands, should 

be placed under the trusteeship system of the United Nations as soon as practicable, with 

the United States as administering authority” and that “separate trusteeship agreements 

should be prepared for the Japanese Mandated Islands as one unit and for Marcus and the 

Bonin and Volcano Islands as another unit.”57 It further recommended that

These islands have been under the full sovereignty of Japan. The United States as 

military occupant should draft the terms of trusteeship, and should consult with the 

United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China as the co-acceptors of the Japanese 

surrender, and with France, Australia, New Zealand, and the Netherlands in view of 

their participation in the war and their security interests in the region. The United 

States should seek the concurrence of these states in the terms of trusteeship and in 

the proposal that the “states directly concerned” referred to in Article 79 of the Charter should be defined as narrowly as possible, and preferably should be limited to the 

United States alone. It would be particularly important to secure the concurrence of 

the co-acceptors of the Japanese surrender in the event approval of the trusteeship 

agreement is sought prior to the negotiation of a peace treaty with Japan.58

The JCS reviewed the State Department’s paper, and while it was satisfied with the recommendations for the Nanpo Islands, it was extremely concerned about those for the Nan-
147

The Peace Treaty and Island Disposition

sei Islands (which were to be left with Japan) as well as the Mandated Islands, which would 

become a strategic trusteeship but the United States would not be granted sovereignty 

over them.59 The disagreements would necessitate the creation of an Ad Hoc Committee 

on Trusteeship Agreements under SWNCC in July, which would continue its discussions 

through the fall.

The JCS arguments used in the committee for the need for control over the Ryukyus, 

Ogasawara, and Marcus Islands could be summarized as follows:

The wholly essential strategic control that has now been obtained in the ex-Japanese Mandates does not make control in the Ryukyus, Nanpo Shoto, and Marcus 

any less necessary. On the contrary, lack of control in these places would depreciate 

the value of our Mandates position. Our security status in the Mandates is so vital 

that, in all consistency, we must protect that area by advanced bases in the direction 

of the most probable future danger if we are to provide the cushion in time and 

distance that will be more than ever essential in future war.60

Eventually, President Truman said, in a statement to the press at the time of the release 

for publication of a “Draft Trusteeship Agreement for the Japanese Mandated Islands,” 

that the United States “is prepared to place under trusteeship, with the United States as 

the administering authority, the Japanese Mandated Islands and any Japanese islands for 

which it assumed responsibility as a result of the second World War.”61 However, with the 

exception of the U.S. government’s moving ahead with the trusteeship arrangements for 

the Mandated Islands (following the 2 April 1947 approval of the Security Council and 

its going into effect in July that year), Truman did not make a decision at this point on the 

final disposition with regard to the Nansei and Nanpo Islands, which unlike the Mandated 

Islands, were clearly Japanese territory.

Before considering how that issue was later resolved and Japanese responses to the possibility it would lose some of its historic territory, it is important to briefly look at a couple of 

other decisions made in these years (1945–46) regarding the Bonin Islands that would affect 

U.S. policy and bilateral relations with Japan for two decades afterward, namely banning the 

return of the islanders and the later exception made for those of Western descent.

The U.S. Decision

Shortly after the end of the war, the U.S. government decided to prohibit the return to the 

islands of civilians evacuated to mainland Japan during the spring and summer of 1944 by 

the Japanese government.62 This decision was made on 7 November 1945, in the State-WarNavy Coordinating Committee, an executive body created in 1944 to coordinate policy in 

Washington, DC, between the State Department and the Army and Navy.63

SWNCC based its decision, formalized in the document SWNCC 240/1, on the lack 

of local resources to support a civilian population and the desirability of continuing unrestricted military use of the islands. On 1 December 1945, it communicated its decision to 

the commander-in-chief, Pacific, located at Pearl Harbor.64 This decision was reflected in 

the Navy’s official military government policy toward the Bonin Islands, announced shortly 
148

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

after that on 12 December 1945, in a directive from the commander-in-chief, Pacific/

Commander in Chief Pacific Ocean Areas.65

One month later, on 29 January 1946, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers 

(SCAP) announced that it was limiting Japanese administration to the main islands of Japan 

and some smaller offshore islands, and that Okinawa, Amami, Izu, and the Bonin Islands, 

among others, would be placed under direct U.S. military government control. “The Imperial 

Japanese Government,” SCAPIN 677 stated, “is directed to cease exercising, or attempting 

to exercise, governmental or administrative authority over any area outside of Japan, or over 

any government officials and employees or any other persons within such areas.”66

This move would come as a great shock to the islanders, one more in a list of many following their forced (but, wise) relocation by the Japanese government from the islands in 

1944, and made them realize that action was necessary. Prior to this, because of the chaos 

of the immediate aftermath of the war, and the fact that many of the islanders were spread 

out in different parts of Japan, as well as those having served in the military were now 

starting to be repatriated, it was not until the early spring before they were able to take any 

concrete and unified action regarding their return. In April 1946, Yokota Tatsuo, Maeda 

Sadamu, and Okuyama Tadashi from Haha Jima submitted a petition to allow the return 

of 150 islanders, claiming that life on the mainland was difficult for them.67 According to 

Kikuchi Torahiko, the petitioners waited and waited, but they never received a response.68

Adding insult to injury, Kikuchi writes, was the fact that 129 islanders of Western descent 

were permitted later that year in October to return to Chichi Jima. “Although it made us 

angry,” he later wrote, “it also gave us some hope that we would be allowed to return as 

well.”69 Unfortunately, that would not happen for another two and a half decades causing 

the launch of a repatriation and island reversion movement in 1946, known initially as the 

Ogasawarato Iwo Jima Hikiagesha Renmei (League for Ogasawara and Iwo Jima Evacuees) 

and later as the Ogasawara Iwo Jima Kikyo Sokushin Renmei (League of Bonin Evacuees for 

Hastening Repatriation).

Japanese Planning for a Peace Treaty

Around this time, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (Foreign Ministry) Research 

Bureau (Chosa Kyoku) had completed a study on how the Bonin Islands came to be Japanese territory, referencing both foreign and Japanese historical works. While considered 

“confidential” in nature, it did not recommend any specific policy options at this point.70

The report was part of Japanese plans for the future peace treaty, which began about 

two months after the signing of the Instrument of Surrender. The Foreign Ministry, as the 

agency in charge of relations with the occupation authorities, took the lead in preparing 

studies on the significant issues likely to emerge in the treaty or during the discussions leading up to it. One of those issues was the territorial one.

The Japanese government realized it would lose its former colonies and mandated islands, 

but it hoped—or assumed—that its own territory, including the outer islands, would remain 

intact. It carefully studied previous statements by the United States and other Allies to see what 

the policies with regard to Japan’s territory were for any clues on which to confirm this view.
149

The Peace Treaty and Island Disposition

After meetings with the top leadership within the Foreign Ministry in November 1945, 

the respective study groups began their work in early 1946 and continued through the year. 

The Foreign Ministry was unsure, however, how receptive SCAP and the Allies would be 

to a Japanese statement of its views on the territorial issue. As a result, it sought to test the 

waters by having the Research Bureau conduct “scientific” studies on the territorial problems and submit the results to SCAP.71 Yoshida Shigeru, who was both foreign minister 

and prime minister at this time, recalled that,

It was necessary for [American] leaders to be put in possession of all the facts 

concerning postwar Japan and for those facts to be presented in a form that would 

make them comprehensible to the U.S. authorities in Washington, who were still 

ignorant of many problems. Especial pains were taken in compiling data concerning such integral parts of Japan as Okinawa, Ogasawara . . . alike from the historical, geographical, racial and economic points of view, and . . . explained in detail 

the circumstances that made them an integral part of Japan. The material thus 

presented in regard to the territorial question alone filled seven volumes.72

One of these studies was of the Bonin Islands, which was completed that summer.

Unfortunately, for reasons unclear, it still remains classified today by the Japanese Foreign 

Ministry.73 It is not certain if it was presented that spring or summer to the U.S. side.

Another more important memorandum was prepared by Vice Minister Okazaki Katsuo 

in mid-July 1947, which called for the Allies to recognize the islands as Japanese territory 

while proposing a “modus operandi” if they were viewed as necessary for security arrangements: “As to these islands, it is hoped that, in view of the historical and economic relations 

in the past, they are also allowed to remain as Japanese territory. In regard to such parts 

thereof as would be strategically required by the Allied Powers as in the case of the Okinawa Islands, it would be possible to make appropriate arrangements in a similar manner.”74

Namely, as with the Okinawan and Sakishima islands, the paper stated,

Should areas . . . be required by the Allied Powers from the strategic point of view, it 

would fully be possible to make such arrangements with the Japanese government 

as would adequately meet their requirements. The desire on the part of Japan is only 

to see a modus operandi so devised that she is entrusted with the common affairs of 

administration of the inhabitants such as education, economy and culture—a measure which would naturally conform with the racial and historical background.75

Essentially, the Okazaki Memo suggested an arrangement with the Allies that granted 

them use of bases and facilities on the islands but allowed Japan to keep both administrative 

rights and sovereignty over them. Although this memo was not presented to the U.S. side 

at this point, it paralleled later thinking in the United States on this question, particularly 

for Okinawa, but also for the Bonins.

A few days after this memorandum was prepared, the State Department issued invitations for an early peace treaty conference in Washington, DC. This was prompted by a 17 

March pronouncement by General of the Army Douglas MacArthur at an on-the-record 

luncheon at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Japan that an early peace was necessary.76

As a result, the Japanese government decided to prepare a summary of its treaty expectations 
150

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

to relay to the United States and Allies. This study, known as the Ashida Memorandum, was 

completed on 24 July and submitted to MacArthur’s political advisor, George Atcheson, and 

Major General Courtney Whitney, chief of the Government Section. The memo first noted 

“it is expected that the peace settlement will be made in accordance with the established 

principles of international law. We trust that the spirit of international equity and fair play 

which pervades the Atlantic Charter will be made the guiding spirit of the peace settlement 

with Japan.”77 Regarding territorial questions, the memorandum stated that “the Potsdam 

Declaration leaves to the Allied Powers the disposition of the minor islands adjacent to 

the four principal islands of Japan. It is desired that in the determination of their territorial 

status full consideration will be given to the historical, racial, economic, cultural, and other 

relations existing between these islands and Japan proper.” It did not specifically mention 

the Bonin Islands, but the desire for their retention by Japan was very much implied.

Because of continuing hostility of the Allied Powers toward Japan, the Ashida Memo 

was returned by Atcheson and Whitney for fear that some Allies would be angered by Japan presenting its requests.78 It was another three-and-a-half years before the United States 

was prepared to listen on behalf of the Allies to Japan’s concerns on territorial matters.

U.S. Peace Treaty Planning

Parallel to the Foreign Ministry’s study of the issues related to the peace treaty, the State 

Department was preparing an early draft of the peace treaty in time for the treaty conference scheduled for August. Eventually, one, written largely by Hugh Borton, was ready 

on 5 August 1947, and was submitted to other offices in the State Department and to the 

military for review and comment.

Peace treaty preparations had been in the works for almost a year. Regarding the disposition of the Nanpo Shoto, the draft being formulated reflected the JCS view that the 

islands should be separated from Japan. A November 1946 treaty working group memo, 

for example, stated,

No valid reason can be perceived why, considering the recently announced decision 

with regard to the Mandates, the Department should not agree to the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that Nanpo Shoto (the Bonin and Volcano 

Islands), except for the Izu Islands as far southward as Sofu Gan which would be 

demilitarized and left with Japan, and Marcus Island, should be placed under the 

trusteeship system of the United Nations as strategic areas under sole U.S. administration. Announcement of this decision, also, should be made at the first suitable 

opportunity.79

A mid-March 1947 draft of the peace treaty had the Bonin Islands separated from 

Japan.80 A subsequent draft, prepared in time for the planned hosting of an Allied conference in August in Washington to discuss the Japanese peace treaty, stated that although the 

Ryukyu Islands would be retained by Japan, the Bonin Islands and islands south of Sofu 

Gan would not.81 In the end, the peace treaty conference was not held, and a review of U.S. 

policy took place led by George F. Kennan, director of the newly created policy planning 

staff, and by others in the department and Pentagon.
151

The Peace Treaty and Island Disposition

One critically important opinion emerged from the legal office of the State Department in a December paper that looked at the question of “the extent to which U.S. policy 

objectives in Japan could be accomplished in the absence of a treaty of peace.”82 Dr. Ruth 

E. Bacon, a legal expert with experience in Far Eastern policy matters, argued that “the 

objective of detachment of the Bonin and Volcano Islands from Japan with a view to their 

being placed under United States strategic trusteeship . . . could not be attained directly.”83

She added that the objective

could, however, be substantially attained indirectly. The islands could not be legally 

detached from Japan nor could the United States ask for a trusteeship over the 

islands prior to the conclusion of a peace treaty. The islands in question are now occupied [sic] by United States forces under CINCFE Command. Our forces could 

continue to remain in occupation, and this Government could take steps to make 

it clear that it was our intention to remain in control of the islands.84

As a result of the review, which included Kennan making a near one-month trip to Japan in February-March 1948, a decision on the final disposition of the islands was put off 

until a future peace treaty. The treaty itself was delayed for several years until a consensus 

was reached between State and Defense to proceed with one.

In the meantime in the spring of 1950, in order to ensure bipartisan support for the 

treaty, John Foster Dulles, a leading Republican foreign policy specialist, was appointed 

advisor to Secretary of State Dean G. Acheson, and subsequently as special ambassador. 

Following a trip to Japan in the summer and discussions between the State and Defense 

Departments in the summer, an agreement was worked out on the desirability of proceeding with negotiations for a Japanese peace treaty and the general principles for it on 4 September. One of the principles regarded territory, and it stated that “Japan would . . . agree 

to U.N. trusteeship, with the U.S. as administering authority, of the Ryukyu and Bonins.”85

These principles were later distributed to the Allies, being announced officially on 14 September, and known as the Seven Points of the Japanese Peace Treaty.

The recommendations prepared by Acheson and Defense Secretary Louis Johnson and 

known as NSC 60/1, “Japanese Peace Treaty,” were submitted to the president on 7 September. Truman approved it the next day. On 11 September, Dulles had a draft treaty 

prepared that stated,

Japan would agree to the action of the United Nations Security Council of April 2, 

1947, extending the trusteeship system, with the United States as the administering authority, to the Pacific Islands formerly under mandate to Japan. The United 

States will also propose to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, 

with the United States as the administering authority, the Ryukyu Islands south 

of 29° north latitude, the Bonin Islands, including Rosario Island, the Volcano 

Islands, Parece Vela and Marcus Island, and pending affirmative action on such 

proposal the United States will have full powers of administration, legislation, and 

jurisdiction over the territory of these islands.86

With this in hand, Dulles and his assistant, Japan specialist John M. Allison, undertook 

discussions with the Allies. They also took the draft with them to Japan in January 1951.
152

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Not everyone within the State Department was satisfied with the territorial clause, 

however. The Office of Far Eastern Affairs was concerned about the territorial provision, 

as was the political advisor’s office in Tokyo, particularly as it related to Okinawa and the 

Bonin Islands. William J. Sebald and his staff, for example, writing from Tokyo, argued,

The Mission regards the deep-seated and widespread opposition of the Japanese 

people to the cession of such outlying island possessions as the Ryukyus, Bonins, and 

Kuriles as a political factor of primary importance which cannot be over-looked in 

our approach to the problem of a Japanese peace treaty. More specifically, the Mission believes that the long-term importance of this factor imposes upon the United 

States and the nations associated with it an obligation at least carefully to explore 

the feasibility of territorial provisions which, while allowing the retention of effective 

control over such areas as may be directed by security considerations, would avoid the 

appearance of an outright alienation of sovereignty from Japan, with a consequent 

rise of irredentism of considerable and possibly dangerous proportions.87

Several in the State Department agreed with Sebald’s concerns and eventually Acheson 

supported the revision of the territorial portion of the treaty as it related to the Ryukyu and 

Bonin Islands, stating that they “would be returned to Japan provided that the provisions of 

any military security arrangement apply to these territories in the same manner as to Japan 

proper.”88 Acheson requested the JCS’s views on this on 18 December, and the JCS in turn 

asked for MacArthur’s comments. MacArthur, the leading advocate in separating Okinawa 

from Japan, responded,

Leaving the Ryukyus and Bonin Islands under Japan’s sovereignty is highly objectionable from a military point of view. The Japanese are fully resigned to the loss 

of these areas as a penalty for waging war. They form a vital segment of our lateral 

defense line and our control thereof is formally established and universally recognized. It would be unthinkable to surrender control and render our use of these 

areas, fortified at United States expense, subject to treaty arrangement under Japanese administration. It would but be to transform strength to weakness without the 

slightest moral or legal reason for so doing.89

The JCS responded to the State Department the same day pointing out they “strongly 

disagree to any relaxation of the terms” of U.S. policy with regard to the islands.90 The JCS 

went on to write that they “fail to perceive any reason for such a gratuitous concession,” and 

instead “consider that exclusive strategic control of those islands must be retained by the 

United States in order for us to be able to carry out our commitments, policies, and military 

plans in the Pacific in peace or war . . . The JCS, therefore, consider the proposed concession 

to be entirely unacceptable, and they firmly adhere to the minimum requirements of the 

pertinent approved U.S. policy as stated in NSC 60/1.”91

The JCS views were repeated at a 3 January 1951, meeting with Dulles, Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk, and Allison. There General of the Army Omar N. Bradley argued that the islands should be kept under U.S. strategic control and Japanese sovereignty 

“not restored.”92 The State Department representatives reluctantly agreed that “if this was 

the Defense Department’s position, it will do its parts in achieving this objective.”93 In 
153

The Peace Treaty and Island Disposition

Tokyo, Sebald was still unsatisfied with the results of the discussions in Washington and 

worried about their effect. “While agreeing with specifications regarding necessary control 

over [the] Ryukyu and Bonin Islands,” Sebald wrote, “I believe [the] same objective might 

be accomplished without unduly antagonizing Japanese public opinion, or doing violence 

to previous public commitments regarding no territorial acquisitions to resort to formula 

which, while allowing retention [of ] effective strategic control over [the] Ryukyus and 

Bonins, would avoid appearances of outright and irrevocable alienations.”94 In his role as 

special ambassador, it would be up to Dulles to balance the views of the State Department 

on the one hand, with those of the military and the Allies on the other.

Peace Treaty “Negotiations” and Japan’s Requests

Dulles and his staff arrived on 25 January in Tokyo to begin what he called “consultations” 

but which were in many ways “negotiations.” Two days before, a close confidante of Prime 

Minister Yoshida, Shirasu Jiro, called on Robert A. Fearey, a member of Dulles’ delegation 

who had arrived earlier, and warned Fearey that “transferring title” of Ryukyu and Bonin 

Islands from Japan “would be a serious mistake, greatly reducing the benefits which may 

otherwise derive from a treaty.”95 Shirasu added that because Japan was “prepared to give 

the U.S. all required military rights there for as long as necessary,” the people of Japan 

would not “understand why these peacefully acquired islands, populated, as they consider, 

by people as Japanese as any other, should be taken from them. Such action would be a 

continual source of bitterness shared by himself and other educated Japanese no less than 

by the masses.”96

Fearey did not need any convincing. Indeed, he himself had consistently recommended 

that basing arrangements, rather than the assumption of sovereignty over the islands, were 

enough to satisfy U.S. security interests.

As alluded to by Shirasu above, the Japanese government had arrived at a similar conclusion—namely by granting the United States base rights, Japan might be able to retain sovereignty over the islands. As explored in more detail in the author’s The Origins 

of the Bilateral Okinawa Problem, the Foreign Ministry continued with its studies on the 

peace treaty despite the Allies’ initial criticism of such planning.97 By the end of 1950, the 

Japanese government was very much worried that the United States intended to place the 

islands under a trusteeship, and sought to get the United States to reconsider. A 27 December 1950 paper stated the Japanese government’s position in the following way:

According to point 3 [of the so-called Seven Principles], the Okinawa and Ogasawara islands are proposed to be placed under a U.S. trusteeship. We understand 

the military requirements of the United States and are prepared to meet the requests [of the United States] in any manner. However, the separation of these 

islands would be hard for the sentiments of the [ Japanese] people to bear. We 

hope that this point will be reconsidered. This is a point to consider in order that 

both countries are able to build a close relationship in the future. How this problem [may or may not be] solved will likely be used by the Communist camp as a 

pretext to prevent the establishment of good relations. With this in mind, it should 
154

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

be made clear at the earliest possible opportunity that points 3 and 4 [of the U.S. 

draft] are not intended to ignore the ideas of the Japanese people when deciding 

the stationing of troops in Japan and the disposition of the Okinawa and Ogasawara Islands.98

Yoshida received this paper on 28 December and his comments were incorporated into 

a new draft on 5 January. His revision included, “If it cannot be helped that the islands are 

to be placed under a trusteeship, we desire that the areas necessary for military purposes are 

limited to the greatest extent possible, that Japan can be a joint administrator, and that it is 

made clear that when the situation that necessitates a trusteeship no longer exists that these 

islands are to be returned to Japan.”99

A later version of the position paper included a separate document entitled “Measures 

to be Taken in the Case of U.S. Insistence on Trusteeships for Okinawa and the Ogasawara 

Islands.” It began by stating that “If Okinawa and the Ogasawara Islands are placed under 

a trusteeship, the permanent loss of these islands would likely be the most irritating thing 

to the people [of Japan]. In order to lessen this problem, the following measures are considered:

1. Limit the Duration of the Trusteeship

As an example, the former colony of Italy, Somaliland, is to be placed under trusteeship for a period of 10 years. After that, it is to be granted independence. In this way, limiting the number of years for a trusteeship is 

most desirable. If that is found to be difficult, the following phrase should 

be added: “These islands will be placed under trusteeship limited to the 

period which the situation requires.” When that situation disappears, the 

decision for the final status of the islands should be handled in accordance 

with Article 76 (listing the basic objectives of the trusteeship) and “the 

freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned,” as is clearly defined in 

the trusteeship agreement (Article 76 [b]). There are no legal problems 

expected with this proposal since it is consistent with the provisions of the 

[UN] Charter. In addition, it would be prudent to secure a written understanding outside any agreement from the United States that these islands 

will be returned to Japan once the need for a trusteeship disappears.

2. Make Japan a Joint Authority

An example where a joint authority system exists for a trusteeship area 

is the case of Nauru Island in which Great Britain, Australia, and New 

Zealand have joint authority. Moreover, Italy as an administering authority over Somaliland is an example where a former enemy state became 

[in 1950] an administrator. If Japan were to become joint administering 

authority with the United States, by being in an equal position with the 

United States, the sentiments of the [ Japanese] people would be satisfied 

with regard to the [question of the eventual] reversion of the islands, the 

administration of the islands, the authority regarding the residents. (The 

idea for a joint authority was in fact mentioned by a State Department of-
155

The Peace Treaty and Island Disposition

ficial.) Moreover concerning the citizenship of the residents, according to 

related parts of the Trusteeship System as established by the UN Charter, 

the residents would fall in a special situation. They would not receive citizenship of the administering country or countries, they would not receive 

United Nations citizenship, nor would they retain the citizenship of the 

country that the trust territory once belonged to [in this case Japan]. (According to precedent, they would have the citizenship of the trust territory.) It is stated that the administering authority would be responsible for 

diplomatic and other protection when the inhabitants of the trust territory 

travel outside the territorial limits. Therefore, it will be difficult to request 

that the inhabitants of the island be allowed to retain their Japanese citizenship.

In addition to the two main points listed above, we should request that the following points be considered concerning a trusteeship:

1. The relationship between these islands and the Japanese mainland should be allowed to continue as usual to the greatest extent possible. Above all the people of 

both areas [the mainland and the islands] should be allowed to travel back and 

forth freely, and for customs purposes, the islands should be considered a part 

of Japan.

2. The people of the islands of Ogasawara and Iwo Jima, brought to the mainland 

during the war by Japan and after the war by the U.S., should be allowed to return to their home islands.

The above paper was completed on 26 January. Yoshida later adopted these ideas into a 

presentation to Dulles’ delegation in the form of a memo entitled “Suggested Agenda” in 

English, and Waga Kenkai (Our Views) in Japanese that was forwarded to the U.S. side on 

30 January.100 Regarding the territorial issues, the memo stated,

1. It is proposed that the Ryukyu and Bonin Islands be placed under UN Trusteeship with the United States as administering authority. While Japan is ready to 

meet in any manner American military requirements, and even to agree to a lease 

under the Bermuda formula, we solicit reconsideration of this proposal in the 

interest of lasting friendly relations between Japan and the United States.

2. We ask that the following points be considered in the interest of the last American-Japanese friendship.

A) It is desired that these islands will be returned to Japan as soon as the 

need of trusteeship disappears.

B) They be allowed to retain Japanese nationality.

C) Japan will be made a joint authority together with the United States.

D) Those inhabitants of the Bonin Islands and Iwo Jima who were evacuated to Japan proper, either during the war by Japanese authorities, or after 
156

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

war’s end by U.S. authorities, who number about 8,000, will be permitted 

to return to their respective home islands.101

Yoshida and Dulles met on 29 January, followed by a second meeting on the 31st. At a 

U.S. staff meeting on the 30th, Dulles told his group that while the U.S. government might 

reexamine the question of the disposition of Japanese islands, “it would do so for its own 

reasons” and the Japanese government would “not be allowed to re-open the issue since [it] 

agreed in the surrender terms to the limitation of their territories to the four main islands 

and such other islands as the Allies might determine.”102 Because of this, Dulles said he 

would tell Yoshida that the islands were not open for discussion.

At the same time, Dulles, like his State Department colleagues, was not convinced that 

the United States should place Japanese islands, especially Okinawa, under a U.S. trusteeship. 

He observed at the same meeting that there were aspects of the problem beyond those pertaining to the military, which had probably not been given sufficient discussion and that the 

United States should “give back what [it] could.”103 Others agreed with Dulles and suggested 

that the issue required high-level consideration. Dulles concurred and said they “should take 

up the question at home and not permit the Japanese to build a fire under us.”104

As expected, Dulles took a hard line with Yoshida in the meeting on the afternoon of 

the 31st and “emphasized to Mr. Yoshida the undesirability of allowing a campaign about 

the [islands] to get under way.”105 He noted the following day at the staff meeting that 

Yoshida “seemed to accept this position” but in fact, as a colleague of Yoshida, Director of 

the Foreign Ministry’s Treaty Bureau (Joyakukyoku) Nishimura Kumao later recorded, the 

prime minister’s silence was more of shock than acquiescence.106 Later, Dulles’ principal 

deputy Allison acknowledged the strong appeal of the Japanese desires. “We were deeply 

impressed by the Japanese plea for the restoration of the Ryukyus and Bonin Islands. While 

we could not grant their wishes at the time, I believe it was then that Dulles conceived the 

idea, which he later announced at the San Francisco Peace Conference, that Japan should 

retain residual sovereignty over the islands, but that they would be administered by the 

United States.”107

Yoshida’s position was supported by public opinion polls conducted after Dulles’ trip to 

Japan. A Mainichi Shimbun poll asked, “What do you think of the report that the United 

States will control the Ryukyus and Bonin Islands Under a United Nations Trusteeship?,” 

to which 43 percent of pollees answered, “We hope they are returned to Japan,” and 42 

percent said, “It can’t be helped but we hope they are returned to Japan after a certain 

period.”108 The results of this poll, that a large majority favored the islands’ immediate 

or eventual return to Japan, were a reflection of the attitudes that the State Department 

had been aware of for quite some time, as Sebald’s telegram six months prior had shown. 

Furthermore, on 2 June, both houses of the Diet passed resolutions calling for the return 

of Japan’s outer islands. This had followed numerous appeals by the heads of the respective 

political parties to Dulles during the latter’s trip to Japan in January-February.

In addition to Japanese requests, Dulles had to consider not only the opinions of the 

State Department and Congress (some of whose members felt the United States would be 

vulnerable to “charges of imperialism”), but also the requirements of the U.S. military. In 
157

The Peace Treaty and Island Disposition

addition, Dulles also had to consider the views of the Allies, all of whom were distrustful 

of Japan and believed that the United States should not only retain a presence in the area 

through trusteeships and other arrangements but also, in the case of New Zealand, that 

“Japan should be specifically required to renounce sovereignty over the Ryukyus, Bonins, 

and the Volcano and Marcus Islands.”109 On the other side of the equation, there were 

also nominal “Allies,” such as the Soviet Union, who would likely oppose any attempts to 

strengthen the U.S. security position in the region and place Japanese territory under a 

trusteeship. It was with all of these competing ideas and interests that Dulles had to work 

out a formula for the so-called Article 3 islands for the peace treaty.

During a trip to the United Kingdom, Allison explained to his British counterparts that 

the United States “did not want to annex the islands . . . [but] regarded a United Nations 

trusteeship as a headache.”110 He added that the U.S. government thought at “some time 

sovereignty might be returned to the Japanese” and thus “may” was used in the following 

draft when discussing proposing a trusteeship.111

The United States may propose to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the administering authority, the Ryukyu 

Islands south of 29 north latitude, the Bonin Islands, including Rosario Island, 

the Volcano Islands, Parece Vela, and Marcus Island. Japan will concur in any such 

proposal. Pending the making of such a proposal and affirmative action thereon, 

the United States will have the right to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation, and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of these islands, 

including their territorial waters.112 [Emphasis added]

After reviewing the U.S. treaty draft, Robert H. Scott, undersecretary of the British Foreign Office, in an expression of the distrust of the British toward Japan, cautioned Allison 

against “leaving points of friction with the Japanese . . . [or] trusting them too much.”113

A joint U.S.-U.K. draft, based on “Commonwealth thinking,” was prepared in April.114

Close to the final version that appeared in the peace treaty, it removed “may” from the earlier U.S. draft and instead stated “Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to 

the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole 

administering authority.”115 Importantly, Japan was not required to renounce sovereignty 

over the islands, as had been requested by some of the Commonwealth countries. (The 

United Kingdom continued to feel that Japan should be required to renounce sovereignty 

over the islands as well, but decided that the issue was “essentially an American one” and 

decided not to pursue it further in favor of other more pressing issues.116)

Japan noticed that unlike the clauses for Korea, Taiwan, Manchuria, the Mandated Islands, the Kuriles, and other territories, the March and April drafts “did not require that 

Japan renounce sovereignty” over the Nansei and Nanpo Islands.117 This point was emphasized by the U.S. side as well in April during Dulles’ visit (following MacArthur’s dismissal), and gave the Japanese government some measure of hope. During a trip to Japan 

in June, Allison told the Japanese side that Dulles “had ‘stood firm and successfully’ for a 

non-restrictive, non-punitive, and liberal treaty” during the talks in London, which “visibly 

pleased” Yoshida.118
158

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Another thing that probably pleased Yoshida was an exchange he had with Allison a 

couple of weeks later on 28 June when the prime minister decided to make some requests 

of the U.S. side regarding the nationality of the islanders. The day before, Yoshida had told 

Vice Minister Iguchi Sadao (later ambassador to the United States) that “he wanted to see 

the nationality of Japanese in the trusteeship areas (namely, the Nansei and Nanpo Islands) 

be kept the way it is (i.e., that they be allowed to retain Japanese citizenship),” and had him 

prepare a memorandum to give Allison.119 In the meantime, Yoshida raised the question of 

nationality of the islanders if the trusteeship were pursued and stated that he would like to 

see them retain Japanese nationality and be allowed to retain close economic connections 

with Japan.120 Allison explained that the question of the disposition of the islands was, as 

Dulles had pointed out earlier in the year, “only for Allied consideration,” the U.S. government is “willing [to] receive” the opinions of the Japanese government “regarding practical details,” and that he would be willing to receive any comments that the Japanese side 

had.121 Yoshida quickly responded that he would be able to furnish a memorandum prior to 

Allison’s departure. This was the memorandum that he had asked Iguchi to begin working 

on, having correctly anticipated the U.S. response.

The document was ready to be shown to Yoshida on 1 July, who reviewed it and made 

some minor additions. Most of it concerned the inhabitants (all 900,000 of them) in the 

Amami and Ryukyu Islands, but the memorandum also related to the Bonin Islands as well.

This is not intended as a request for modification of the principles stipulated in the 

peace treaty. Only in the hope that those principles may be put in force as smoothly 

as possible for desiderate of the Japanese government are submitted hereinunder 

[sic] for the consideration of the American government. The Nansei Archipelago, 

the Bonins and other islands have always been Japanese territory, inseparably tied 

to Japan proper; and their inhabitants are Japanese, the same in every respect as 

those of Japan proper. These islands in this regard differ fundamentally in character 

from the other areas placed under trusteeship following World War II. It is therefore desired that this special nature of the islands will be born in mind, and that 

in establishing a trusteeship the American government will avoid incorporating 

in the basic instruments, including the trusteeship agreement, any provision that 

might preclude the realization in future of Japanese aspirations.

(1) Status of the Inhabitants

The Japanese having their homes on these islands today number some 

900,000. Practically all of them want to retain their Japanese nationality. 

And Japan desires to continue to treat these people as Japanese nationals. Actually there about 300,000 people from these islands, who reside in 

Japan proper, and of whom 100,000 are domiciled therein. These 300,000 

people have stayed, without availing themselves of the opportunity offered 

them to return their home islands following the war’s end, simply because 

they want to remain as Japanese. There are also some 50,000 people from 

these islands, who are living in third countries. They have gone out as Japanese, and a great majority of them desire to remain Japanese.
159

The Peace Treaty and Island Disposition

(2) Economic relations

It is desired that the economic bonds that have subsisted hitherto between 

Japan proper and these islands will not be arbitrarily cut off. Accordingly, it 

is desired that the trade between Japan proper and these islands be allowed 

to go on as “frontier trade (kokkyo boekiteki no mono)” free of all custom 

duties on either side. As far as Japan is concerned, this is the arrangement 

currently in force under the Law in effect as from May 1, 1951. (See Note. 

[author has chosen not to include it here]) It is hoped that it will be made a 

principle not to impose any trade restrictions and a free movement of capital 

be permitted as far as possible. It is also desired that the freedom of capital 

be permitted as far as possible. It is also desired that the freedom of coastal 

fishing and the use of coastal fisher bases be mutually recognized, as well as 

the freedom, in principle, of travel and movements of ships either way.

(3) Cultural Relations

At present these islands are permitted to carry on the education of children 

according [to] the Japanese school system and curricula with a view to 

enabling them to enter high schools in Japan proper. It is desired that this 

education policy be continued after the establishment of trusteeship, and 

that Japan proper and these islands be allowed to recognize mutually corresponding study courses, graduation qualifications, and public examinations of various kinds in connection with advancing to higher institutions 

or obtaining employment.

(4) Bonins and Iwo Jima Resettlement

Some 8,000 inhabitants of the Bonins and Iwo Jima were forced to evacuate to Japan proper during and after the war. These people have not yet 

been permitted to return to their home islands. In view of their ardent 

desire to go back to their native islands, the American government is requested to consider their resettlement at their earliest possible date.122

Allison forwarded it to Dulles that same evening for his consideration.

The same time Allison was meeting with Yoshida, Dulles was back in Washington calling on Secretary of Defense George C. Marshall to get the support of the Defense Department on Japan being allowed to retain sovereignty over the islands. The JCS had been 

concerned about the formulation of the territorial clause and reemphasized their strategic 

interests in the islands by stating in their comments on the joint U.K.-U.S. draft that “for 

reasons of national security the United States must retain absolute control of the former 

Japanese islands . . . at least until favorable action is taken by the United Nations on the 

United States for a strategic trusteeship.”123 In order to convince the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

that the arrangement would meet their security concerns, Dulles argued that the phrase 

that the United States would have the right to “exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation, and jurisdiction” complied with the provision that the treaty “should secure 
160

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

to the United States exclusive strategic control.”124 Eventually, the JCS acquiesced,125 but 

in doing so they would do everything they could to maintain the status quo in both the 

Nansei and Nanpo Islands.

On the other hand, Dulles and the State Department were somewhat hopeful that the 

islands would be left with Japan not only in name but in fact as well and would pursue this 

course, albeit unsuccessfully, in the months following the peace treaty. This view was reflected in a telegram sent from Dulles to Sebald in early August where he asked the political advisor to explain to the Japanese government that flexible arrangements and interpretations 

were possible for the islands. Dulles added that the question of the final arrangements for 

them would be for later consideration by the United States, based on a study of the islands 

and administration, likely to be conducted between the signing of the peace treaty and its 

ratification. Dulles also asked Sebald to reemphasize that the “treaty grants Yoshida[’s] plea 

to me that Japanese sovereignty should not be renounced.”126

Dulles’ telegram was particularly timely, as public attitudes and the critical voices among 

the opposition parties in Japan toward the territorial provisions had the potential to threaten overall support for the treaty, the draft of which had been published on 10 July. Yoshida 

was expected to go before the Diet in mid-August, prior to his trip to San Francisco, to explain the government’s views. The Foreign Ministry was charged with drafting the speech, 

and wanting to calm the fears and anger that the islands would be stripped from Japan, 

hoped that Dulles would allow Yoshida to state directly that Japan was not surrendering 

sovereignty over the islands. It prepared a translated draft of the relevant section and shared 

it with Richard B. Finn, who worked with Sebald in the political advisor’s office. Sebald 

in turn forwarded it to Dulles for his comments, and after receiving them, Sebald’s office 

worked with the Foreign Ministry to refine the draft, which Yoshida read before the 11th 

Extraordinary Diet session on 16 August:

In Chapter II there are provisions concerning the disposition of certain territories. 

In this connection we must bear in mind that Japan unconditionally accepted the 

surrender terms which provided that Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the 

four main islands “and such minor islands as we determine.” There is, therefore, no 

room for Japan to seek a change in these terms. However, I would like to draw your 

attention to the fact that, while Japan is to renounce all right, title, and claim to 

the territories listed in Article 2, it is not specifically so stated in Article 3 which 

provides for the disposition of the Nansei Islands and other southern islands. This 

wording of Article 3 is deemed not without significance in that residual Japanese 

sovereignty remains. The flexible provisions of Article 3 leave room for us to hope 

that subject to strategic control by the United States in the interest of international 

peace and security some practicable arrangements might be worked out to meet the 

desires of the inhabitants of these islands concerning intercourse with the homeland of Japan, nationality status of inhabitants, and other matters.127

Yoshida’s speech, however, did not really mollify the concerns that the Japanese public 

and the islanders had with the treaty’s territorial provisions. Protests in the Amami Islands, 

including hunger strikes, greatly angered Dulles, who called, in his meeting with Yoshida in 
161

The Peace Treaty and Island Disposition

San Francisco on the eve of the conference, such incidents “shocking . . . when it has already 

been said that the islands would be considered as a part of Japanese territory.”128 Dulles 

went on to point out to Yoshida that

America is to administer the . . . islands because of their strategic necessity—they 

are not to become our territory. It is exactly as I have often told you. It is clear that 

not only sovereignty will be left with Japan but other arrangements as well [can be 

worked out]. We want to think more about how it will be possible to realize the desires and requests you have made concerning allowing the inhabitants to keep their 

Japanese nationality. The demonstrative movements, like the hunger strike, put the 

United States in a very difficult position. America is not going to take your wealth. 

The United States did not place any restrictions on Japan’s maritime transportation 

or other economic relations [with the islands]. The United States has taken into 

consideration many other things on behalf of Japan. The American people will not 

accept nor understand the demonstrations by the Japanese people. We hope for 

some self-restraint by the Japanese now.129

Yoshida told Dulles he felt that the delegation had understood and accepted the provisions and would support the treaty, but it was clear that more than ever both governments 

would have to try to seek an agreement on “practicable arrangements” after the peace treaty 

conference.

At the outset of the conference, Dulles observed that the treaty with Japan was meant 

to be a “step toward breaking the vicious cycle of war-victory-peace-war,” that the countries gathered would be making “a peace of justice, not a peace of vengeance,”130 and then 

explained the provisions of the treaty to the assembled delegates. When explaining Article 

3, the text of which is below, he noted that Japan would have “residual sovereignty” over the 

Article 3 islands, as they came to be known, although the provision itself did not include 

the phrase.

Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to 

place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering 

authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29 north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands 

and the Daito Islands), Nanpo Shoto south of Sofu Gan (including the Bonin Islands, Rosario Island, and the Volcano Islands) and Parece Vela and Marcus Island. 

Pending the making of such a proposal and affirmative action thereon, the United 

States will have the right to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation, and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of these islands, including 

their territorial waters.

At the end of the conference prior to Japan’s signing, Yoshida described the treaty as “an 

instrument of reconciliation” and “fair and generous.”131 However, he pointed out that that 

there were “certain points which cause us pain and anxiety,” and explained he would be “remiss in my obligation to my own people if I failed to call your attention to these points.”132

One of them was the matter of territorial disposition. Yoshida expressed gratitude for the 

recognition of Japan’s residual sovereignty yet added, “I cannot but hope that the administration of these islands will be put back into Japanese hands in the not distant future with 

the reestablishment of world security—especially the security of Asia.”133
162

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

A Practicable Arrangement Formula

The treaty was eventually ratified by the Lower House in the Diet on 26 October, and by the 

Upper House on 18 November. A few weeks later Dulles arrived in Japan for further talks, 

primarily on the China question—the desire that Japan recognize the Republic of China 

government on Taiwan and not the communist one on the mainland. Taking advantage of 

Dulles’ visit, the Foreign Ministry developed its own proposal for a “practicable arrangement” for the treaty islands on 10 December, the same day Dulles landed at Haneda, and 

submitted it along with a one-page introductory statement on 13 December. The statement 

explained that Japan was “most grateful that the Peace Treaty leaves the . . . islands as Japanese territory and their inhabitants as Japanese nationals. We understand that the reason 

America wants to administer these islands lies in the military necessity for safeguarding 

the peace and security of the Far East. We earnestly hope that as far as this military necessity permits, the desire of the inhabitants will be considered” in the final disposition of the 

islands.134 Asking for America’s “sympathetic consideration,” the accompanying memorandum listed the following points:

1. The U.S. confirms that the Southern Islands remain under Japanese sovereignty 

and thus the inhabitants remain Japanese nationals.

2. The U.S. agrees to restoring the previous relationship between Japan proper and 

the Southern Islands as far as military requirements allow; in particular, the U.S. 

recognizes that the islands will be treated as a part of Japan with regard to moving and traveling between Japan proper and the islands, trade (no custom or duty 

imposed), financial transactions, fishing, monetary (the Japanese yen is to be the 

legal tender in the Southern Islands).

3. The U.S. admits that the Southern Islands are to be treated by Japan as a part 

of its territory in any economic, social, and cultural agreements or treaties the 

Japanese Government enters into. Japan will exercise its protective authority over 

the inhabitants of the islands who reside abroad or are to travel abroad and issue 

passports for them.

4. The U.S. declares its intention to permit self-rule of the inhabitants in matters 

of civil administration and to allow complete self rule in educational matters 

and juridical jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases among the inhabitants 

themselves.

5. The U.S. recognizes the property rights in those islands which belong to Japanese nationals in Japan proper and will facilitate the resumption of their business 

activities.

6. The U.S. abstains in favor of Japan from exercising administrative, legislative, or 

juridical powers over the inhabitants of islands which it does not presently see 

any military necessity to administer.135

Dulles apparently willingly accepted the proposal, implying he would give it his consideration. The next day in a speech before a joint meeting of the American and Japa-
163

The Peace Treaty and Island Disposition

nese Chambers of Commerce, Dulles reemphasized his hopes for a fair arrangement to be 

worked out: “Residual sovereignty in the islands was left with Japan due to the strong desire 

of Japan. We hope and believe that a future administration of these islands can be worked 

out in a friendly way which will combine the natural desires of the inhabitants with the 

requirements of international peace and security.”136

Sebald’s office found the Foreign Ministry’s memorandum to be “further evidence of 

the strong pressure in Japan for action which will clarify the relation of the Nansei and 

Nanpo Islands to Japan and clear the way for eventual restoration of the islands to Japan.”137 Sebald and his staff felt that the “close relations between Japan and the Nansei and 

Nanpo Islands along the lines” of the ministry’s memorandum “should be encouraged and 

facilitated by the United States,” and noted that even MacArthur’s successor, Commanderin-Chief, Far East, General Matthew B. Ridgway, believed that “security protection could 

be adequately obtained by arrangements similar to those embodied in the Security Treaty 

with Japan without involvement in any form of exclusive control by the United States.”138

However, the JCS discounted Ridgway’s views, countering that “strategic control of the 

Nansei Shoto and Nanpo Shoto has been and continues to be vital to the security interest 

of the United States” with “the necessity for such strategic control . . . greater now than 

ever.”139 As such, the JCS recommended that “no change in United States policy in regard 

to these islands should be contemplated until a condition of stability has been firmly established throughout the Far East.”140

Nevertheless, the State Department was not about to give up. On 24 March 1952, 

Acheson asked the new assistant secretary of state, Allison, to confirm if the interested 

offices still believed the United States should not seek a trusteeship for the Ryukyus and 

Bonins, but instead pursue bilateral arrangements with Japan “for the return of the islands 

to Japanese control” conditioned on the United States “retaining control over such military 

facilities therein as are deemed essential by the JCS.”141 Allison confirmed this and laid out 

the department’s view of the issue in the following way in a memorandum a week later:

Such an arrangement with regard to the Ryukyus and Bonins would not only remove a potential major irritant in United States-Japanese relations but would also 

relieve the United States of a burden of administrative and financial responsibility 

for an area and population historically tied to Japan and wholly Japanese in outlook. At the same time, the arrangement would safeguard United States strategic 

interests in the islands by providing for the retention of military, naval and air 

installations and areas on a long-term basis. . . . The term would be specified rather 

than left indefinite as in the United States–Japan Security Treaty, and any special 

arrangements with the Japanese made necessary by the peculiarly strategic nature 

of these bases would be specifically included.142

A meeting a few days later at the Pentagon with the JCS—in which the State Department was represented by Allison, Sebald, and Robert D. Murphy, soon to be sent to Japan 

as ambassador—proved inconclusive, agreeing only to set up a joint working group between 

officials of the State and Defense Departments.143 The discussion focused primarily on 
164

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Okinawa, but there was one exchange at the end that hinted at the way the Navy and JCS 

would attempt to maintain the status quo with regard to the Bonin Islands. Chief of Naval 

Operations Admiral William M. Fechteler raised the issue of the Bonins by asking the 

level of political pressure for the islands’ return. Sebald, who had just returned from Japan 

a month earlier, answered somewhat curiously and incorrectly that there was “no real pressure, it’s just sentimental.”144 When Fechteler emphasized that the “Bonins are of real value 

to the Navy,” Myron M. Cowen, a consultant to the secretary of state, countered that “a 

naval base does not go into the interior of the island.” Chairman of the JCS, General Omar 

Bradley, summarizing the concerns that the chiefs had with regard to Okinawa, the Amami 

Islands, and the Bonins, as well as his general unease about the status of the U.S. military in 

Japan after the peace treaty in general, asked rhetorically, “if you give back all places except 

a few, wouldn’t you be under pressure constantly to give up the rest[?]”

This would be a dilemma that challenged officials in the State Department who sought 

to return the islands in the interest of better U.S.-Japan relations and for the United States 

to avoid being labeled as territorial aggrandizers. Unfortunately, they were unable to convince the JCS to go along prior to the treaty’s going into effect on 28 April and would have 

to wait for discussions between the two departments to begin sometime afterward.

Several scholars of international law criticized the territorial clause of the treaty in later 

years, but it did not take a law specialist to realize that there would be many people disaffected by it, not only in the Bonins, but in Okinawa and Amami as well. In earlier writings, 

this author has positively appraised the compromise worked out, although, unfortunately, 

through a number of circumstances it would be nearly two decades before the Bonins and 

Okinawa were returned (Amami was returned in late 1953). The author’s praise for the 

1951 compromise did not disregard the feelings of those who lost out, however temporarily, 

as a result of it. Nevertheless, the twin facts that there were people affected by Article 3 of 

the treaty and many in Japan were unhappy with it (despite the allowance of Japan to retain 

sovereignty) cannot be overlooked. This dissatisfaction would form the basis for the movement to see the islands returned, or at least, the islanders be permitted to return.

Notes

1

Their story is told in the second half of the book. For those from Iwo, see Nakamura, Iwoto: Mura 

wa Kieta; Ogasawarason, ed., Ogasawara Shoto Kyosei Sokai kara 50 Nen Kirokushi; and “Iwo Jima 

Mondai no Keika Gaiyo” [An Overview of the History of the Iwo Jima Problem], Ogasawara, no. 

30 (March 1985).

2

“Joint Declaration of the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain,” 

Department of State Bulletin, vol. 5, no. 112 (16 August 1941), 125–26.

3

A secondary base area was that which is “essential for the protection of and/or for access to primary 

bases, and for the projection of military operations.” See Eldridge, The Origins of the Bilateral Okinawa Problem, 28, and JCS 570/40, “Over-all Examination of U.S. Requirements for Military Bases 

and Rights, October 25, 1945,” Section 9, CCS 360 (12-9-42), JCS 1942–1945, Record Group 218, 

National Archives II, College Park, MD.
165

The Peace Treaty and Island Disposition

4

Laurence H. Shoup, “Shaping the National Interest: The Council of Foreign Relations, the Department of State, and the Origins of the Postwar World, 1939–1943,” unpublished PhD dissertation, 

Northwestern University, 1974, 70–71.

5

Harley Notter, Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation, 1939–1945 (Greenwood, CT: Greenwood Press, 

1975), 22; and Iokibe Makoto, Beikoku no Nihon Senryo Seisaku [U.S. Occupation Policy for Japan], 

vol. 1 (Tokyo: Chuo Koronsha, 1985), 61–70.

6

Iokibe Makoto, ed., The Occupation of Japan: U.S. Planning Documents, 1942–1945 (Bethesda, MD: 

Congressional Information Service, 1987), iv.

7

Notter, Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation, 78.

8

Ibid., 122.

9

Ibid.

10Ibid.

11“P Minutes 20,” in Iokibe, ed., The Occupation of Japan, Microfiche 1-D-6.

12“S Minutes 10, August 21, 1942,” in Iokibe, ed., The Occupation of Japan, Microfiche 1-A-23.

13Ibid.

14Ibid.

15“Letter from William D. Leahy to Norman H. Davis on the Subject of Postwar Security Needs of 

the United States in the Pacific and Far Eastern Regions, September 15, 1942, Annex to Minutes 

of the Inter-Divisional Area Committee on the Far East [IDACFE], Meeting No. 179 (2 January 

1945),” in ibid., Microfiche 2-B-160.

16“P Document 110, S Document 38, Tentative Conclusion of the Security Subcommittee Concerning the Disposition of Japanese Insular Possession, September 22, 1942,” in ibid., Microfiche 

1-A-17.

17Eldridge, The Origins of the Bilateral Okinawa Problem, 49.

18Territorial Subcommittee, “T-323, Nanpo Shoto (Bonin and Other Islands) Japan, May 25, 1943,” 

in Iokibe, ed., The Occupation of Japan, Microfiche 1-B-8.

19“T-323, Nanpo Shoto (Bonin and Other Islands), Japan, May 25, 1943.”

20Notter, Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation, 164; and Eldridge, The Origins of the Bilateral Okinawa 

Problem, 58.

21Rudolf V. A. Janssens, “What Future for Japan?” U.S. Wartime Planning for the Postwar Era, 1942–

1945 (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1995), 230.

22Iokibe, ed., The Occupation of Japan, iv.

23Hugh Borton, Spanning Japan’s Modern Century: The Memoirs of Hugh Borton (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2002).

24Inter-Divisional Area Committee on the Far East, “CAC-304 Preliminary, Japan Territorial Problems: Bonin and Volcano Islands, October 6, 1944,” in Iokibe, ed., The Occupation of Japan, Microfiche 2-A-92.
166

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

25Blakeslee, for example, had written about the Mandates in one of the first issues of Foreign Affairs. 

See George H. Blakeslee, “The Mandates of the Pacific,” Foreign Affairs, vol. 1, no. 3 (September 

1922): 98–115.

26Inter-Divisional Area Committee on the Far East, “CAC-304 Preliminary,” 2.

27“Memorandum of Conversation, Admiral Train and Captain Ruble with G. H. Blakeslee and H. 

Borton, October 18, 1944, 9:30–10:30 a.m.,” Annex A to IDACFE, “Minutes of the Inter-Divisional Area Committee on the Far East, Meeting No. 170, November 30, 1944,” in Iokibe, ed., The 

Occupation of Japan, Microfiche 2-B-151.

28Ibid. As mentioned in chapter 2, it appears that U.S. officials were not aware that most of the civilians had been evacuated by this point. Those that remained there began working for the military.

29IDACFE, “Minutes of the Inter-Divisional Area Committee on the Far East, Meeting No. 180, 

January 4, 1944,” in ibid., Microfiche 2-B-161.

30Ibid.

31IDACFE, “Minutes of the Inter-Divisional Area Committee on the Far East, Meeting No. 181, 

January 9, 1944,” in ibid., Microfiche 2-B-162.

32IDACFE, “Minutes of the Inter-Divisional Area Committee on the Far East, Meeting No. 182, 

January 11, 1944,” in ibid., Microfiche 2-B-163.

33Ibid.

34IDACFE, “Minutes of the Inter-Divisional Area Committee on the Far East, Meeting No. 184, 

January 17, 1944,” in ibid., Microfiche 2-B-165.

35IDACFE, “Minutes of the Inter-Divisional Area Committee on the Far East, Meeting No. 185, 

January 23, 1944,” in ibid., Microfiche 2-B-166.

36IDACFE, “Minutes of the Inter-Divisional Area Committee on the Far East, Meeting No. 186, 

January 26, 1944,” in ibid., Microfiche 2-B-167.

37Ibid.

38“SC-102 (CC-41a), The Disposition of Certain Islands Controlled By Or Under the Sovereignty 

of Japan, April 17, 1945,” in Iokibe, ed., The Occupation of Japan, Microfiche 5-C-6.

39Ibid.

40SWNCC 16/3, “Politico-Military Problems in the Pacific, March 21, 1945,” in Iokibe, ed., The Occupation of Japan, Microfiche 2-A-8.

41SWNCC 59, “Politico-Military Problems in the Far East,” in Iokibe Makoto, ed., The Occupation of 

Japan, Part 2: U.S. and Allied Policy, 1945–1952 (Bethesda, MD: Congressional Information Service, 

1989), Microfiche 2-A-157.

42JCS 183/5, “Air Routes Across the Pacific and Air Facilities for International Police Force, March 

25, 1943.”

43JCS 1619/1, “Strategic Areas and Trusteeships in the Pacific, May 24, 1946,” Section 22, CCS 360 

(12-9-42), JCS 1946–1947, RG 218.

44Ibid.
167

The Peace Treaty and Island Disposition

45John M. Maki, “U.S. Strategic Trusteeship or UN Trusteeship?,” Far Eastern Survey, vol. 16, no. 15 

(13 August 1947): 177.

46Ibid.

47Ibid.

48JCS 570/40. This view was reiterated in SWNCC 38/25, “Overall Examination of U.S. Requirements for Military Bases, November 8, 1945,” which stated “the Joint Chiefs of Staff consider that 

all Japanese Mandated Islands and Central Pacific islands detached from Japan including the Bonins and the Ryukyus should be brought under exclusive United States strategic control.”

49Ibid.

50Ibid.

51Article 82 reads,“There may be designated, in any trusteeship agreement, a strategic area or areas 

which may include part or all of the trust territory to which the agreement applies, without prejudice 

to any special agreement or agreements made under Article 43.”

52JCS 570/50, “Strategic Control by the United States of Certain Pacific Areas, January 21, 1946,” 

Section 13, CCS 360 (9 December 1942), JCS 1946–1947, RG 218.

53JCS 1619/1.

54Ibid.

55Ibid.

56Ibid.

57SWNCC 59/1.

58Ibid.

59SWNCC 59/3. For more on the disagreement between the State Department and the JCS on the 

Ryukyu Islands, see Eldridge, The Origins of the Bilateral Okinawa Problem, chapter 4.

60“Memorandum for the Secretary of War and Secretary of the Navy on Review of United States 

Control Needed over the Japanese Islands, September 13, 1947,” CCS 360 (9 December 1942), Section 30, Box 88, JCS 1942–1945, RG 218.

61SWNCC 59/8.

62According to Adm Radford, one of the reasons that the islanders of Western descent were relocated to mainland Japan away from Chichi Jima was that the Japanese garrison commanders 

believed that they were acting as spies for U.S. forces and communicating with them in some way. 

See Radford, From Pearl Harbor to Vietnam, 259. This may not have been paranoia on the Japanese 

side. According to statements Fred Savory gave to interviewers later, he did to try contact U.S. naval 

craft. See “Home to Chichijima,” 19. He also told a newspaper writer in 1948, “Before the war I met 

several American naval officers on [Commander-in-Chief, Asiatic Fleet] Adm [Harry E.] Yarnell’s 

staff at the Imperial Hotel in Tokyo. I asked if I could talk with them in private and furnish intelligence information about the Bonins and their defenses. Although we’ve been Japanese nationals, we 

have never stopped considering ourselves Americans. Naturally my sympathies were with the United 

States all the time and I wanted to help out. But I never heard from the officers.”

63“Briefing Paper on Bonin-Volcano Islands for Secretary of Navy ( January 1965),” Folder: Bonin 
168

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Volcanoes, Description of Islands and Navy Presence, 1946–1965, Box 98, Records of the Military 

Government/Civil Affairs Branch of the Office of the CNO, Series VII Records Regarding the 

Bonin-Volcano Islands, Operational Archives, Naval Historical Center, Washington, DC. Also see, 

“Minutes of State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee (7 November 1945),” in Iokibe, ed., The Occupation of Japan, Part 2, Microfiche 2-C-52. The decision was formalized on 23 November 1945 in 

the form of a paper, SWNCC 214/2.

64Cited in Pesce, Book I, 27.

65The directive was labeled “CincPac-CinCPOA ltr ser 52855 (December 12, 1945),” cited in ibid., 

26.

66SCAPIN 677, “Governmental and Administrative Separation of Certain Outlying Areas from 

Japan, January 29, 1946.” Izu was placed under Japanese control again a couple of months later.

67Kikuchi Torahiko, “Nanpo no Mon, Ogasawara” [The Gateway to the South, Ogasawara], in Bokyo: 

Minami Chishima, Ogasawara Shoto, Ryukyu [Thinking of One’s Hometown: The Southern Kuriles, 

Ogasawara Islands, and Ryukyus] (Tokyo: Sankosha, 1957), 111; and Fukuda Tokuyasu, ed., Ogasawara Shoto Gaishi (Sono 1): Nichibei Kosho o Chushin to Shite) [A Historical Overview of the Ogasawara Islands with a Focus on U.S.-Japan Negotiations, vol. 1] (Tokyo: Ogasawara Kyokai, 1967), 

37–38. According to Kikuchi, who drafted the petition, the three men submitted their petition in 

February, but Fukuda’s account suggests it was done in April.

68Kikuchi, “Nanpo no Mon.”

69Ibid.

70Chosa Kyoku Dai San Ka, “Ogasawara Gunto, Iwoto Retto [The Ogasawara Group of Islands, 

Iwoto Islands],” 1–33.

71Nishimura Kumao, San Furanshisuko Heiwa Joyaku [The San Francisco Peace Treaty] (Tokyo: Kajima Kenkyujo Shuppankai, 1971), 24–25.

72Yoshida Shigeru, The Yoshida Memoirs: The Story of Japan in Crisis (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 

1973), 247.

73A Foreign Ministry Archives official said he could understand if the files on the contentious 

Northern Territories issue were not all available, but that it is “very strange” that this document on 

the Bonin Islands is still classified, when most of the other materials in the collection from that 

opening (7th Opening) are available. E-mail correspondence with Foreign Ministry records office 

official, 17 October 2007.

74“General Observations on the Questions of Japan’s Territories,” Microfilm reel number B’-0008, 

Flash Number 2, Heiwa Joyaku Kankei Tokushu Mondai ni Taisuru Iken Oyobi Nihon no Genjo ni 

Kansuru Shiryo, (1) Ryodo Mondai [Opinions on Special Problems Relating to the Treaty of Peace 

with Japan and Materials Relating to Japan’s Present Situation, 1. Territorial Problems], Tainichi 

Heiwa Joyaku Kankei Junbi Kenkyu Kankei (Dai 2 Kan), slides 0143-0167 (English version of 

document can be found between slides 0161-0167), Diplomatic Records Office, Ministry of Foreign 

Affairs (hereafter DRO-MOFA), Azabu, Tokyo.

75Ibid.

76For more on the luncheon and statement, see Charles Pomery, ed., Foreign Correspondents in Japan: 

Reporting a Half Century of Upheavals, from 1945 to the Present (Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle, 1998), 

29–31.
169

The Peace Treaty and Island Disposition

77“Achison Oyobi Hoittonii Shosho to Kaiken, Oboegaki Henkyaku no Ken” [Meeting with 

Atcheson and General Whitney and the Returned Document], Microfilm reel number B’-0008, 

Flash Number 3, Kowa Kankei Juyo Kaidan Kiroku [Records on Important Meetings Relating to 

the Peace Treaty], slides 0046-0050, DRO-MOFA. The English version of the memorandum lacks a 

date, title, and signature but has been called by one of the participants, “The Japanese Government’s 

Desires and Expectation [sic] Relative to the Peace Settlement.”

78For more on this exchange, see Eldridge, The Origins of the Bilateral Okinawa Problem, 132–34.

79“Memorandum on Disposition of the Ryukyu Islands, November 25, 1946,” located in NEA Micro C0044 reel 5 but attached to 1 October 1947, records of the State Department, Record Group 

59 (hereafter RG 59), National Archives II, College Park, MD.

80“Memorandum from George Atcheson to General MacArthur on Outline and Various Sections 

on Draft Treaty, March 20, 1947,” 740.0011 PW (Peace)/3-2047, RG 59.

81“Draft Treaty of Peace with Japan, August 5, 1947.”

82“Extent to which United States Objectives in Japan could be accomplished so far as Legal Considerations are Concerned in the Absence of a Peace Treaty (undated),” Roll 6, NEA files, RG 59.

83Ibid.

84Ibid.

85“Unsigned Memorandum Prepared in the Department of State, September 11, 1950,” Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950 (hereafter FRUS, 1950), vol. 6, East Asia and the Pacific (Washington, 

DC: Government Printing Office, 1976), 1296.

86“Draft of a Peace Treaty with Japan, September 11, 1950,” ibid., 1297–303.

87Despatch No. 628, “Territorial Provisions of Japanese Peace Treaty, October 26, 1950,” 694.001/10-

2650, RG 59.

88“Annex A,” to “Enclosure on Japan, December 13, 1950,” in FRUS, 1950, 1367.

89“The Commander in Chief, Far East (MacArthur) to the Department of the Army, December 28, 

1950,” ibid., 1383–85.

90JCS 2180/2, “Report by the Joint Strategic Survey Committee to the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 

United States Policy toward Japan, December 28, 1950,” ibid., 1391.

91Ibid.

92“The Secretary of State to Sebald, January 3, 1951,” Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951 

(hereafter FRUS, 1951), vol. 6, Asia and the Pacific (Part 1), (Washington, DC: Government Printing 

Office, 1977), 778–79.

93Ibid.

94“The U.S. Polad (Sebald) to the Secretary of State, January 6, 1951,” ibid., 786.

95“Memorandum by Fearey for Dulles and Allison, January 25, 1951,” ibid., 810–11.

96Ibid.

97See Eldridge, The Origins of the Bilateral Okinawa Problem, 292–99.
170

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

98“D Sagyo Dares Shi Honichi ni Kansuru Ken [Project D-Concerning the Dulles Trip to Japan], December 27, 1950,” Flash Number 1, Microfilm Reel Number B’0009, Tainichi Heiwa Joyaku 

Kankei Junbi Sagyo Kankei, 0158-0180, DRO-MOFA.

99“D Sagyo (Teiseiban) Dares Shi Honichi ni Kansuru Ken (Project D [Revised Version] Concerning the Dulles Trip to Japan), January 5, 1951,” Flash Number 1, Microfilm Reel Number B’0009, 

Tainichi Heiwa Joyaku Kankei Junbi Sagyo Kankei, 0182-0217, DRO-MOFA.

100Nishimura, San Furanshisuko, 86–89.

101“Undated Memorandum on Suggested Agenda by the Prime Minister of Japan,” FRUS, 1951,

833–35.

102“Minutes-Dulles Mission Staff Meeting, January 31, 1951, 10:00 a.m.,” ibid., 838–40.

103“Oral History Interview with John M. Allison, April 20, 1969,” Dulles Oral History Project, 

Princeton University, 33.

104“Minutes-Dulles Mission Staff Meeting, January 31, 1951, 10:00 a.m.”

105“Minutes-Dulles Mission Staff Meeting, February 1, 1951, 10:00 a.m.,” FRUS, 1951, 835–38.

106Ibid. For more on this exchange and the different perceptions, see Eldridge, The Origins of the 

Bilateral Okinawa Problem, 305–6.

107John M. Allison, Ambassador from the Prairie or Allison Wonderland (Boston: Houghton Mifflin 

Co., 1973), 157.

108“Majority of Japanese Favor Rearming, Want US Troops to Stay (Results of Public Opinion 

Poll),” The Mainichi, 5 March 1951, located in Folder: Information Relating to Japanese Views and 

Attitudes, Box 2, Records Relating to the Peace and Security Treaties, 1945–1952, Bureau of Public 

Affairs, Office of the Historian, RG 59.

109“Japanese Peace Treaty: Working Draft and Commentary Prepared in the Department of State 

( June 1, 1951),” FRUS, 1951, 1062.

110“Memorandum of Conversation on the Japanese Peace Treaty by the Second Secretary of the 

Embassy in the United Kingdom David K. Marvin, March 21, 1951,” ibid., 941.

111Ibid.

112“Furoku 16 Oboegaki 1951 Nen 3 Gatsu 27 Nichime, Meguru Kantei ni Oite Shiiboruto Taishi 

Yori Sori ni Tewatasaretaru Mono,” Gaimusho Joyakukyoku Hokika, ed., Heiwa Joyaku no Teiketsu ni 

Kansuru Chosho, V Showa 26 Nen 2 Gatsu–4 Gatsu [Records Relating to the Conclusion of the Peace 

Treaty, vol. 5, February–April 1951] (Tokyo: Gaimusho, 2002), 523.

113“Memorandum of Conversation on the Japanese Peace Treaty by the Second Secretary.”

114“Editorial Note,” FRUS, 1951, 1021.

115“Joint United States-United Kingdom Draft Peace Treaty (May 3, 1951),” ibid., 1025–26.

116Eldridge, The Origins of the Bilateral Okinawa Problem, 313.

117Nishimura Kumao, “Okinawa Kizoku no Kimaru Made—Motomeru ni Isoideatta Nihon no Seron” [Until the Reversion of Okinawa is Decided—Public Opinion Demanded {the Return of the 

Islands} Too Quickly], Asahi Jaanaru, vol. 1, no. 15 (21 June 1959), 19.
171

The Peace Treaty and Island Disposition

118Diary entry for 15 June 1951, Sebald Diary.

119Nishimura, San Furanshisuko, 156.

120“Telegram 2261 from Sebald [Allison] to Secretary of State [for Dulles], June 28, 1951,” FRUS, 

1951, 1163. Also see “1951 Nen 6 Gatsu 28 Nichi Gogo no Sori Arison Koshi Kaidanroku [Memorandum of Conversation between Prime Minister and Envoy Allison, June 28, 1951],” appendix 

22, vol. 6 (May 1951–August 1951), Heiwa Joyaku no Teiketsu ni Kansuru Chosho, vol. 6, 340; and 

Yoshida, Yoshida Memoirs, 253.

121“Telegram 2261.”

122“Shintaku Tochi ni Kansuru Yosei [Request Concerning the Islands to be Placed under Trusteeship], July 2, 1951,” Flash Number 6, Reel Number B’0009, Tainichi Heiwa Joyaku Kankei, Daisanji 

Kosho kankei (Daiikkan), DRO-MOFA, 0097-0108.

123“Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense on the Japanese Peace Treaty, June 26, 1951,” FRUS, 

1951, 1157; and “The Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of State, June 28, 1951,” ibid., 1155.

124“Memorandum Re Ryukyus by the Consultant to the Secretary [Dulles], June 27, 1951,” ibid., 

1152–53.

125The JCS had also proposed two changes in the wording of the text, one minor and the other more 

substantive. The latter change included the word “sole” before “administering authority” in order to 

prevent any other nation, including Japan, from lawfully interfering in the control of the islands. For 

more, see Eldridge, The Origins of the Bilateral Okinawa Problem, 317.

126“Secretary of State [Dulles] to the United States Political Adviser to SCAP, August 2, 1951,” 

FRUS, 1951, 1235.

127“(Draft of ) Prime Minister’s speech (August 7, 1951),” Flash Number 8, Reel Number B’0009, 

Tainichi Heiwa Joyaku Oyobi Nichibei Anzen Hosho Joyaku Teiketsu Kosho Kankei, DRO-MOFA, 095.

128Nishimura, San Furanshisuko Joyaku, 190–91.

129Ibid., 191.

130“Statement by John Foster Dulles, September 5, 1951,” Department of State Bulletin, vol. 25, no. 

638 (17 September 1951), 453.

131“9 Gatsu 7 Nichi no Yoshida Sori no Judaku Enzetsu (Eibun)” [English Version of Prime Minister Yoshida’s Speech Accepting Peace Treaty], Gaimusho Joyakukyoku Hokika, ed. Heiwa Joyaku no 

Teiketsu ni Kansuru Chosho, VII Showa 26 Nen 9 Gatsu San Furanshisuko Heiwa Kaigi [Records Relating to the Conclusion of the Peace Treaty, vol. 7, September 1951, San Francisco Peace Conference] 

(Tokyo: Gaimusho, 2002), 325.

132Ibid.

133Ibid.

134“Nanpo Shoto ni Kansuru Jissaiteki Sochi Dares e no Teishutsu” [Practicable Arrangements for 

the Southern Islands {Proposal} Submitted to Dulles], December 10, 1951,” Flash Number 9, Reel 

Number B’0009, Daisanji Dares Raiho Kankei [Documents Relating to Dulles’ Third Visit], DROMOFA, 0029-0041.
172

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

135“Nanpo Shoto ni Kansuru Jissaiteki Sochi Dares e no Teishutsu.”

136“Letter from Dulles to Horo Izumi, December 18, 1951,” Chronological JFD November, December 1951(3), Box 3, JFD-JMA Chronological Series, John Foster Dulles Papers, Dwight D. 

Eisenhower Presidential Library, Abilene, KS.

137“Despatch No. 1021 from the USPOLAD to SCAP (Sebald) to the Department of State, January 

17, 1952,” Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, vol. 14 (China and Japan), part 2 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1985), 1089 (hereafter FRUS, 1952–1954).

138Ibid.

139JCS 1380/135, “Report by the Joint Strategic Survey Committee, January 14, 1952,” CCS 383.21 

Japan (3-13-45), sec. 28, RG 218.

140Ibid.

141n. 2, FRUS, 1952–1954, 1224.

142“Memorandum from Assistant Secretary Allison to Secretary Acheson, March 31, 1952,” ibid.

143“Memorandum of the Substance of Discussion at a Department of State–Joint Chiefs of Staff 

Meeting, Held in Washington, April 2, 1952, 11 a.m.,” ibid.

144Ibid., 1227. It is unclear why Sebald, who was strongly in favor of Okinawa’s return to Japan and 

worked hard in the direction while political advisor in Japan, took a less-than-enthusiastic view of 

Japanese desires to be repatriated to the islands. Having left Japan on 28 February, he may have been 

unaware of it, but the Foreign Ministry forwarded a petition from the League of Bonin Evacuees to 

SCAP on 5 March (Foreign Ministry letter no. 321/A5) requesting favorable consideration of their 

petition. Reading the letter, it is quite clear that the requests are more than just sentimental in nature. 

See “Letter from Foreign Minister Okazaki to Ambassador Murphy, June 23, 1952.”
173

Photo courtesy of Robert D. Eldridge

Although geologically ancient, the islands have only been populated for about 170 years. Some excavations, 

however, indicate that they have had visitors since the Stone Age. This is Chichi Jima’s Futami Bay.

Photo courtesy of Robert D. Eldridge

Mt. Suribachi, at the southern end of Iwo Jima, is the island’s most prominent feature.
174

Narrative of the Expedition of an American Squadron to the China Seas and Japan, p. 230f

In June 1853, the USS Susquehanna and Saratoga anchored in Port Lloyd on Peel Island (Chichi Jima). The 

expedition’s official artist, Wilhelm Heine, drew this view—titled “Natural Tunnel, Port Lloyd, Bonin Islands”—of 

caves around Futami Bay that was used in Commo Matthew C. Perry’s official report.

Naval History and Heritage Command NH 72883

In 1853, Peel Island (Chichi Jima) was inhabited by people of many different origins, including Europe and the 

Kanakas (Sandwich islanders). This lithograph, by Wilhelm Heine, shows a Kanaka village in the background with 

expedition members and a local resident relaxing around a cascading stream.
175

Library of Congress LC-DIG-cwpbh-01611

Townsend Harris (3 October 1804–25 February 

1878), a New York City merchant, was the first U.S. 

consul general to Japan and negotiated the Harris 

Treaty between the two countries. He is credited 

with opening the Japanese empire to foreign trade 

and culture in the Edo period.

Library of Congress LC-DIG-cwpbh-04023

Hamilton Fish (3 August 1808–7 September 1893) is considered one of the best secretaries of state in U.S. history. 

He also served as the 16th governor of New York, a U.S. senator, and representative.

Library of Congress LC-USZC4-7502

In addition to playing a leading role in opening 

Japan to the West, U.S. Navy Commo Matthew 

Calbraith Perry (10 April 1794–4 March 1858) 

commanded six ships over his 49-year career. He 

served in the War of 1812 and Mexican-American 

War.
176

Library of Congress LC-USZC4-1362

One of Perry’s “Black Ships,” possibly the side-wheel steam frigate USS Susquehanna, is shown during the 

commodore’s first landing at Kurihama, Japan, on 8 July 1853. The watercolor, painted by a Japanese artist of that 

period, is a portion of a scroll.

Anne S. K. Brown Military Collection, Brown University Library

One panel of a silk-bound scroll by an anonymous Japanese artist depicts the American squadron led by Commo 

Perry entering the Bay of Edo (Tokyo) and Japanese boats sailing out to meet it. The American ships are deploying 

surveying boats with U.S. flags flying. The Japanese boats fly either a black and white flag, the imperial colors of the 

Tokugawa shogunate, or Hinomaru, the flag of the rising sun.
177

Naval History and Heritage Command NH 62778

Adm Ernest J. King, center, visits the Marianas Islands on board the USS Indianapolis (CA 35) with Adm Chester 

W. Nimitz, left, and Adm Raymond A. Spruance on 18 July 1944.

Photo courtesy of Robert D. Eldridge

Born into a lower class samurai family, Gen 

Kuribayashi Tadamichi (7 July 1891–c. 26 March 

1945) was a haiku poet, diplomat, and officer of 

the Imperial Japanese Army. He commanded the 

Japanese garrison during the Battle of Iwo Jima.

Library of Congress LC-USZ62-93535

Two days after Dinah Might’s arrival, 28 North 

American P-51 Mustangs of the Army Air Forces’ 

VII Fighter Command landed to begin long-range 

escort operations with the B-29s. Here, two of the 

fighters, one named My Girl, are directed to take off 

positions on Iwo Jima.
178

Library of Congress LC-USZ62-105512

Marines landing on Iwo Jima encountered a beach of soft, black volcanic ash into which they sank ankle deep, 

making forward progress all the more difficult with their heavy packs. Here, the 2d Battalion, 27th Marines, assault 

Beach Red 1.

Photo courtesy of Robert D. Eldridge

Bodies of dead Marines were wrapped in a blanket or poncho and placed in a six-foot trench, three feet from those 

on either side. Each row, placed three feet apart, contained the bodies of 50 Marines.
179

Naval History and Heritage Command 80-G-415308

Waves of assault craft approach the landing beaches along the southeastern shore of Iwo Jima, much of which is 

shrouded in smoke.

AP/Joe Rosenthal

U.S. Marines cheer after raising the American flag on Iwo Jima. Four of the flag raisers (Bradley, Hayes, Sousley, 

and Strank) appear with their jubilant buddies. Strank, Sousley, and many of these boys would soon be dead.
180

National Archives and Records Administration A42116

Marines crowd around the first Boeing B-29 Superfortress—Dinah Might—to divert to Iwo Jima as a safe haven 

on the bombing route from the Marianas Islands to Japan. Its arrival on 4 March, as the fighting was still raging, 

was barely two weeks since the initial beach assault.

U.S. Air Force 090625-F-1234K-138

The Boeing B-29 Superfortress was the key to the air war against homeland Japan. This type, the longest ranging 

and largest of U.S. bombers, generated the fire storms, which devastated Japan’s major cities, and later dropped the 

nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
181

Naval History and Heritage Command SC 204800

Three Japanese soldiers emerge from their hiding place to surrender on 5 April 1945.

National Archives and Records Administration SC 206875

Iwo Jima literally proved to be the difference between life and death for many B-29 aircrews. This bomber was one 

of nine from the same 10 March 1945 mission over Tokyo to land on the island. None would have made it back to 

their home base.
182

National Archives and Records Administration 80-G-412517

The 4th Marine Division cemetery on Iwo Jima was located off the runway of Airfield No. 1.

Library of Congress LC-USZ62-132799

Buried at the 5th Marine Division cemetery are some of the 4,189 U.S. Marines killed during the battle of Iwo 

Jima. The flag at half staff on 25 April 1945 is in tribute to the late President Roosevelt, who had died two weeks 

previously. Mt. Suribachi can be seen in the background.
183

Naval History and Heritage Command 80-G-386405

Japanese Army LtGen Tachibana Yoshio signs the surrender document on board the Dunlap off Chichi Jima. From 

left are U.S. Navy Lt David C. McMillion and Cdr John H. Magruder Jr., and behind Tachibana are Japanese 

officers LCdr Shinoda I., Maj Horie Y., Capt Sato J., and Capt Terasawa S.

Naval History and Heritage Command

FAdm Chester William Nimitz (24 February 

1885–20 February 1966) held the dual role of 

commander in chief, United States Pacific Fleet, for 

U.S. naval forces and commander in chief, Pacific 

Ocean Areas, for U.S. and Allied air, land, and sea 

forces during World War II. He was chief of naval 

operations from 1945 to 1947. 

Library of Congress LC-DIG-ggbain-32925

Japanese Imperial Army LtGen Tachibana Yoshio 

(24 February 1890–24 September 1946) was 

commander of the Japanese troops in Chichi Jima, 

and held responsible for war crimes involving 

torture, extrajudicial execution, and cannibalism of 

Allied prisoners of war.
184

Naval History and Heritage Command 19-N-30007

The USS Dunlap (DD 384), shown in May 1942, was the scene of the Japanese surrender of the Bonin Islands.

Naval History and Heritage Command

Maj Horie Yoshitaka, shown here during the 

surrender ceremonies on the USS Dunlap, served 

under LtGen Kuribayashi Tadamichi and later 

LtGen Tachibana Yoshio on Iwo Jima.

Library of Congress LC-01102

John Foster Dulles (25 February 1888–24 May 

1959) was U.S. secretary of state in the Dwight D. 

Eisenhower administration from 1953 to 1959.
185

Photo courtesy of Robert D. Eldridge

A deceptive “school gate” and statue of a peasant boy were erected in front of communications facilities on Chichi 

Jima to deceive enemy aircrews into believing the buildings were a school.

Library of Congress LCUSZ62-113312

Yoshida Shigeru (22 September 1878–20 October 

1967) was a Japanese diplomat and politician who 

served as both foreign and prime minister of Japan 

from 1946 to 1947, and as prime minister from 

1948 to 1954.

Naval History and Heritage Command

RAdm Charles A. Pownall (4 October 1887–19 July 

1975) was the U.S. commander for the Marianas 

and governor of Guam, but also the deputy military 

governor for the Bonin Islands.
186

Photo courtesy of Robert D. Eldridge

View of the Admiral Radford Elementary School.

Naval History and Heritage Command

Adm Arthur W. Radford (27 February 1896–17 

August 1973) was, in May 1951, commander in chief, 

Pacific Fleet. Previously he had served as vice chief 

of naval operations, and later, in 1953, became the 

second chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

Photo courtesy of Robert D. Eldridge

In 1958, the Navy built a five-room school named 

the Admiral Radford Elementary School.
187

Photo courtesy of Robert D. Eldridge

This view overlooking Chichi Jima’s Futami Bay features the area occupied by the former U.S. naval facility.

Photo courtesy of Robert D. Eldridge

These coastal defenses were constructed beginning in June 1941 on Chichi Jima to defend Oki Port at Shizusawa.
188

Photo courtesy of Robert D. Eldridge

Near the village of Kiyose are copper-lined vaults later used for nuclear weapons storage.

National Archives and Records Administration 80-G-445182

Chief of Naval Operations Adm William M. Fechteler, second from right, speaks with senior officers upon his 

arrival at Haneda Air Force Base, Tokyo, in July 1952. From left are Gen J. Lawton Collins, USA; commander of 

naval forces, Far East, VAdm Robert P. Briscoe, USN; Fechteler; and Commander in Chief, Far East Command, 

Gen Mark W. Clark, USA.
189

U.S. Navy 010126-N-8743M-009

The current monument atop Suribachi features the cast bronze 48-star U.S. flag. 

National Archives and Records Administration 

80-G-439725

In February 1952, Buddhist priest Tsunezo Wachi, a 

former Japanese Navy captain, conducted ceremonies 

at the dedication of the peace monument at the base 

of Mt. Suribachi.

Photo courtesy of Robert D. Eldridge

This bust of Fukuda Tokuyasu (13 October 1906–7 

August 1993) honors the former chairman of the 

Ogasawara Association and Liberal Democratic 

Party Diet member.
190

National Archives and Records Administration A178464

In the early 1950s, these markers honored the Japanese soldiers who died in the Battle of Iwo Jima.

U.S. Marine Corps History Division

LtGen Victor H. “Brute” Krulak (7 January 

1913–29 December 2008), as commander of Fleet 

Marine Forces Pacific, was ultimately responsible for 

the Iwo Jima memorial, and approved the use of a 

cast bronze flag.

National Archives and Records Administration

U. Alexis Johnson (17 October 1908–24 March 

1997) was a career diplomat with 42 years service 

who began working for the State Department in 

1935. He was consul and later consul general at 

Yokohama, Japan, from 1945 to 1949. From then to 

1953, he served in various positions in the Far East 

Bureau, focusing on Japan and Korea.
191

Photo courtesy of Bud Tyler

During the reversion ceremony on Chichi Jima, 

the U.S. flag is lowered for the final time followed 

shortly thereafter by the raising of the Japanese flag.

Photo courtesy of Bud Tyler

The Japanese flag is raised during the reversion 

ceremony on Iwo Jima.

National Archives and Records Administration A178465

Among the first memorials on Iwo Jima was this relief carving based on Joe Rosenthal’s famous photograph. 

The nearly life-size work was carved into a cliff in July 1945 by PO1 Waldon T. Rich, USN, of the 31st Naval 

Construction Battalion using a bayonet as his primary tool.
192

Chapter 5

Naval Administration and Chichi Jima Life, 

1945–681

Throughout the many long years of Japanese occupation, even though it covered 

nearly 100 years, the old-timers will still insist that through it all they always 

remained true to the Stars and Stripes. It is inspiring to hear the Bonin Island 

children raise our flag each morning, then pledge allegiance to the flag in accents 

of Japanese, but with a feeling from the heart.

—Brochure of General Information, History, and Living Conditions

Chichi Jima, Bonin Islands, 1963

In the wake of World War II, the United States occupied and administered the Bonin Islands from 1945 until 1968, when the islands were returned to Japan. While there is much 

literature on the occupation and administration of Okinawa, little exists on the occupation 

of the Bonin Islands, which met in many ways the same fate as the larger island group to 

the west.2

While the occupation was undertaken for strategic reasons, much like that over Okinawa, there were several differences in the way that the occupation and administration of 

the Bonin Islands was organized. First, unlike Okinawa, which was invaded and witnessed 

the start of military government amid a land battle, the direct administration of Bonins, 

which experienced no such invasion by U.S. ground troops, did not begin until 1951 with 

the placement of a full-time naval officer on the main island of Chichi Jima who wore two 

hats—officer in charge of the Navy’s facility and military government representative—just 

prior to the peace treaty conference in San Francisco. Second, the U.S. Navy was in charge 

and not the U.S. Army, as was the case in Okinawa for the period after 1 July 1946 until 15 

May 1972, and Amami until 24 December 1953. Third, only those of Western descent and 

their spouses regardless of ethnicity and nationality were allowed to return to Chichi Jima. 

Former residents of Japanese descent were denied permission to return for more than two 

decades. Fourth, education and local government was undertaken in English and not in 

Japanese as in Okinawa and Amami.3

 Finally, there was a strong, concerted yet unsuccessful effort made by high Navy officials to encourage the permanent separation of the islands 

from Japan and the adoption of U.S. citizenship by the islanders.

Return of the Islanders of Western Descent

and Their Early Lives Back on Chichi Jima, 1945–46

When the U.S. government decided in March 1946 to permit the return of 129 islanders 

of Western descent to Chichi Jima, it had been more than two years since they were first 
193

evacuated by Japanese forces to the mainland where they never did settle in. Indeed, it had 

been a particularly difficult period for them—with physical differences and without real 

roots on the mainland—amid the chaos before and following the end of the war.

“We had arrived from Chichi with what clothes we could carry and our bedding,” Miriam Robinson Savory told anthropologists Mary Shepardson and Blodwen Hammond for 

their unpublished study on the islands.4

 Miriam stayed in Yokohama until the fire bombings of that city burned her and many others out of their dwellings and then they evacuated 

to the Sea of Japan and later Saitama Prefecture (near Tokyo). Another islander, “Uncle” 

Charlie Washington, remembered that the farmers were “sometimes . . . mean to us. They 

wouldn’t sell us anything.”5 Moses Savory corroborated his story: “We all had a hard time 

during the war. The farmers wouldn’t sell to us because we looked like foreigners.”6

Rogers Savory spoke of having a hard time during the war due to his height. Working 

in the countryside after being evacuated to Japan, people were suspicious of him thinking 

he “had been dropped from a parachute.”7 His daughter, Lizzie Savory, then about 12 or 13 

years old, described an incident in which her father was almost killed.

We didn’t have enough food. One day my father went to the country to buy food. 

An American airplane had been shot down the day before. Two crew members had 

parachuted out. One was captured but one escaped. The people were searching for 

him when my father came along. He was so tall they thought he was an airman. 

They stuck him with bamboo poles with sharpened ends . . . He was stuck in two 

places. They kept him in the police station for two days while they called the company he worked for. The company officials said he was a good man, a good worker. 

So the police apologized and let him go.8

Washington mentioned an altercation with the police, who thought he and his fellow 

islanders, Fred and Jerry Savory, were spies because they were speaking English.

One of them asked me where I came from. “Chichi Jima,” I said. Then he said 

he’d never heard the name. “Well,” I says to them, “You fellows are way behind the 

door.” Kind of made me mad, you know, so I kind of insulted them. One man said, 

“There is no such place.” “Well,” I says, “Oh yes there is. You’re living in darkness. 

I’m telling the truth and now you want to contradict me.” Well, he scratched his 

head. “Never mind, that will do.” . . . I says to them, “You fellows don’t know your 

own country. You’re regular country people,” I says. I let everything right out. I did 

not hesitate at all. So then they looked up the map and found there was such a 

place. So then they put white arm bands on us, so nobody would bother us again.9

These are just a sampling of the stories; there are many other similar personal accounts.

After the war, these bilingual men and women were in high demand by the occupation 

forces, working at hospitals, post exchanges (PXs), police stations, cemeteries, military installations, shops, recreation centers, and as house servants.10 They were better off in these 

positions than they had been for some time, but they still wished, understandably, to return 

to Chichi Jima.

Naval Administration and Chichi Jima Life, 1945–68
194

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

In late 1945, some of the islanders of Western descent began to approach U. Alexis 

Johnson, the newly appointed U.S. consul who had returned to Japan to reopen the consulate, “claiming to be American citizens” and requesting to be allowed to return to Chichi 

Jima with a petition drafted by Frederick A. Savory.11 He was the great grandson of the 

original pioneer to the islands, Nathaniel Savory, and had been educated at an international 

school and worked for American companies in Japan prior to returning to Chichi Jima 

in 1940 before he was evacuated in 1944.12 Despite his and his fellow islander’s Western 

names, such as Washington and Robinson, U.S. Consul Johnson had his doubts. “Most were 

third generation Boninites who had intermarried with Japanese, spoke English poorly if at 

all, and had very tenuous ties with the United States.” Johnson noted, however, that “the 

group was small and its desire was straightforward,” so he agreed to take up their case with 

General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, who was in charge of the occupation of Japan as 

Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers (SCAP).13 At the same time, Commander in 

Chief, Pacific (CINCPAC), who had been informed of the State-War-Navy Coordinating 

Committee’s (SWNCC) decision on 1 December by the Joint Chiefs of Staff ( JCS), had 

in turn requested the Chief of Naval Operations to reconsider the case of Savory and other 

families of American and European descent.14 His request was refused, however, pending 

decisions concerning the future status of the islands.15

In the meantime, Savory was able to go to Chichi Jima in mid-December to assist 

Marine Colonel Presley M. Rixey, the commanding officer of the occupation forces, as an 

interpreter and then on to Guam for the start of the war crimes trials.16 While working 

with Rixey (who obviously found his English ability better than that of Consul Johnson), 

he was able to convince the colonel to request that the islanders be returned, which Rixey 

did believing that islanders “could live happily without any outside assistance whatsoever.”17

At the same time, the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers and CINCPAC were 

also discussing the islanders’ plight with authorities in Washington. On 19 March 1946, 

SWNCC finally revised its decision to permit the return of islanders of Western descent 

who had been forcibly relocated to the mainland and were, having lost their livelihoods and 

island-lifestyle of living, facing economic difficulties and social discrimination in the harsh 

times of the immediate postwar months.18 On 29 March, the Chief of Naval Operations 

notified CINCPAC of Washington’s decision to allow their return.19

The decision to permit the return of this unfortunate lot was reported in Guam’s newspapers.20 Learning of this, Frederick Savory, who was still in Guam assisting in the trials, 

wrote to the U.S. Navy commander in the Marianas and included the names and addresses 

of 93 others who wished to return to Chichi Jima.21 They did not wish to stay any longer in 

mainland Japan, where they were having serious trouble surviving, and were willing to go to 

Tinian or Saipan to await their return if necessary. In the end, the islanders were permitted 

to return directly to Chichi Jima, rather than through the former Mandated Islands.

Shortly after Savory’s letter was received at General Headquarters, SCAP, in Tokyo, to 

which it was forwarded, the International Red Cross contacted the islanders of Western 

descent with instructions to compose a list of those who wished to return.22 “The Bonins 

have been cleared of Japanese rule and, at least until final disposition of the Bonins is 

decided, the descendants of Nathaniel Savory will live under the Stars and Stripes,” Life
195

Naval Administration and Chichi Jima Life, 1945–68

magazine wrote at the time.23 Nevertheless, they were still technically considered “enemy 

nationals” by U.S. military authorities.24

A large number of islanders desired to return with this repatriation. As it was SCAP 

policy to not separate families, Japanese spouses were also allowed to go having already been 

screened and cleared by SCAP, bringing the number to 125.25 As one researcher observed 

years later, “The group that gathered for embarkation . . . had been uprooted and scattered. 

They wanted to find one [an]other. They had been mistreated as aliens and as ‘spies.’ They 

were an ethnic group, never able to merge completely into Japanese society although they 

discharged their duties of citizenship. But they shared a common historical experience, kinship ties, religion, the use of two languages, and a place of origin.”26

The returnees eventually left the port of Uraga south of Yokosuka on board a former 

Imperial Japanese Navy destroyer, the Keyaki Maru, and arrived in Futami Bay on 17 October.27 Although the ship was “extremely dirty, rusty, and foul smelling,” the morale of the 

passengers was high.28 “Chichi is my mother,” one of the returnees, Isaac Gonzales, said.29

Despite this high morale, it had been a bleak situation when the islanders arrived home, 

one of “almost complete destruction . . . at the time of surrender, practically every animal 

had been killed by the Japanese troops for food,” Shepardson wrote, “American bombers 

had reduced most buildings to rubble. They had leveled the Episcopal Church of St. George 

as well as the Shinto shrine. Only two houses, those of Charles Washington and his [older] 

brother Rufus, were left standing. U.S. occupation forces [in 1945–46] completed the demilitarization by demolishing all power plants, docks, and like facilities.”30

Meanwhile, military government authorities had earlier sent two ships, the LCI(L) 

1067 and PC 1546, from Guam, via Saipan, with personnel and two months of provisions 

to help the returning islanders reestablish themselves.31 Also on board were the Savorys and 

Commander Vernon B. Hagenbuckle, who had recently been appointed officer in charge of 

the Bonins by the Chief Military Government Officer, Saipan. They arrived on 8 October. 

“The trip took us three days and the weather was fine,” an ensign and member of expedition wrote at the time.32 “Even though we did hit Chichi at night,” he continued, “we came 

in the harbor under the guidance of the Savorys and the other two Bonin islanders who 

know the place cold.”33 Hagenbuckle, like many of the islanders’ ancestors, came from 

Massachusetts, hailing from the town of Bourne on Cape Cod. On the same day of their 

arrival, he established the U.S. Naval Military Government Detachment, Bonins.34 Because 

the islanders were unable to arrive as scheduled on the 9th, the crews began work repairing the Quonset huts left by the Marines who had departed that April, and other unoccupied buildings, building bathrooms and showers, and cleaning up beach debris on their 

own.35 The Navy doctor, Mike Polka, checked the drinking water and sanitary conditions. 

Most buildings had been destroyed during the last months of the war and the subsequent 

defortification process by the Marines who “behaved as if Chichi Jima and Japan were 

still military threats [by] destroy[ing] every visible means of support on the island.”36 As a 

result, much work had to be done in order to rehabilitate the islands. Indeed, in addition to 

the two houses mentioned earlier, only three concrete buildings had escaped destruction.37

To make matters worse, while the detachment was there, one of Chichi Jima’s infamous 

typhoons struck.38
196

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

After the arrival of the islanders, some of whom were suffering from malnutrition and 

in need of medical attention (which they received), Hagenbuckle discussed with them a 

program for restoring the islands, roads, structures, and other infrastructure to a livable 

condition.39 Naval personnel “marveled” at the “preservation of American traits in these 

people of American, British, Portuguese, Spanish, Polynesian, and Japanese blood and the 

ability of the adults to speak English—a facility which had been cherished through the 

generations of Japanese rule.”40 One of the first acts was to establish a local government, as 

the Navy presence at this point was only meant to be temporary. On 19 October, the Bonin 

Islands Council, comprised of six elected members representing the main families from the 

prewar period, was created as a local governing body, with each member responsible for a 

certain aspect of the reconstruction program.41 In charge of housing and construction was 

Richard Washington. Grover Gilley was charged with the recondition of vessels. Frank 

Gonzales, whose father had been a teacher and preacher, was placed in charge of education and public welfare (and also conducted marriages). Wilson Savory was responsible for 

livestock and food production. Jerry Savory and Roderick Webb were appointed initially to 

serve as local police, or “inspectors,” as they were called.42 A formal schedule—four days a 

week for community activities, two days for fishing, farming, and gathering firewood and 

fruit, with Sunday for rest—was also established. Frank’s son, Clark Gonzales, served as the 

first president of the council. Younger members were also added to the body as “assistant 

councilmen.”

With the aforementioned issues decided, initial rehabilitation projects completed, and 

an American flag from the LCI handed over to the islanders, the Navy representatives 

departed Futami Bay on 22 October.43 As the late anthropologist Shepardson, who made 

important contributions to the study of the postwar history of the islands, wrote, “like their 

ancestors in 1830, the settlers were alone [again] on the small volcanic island.”44

As can be expected, life initially was hard for them. They were isolated and without the 

means to conduct commerce or communication with the outside world, with the exception the U.S. Navy vessels that made regular visits to the islands in the first year following 

resettlement to bring supplies as well as to provide basic medical and dental services.45 Years 

later, as travel between Chichi Jima and Guam became more routine, three Navy Grumman HU-16D Albatross amphibious aircraft, nicknamed the “Chichi Birds,” would fly on 

an irregular schedule, in addition to visits by LSTs and other naval vessels. The flights were 

described as “five hours of boredom and ten seconds of sheer terror.”46 In 1967, one crashlanded in the bay.47

The initial situation of the islands was made worse when a tidal wave following a large 

earthquake off Shikoku, in western Japan, struck on 21 December 1946, destroying some 

houses and gardens.48 To help, several tons of supplies from a prisoner-of-war stockade on 

Saipan were delivered to the island in January 1947 and a subsequent trip made in March.49

At this point, housing was still limited with two or three families sharing the Marine 

Quonset huts, which lacked electricity, running water, and indoor toilets.50 When Charlie 

Washington returned, he found his house still standing but none of his possessions. Even 

the things he had buried on his property before the evacuation were gone. Nathaniel Savory, the great-grandson and namesake of one of the original settlers, described life as very 
197

Naval Administration and Chichi Jima Life, 1945–68

difficult for them. “When my [ Japanese] wife and I came to Chichi after the war, there was 

nothing here. There was no well water. Three families had to share a Quonset hut. There was 

no school, nothing. The U.S. forces did nothing for us [except send] a boat once a month 

that brought us some food and some clothes but it was used clothing with P.O.W. stamped 

on every article. They really didn’t do much for us.”51

The Japanese wives had an especially difficult time. Most of them were new to the 

island, and in some cases new to marriage, and thus quite homesick. “She was a little lonesome at first, I guess. She cried a lot,” one man said of his wife.52

There were others, however, who said “life was easy for the returnees” and spoke of living 

on supplies left by the Japanese in the caves that were rationed out, ships bringing supplies 

from Saipan and later, Guam, and emergency illnesses being treated by medevacs to Guam 

by seaplane.53 Nevertheless, this same man said he and his family had to share a Quonset 

hut with another family for 10 years.

Commander Hagenbuckle was dissatisfied, however, with the lack of support for the islands. 

Writing to his superior, the deputy military governor, on 27 January 1947, he noted that

sufficient material goods and equipment to start their new life have not yet been 

supplied though such material and goods have been persistently requested since 

28 October 1946. . . . Can the assistance [to] the Bonins to date be truthfully considered “out of proportion to the area as a whole?” . . . The Bonin Islanders have 

accepted the consequences of war and are making every effort to alleviate their 

condition. They were held increasingly suspect by the Japanese since several years 

before the war. They suffered untold hardships and brutal treatment all during the 

war. They proved of great value to our occupation forces both in Japan and in the 

Bonins. They seek no special favors and are deeply grateful for the help they have 

thus far received. They are a worthy people and any assistance that can be supplied 

them will most certainly prove a sound investment. . . . Once given a start in basic 

needs and chance to market fish and farm products, it is firmly believed that the 

resettlement project in the Bonins will prove a highly successful undertaking.54

At this point, there was not a permanent U.S. military presence on the islands. Indeed, 

the so-called military government was a very indirect one at that.

In the spring of 1947, Hagenbuckle was able to visit the islands again and spent several 

weeks on Chichi Jima to assist the residents with their problems. Despite their lack of experience in self-government and the tsunami natural disaster, the local government had begun 

to work well during the difficult first six months, and a school was in operation with 16 pupils between the ages of 4 and 14. Five men and two women were sent to Saipan for training in education, farming, cattle raising, and nursing. Exports of dry fish were being sent 

there as well for sale or barter. Life was peaceful, but it was clearly at subsistence level.

Yet, a year later, the situation had little improved with no new housing built, few people 

trained, a limited ability to trade, and none of the wreckage around the islands and in the 

bay cleared away. A letter from R. S. Wilhelm of the Civil Administration Unit on Saipan 

to Hagenbuckle directed a fundamental overhaul of the administration:
198

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

The island needs a refrigerated ship for fruits and vegetables. The school for children is conducted by an untrained aged resident. There are no recreational facilities 

or cultural influences of any kind. No chaplain or missionary has visited the island. 

The people are Japan oriented. There is no reason to tie them to the Marianas. The 

evacuees ( Japanese) could return. SCAP or COMNAVFE [Commander Naval 

Forces, Far East] after the war prohibited the Japanese former residents from coming back. These policies should be revised. Only 120 people are allowed there. The 

Bonins should not be considered part of U.S. trusteeship. Imports exceed exports 

by 50%. The market for export should be Japan.55

This letter identified or implied many of the problems with the way the occupation was 

run and the administration would be conducted.

The lack of high-level attention to the islands was most seen when a 20,000-ton Navy 

transport, the USS General George M. Randall (AP 115), carrying Rear Admiral Charles 

A. Pownall, visited Chichi Jima on an unscheduled stop in the late summer of 1948. “We 

were amazed upon awakening to see a large ship approaching us,” Jerry Savory told young 

but experienced war correspondent Martin Sheridan, who had once read a book about the 

Bonins and had arranged to travel with Pownall on his trip when he learned that the admiral might stop at Chichi Jima.56 “We thought somebody important was coming ashore as 

the Randall is the largest ship we’ve ever seen.” The visitor was somebody important, at least 

for the islands. As the U.S. Commander for the Marianas and Governor of Guam, Pownall 

was also the deputy military governor for the islands, serving under Admiral DeWitt C. 

Ramsey, who was Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet (CINCPACFLT) and military 

governor for the Bonins.

Pownall was, in other words, the highest-ranking naval officer to visit the island since 

Commodore Matthew C. Perry 95 years before. Symbolic of the lack of communications, 

quite literally “the tiny island was caught unprepared for the visit [as] they had not received 

a message dropped from a plane dispatched from Iwo a few days before. But most of them 

gathered on the beach to meet . . . the party.” According to Sheridan, who also traveled with 

the admiral on shore, Pownall was “deeply interested in the story of Savory’s descendents 

. . . [and] arranged the visit to Chichi Jima to meet the self-designated Yankees, learn 

their problems, and aspirations first-hand and to see if there is a practical way of assisting 

them.”

One of the problems became apparent immediately—the ship’s captain decided against 

entering the harbor because of uncharted sunken ships and planes and chose instead to 

drop anchor about a mile offshore. Without Futami Bay being cleared, development and 

commerce could hardly begin. Pownall met with the local council and visited each of the 

facilities on the island, with his staff delivering necessary medical and other supplies. He 

expressed his hope to be able to arrange for Army and Navy transports to visit regularly to 

deliver supplies, newspapers, and mail, as well as to pick up produce, fish, and other items 

for shipment to markets in Guam and elsewhere. He also hoped to develop stronger ties 

between the islands and the people of Massachusetts, where Nathaniel Savory had been 

born 150 years earlier. It was the admiral’s first and only visit to the islands as well as the 

first and only visit by a reporter until the mid-1950s.
199

Naval Administration and Chichi Jima Life, 1945–68

Sheridan’s two-part article goes into some detail and color about the background of the 

islanders’ return and life there since repatriation.

During the past year and a half, the hand-picked colony has made considerable 

progress toward economic security. The Bonin Islands Trading Co. has been formed 

by the Military Government Staff at Saipan, with each able-bodied man owning 

a share on a co-operative basis. They have netted a profit of $10,000—kept in the 

Bank of Guam—from the sale of dried tuna fish and vegetables. Among the 42 

charter members are 15 Savorys, 11 Washingtons, 5 Webbs, 3 Gilleys and 2 Gonzalez. They have voluntarily banned the importation of alcoholic beverages. The Chichi 

Jimans certainly behave better than any stateside community for they do not have a 

police force. In addition, they have organized and elected the Bonin Island Council 

to administer the small community as the U.S. Navy does not keep a representative 

there. Most of these followers of the simple life are Protestants who would like to 

have missionary couples join them for a year or two at a time to direct a religious 

program. They still call their community Yankeetown, and like thousands of rural 

Americans, order clothing and equipment from the Sears Roebuck catalog.57

Nevertheless, throughout the article, Sheridan stressed the islanders’ loneliness and their 

desire for closer ties with the people—their relatives—in the United States, including citizenship. “One question dims the otherwise peaceful future—their status and the status of 

the Bonin Islands. They want the United States to hold on to the chain, not to return the 

islands to Japan. Most of all they’d like to become American citizens. As yet, Uncle Sam 

has not given any indication of what he will decide.”

This was a theme regularly heard in the nineteenth century, and over the next 20 years 

of the U.S. Navy administration of the islands. “Forgotten Americans” was what one Navy 

commander called the returnees.58

The Confusing Start of the Military Government

The original basis for the military government in the Bonin Islands was established by a 

12 January 1945, directive from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, known as “Directive for Military 

Government in Japanese Outlying Islands.”59 Otherwise known as JCS 1231, it instructed 

the Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet and Pacific Ocean Areas (at the time, Fleet 

Admiral Chester W. Nimitz), to “establish military government in such of the Japanese 

outlying islands as may be occupied by the forces under your command.” These islands 

included the “Nanpo Shoto, consisting of the Izu, Bonin, and Volcano Islands (including 

Marcus Island).” The guidelines for CINCPACFLT were found in paragraphs three and 

four of the directive:

3. You will be the supreme authority, and you will possess all rights, powers and 

responsibilities vested in the commander of an occupying force in time of war by 

international law.

a. This authority will be broadly construed and will include the authority to 

take all measures deemed by you to be necessary or desirable in the execution of your military mission.
200

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

b. You may in your discretion delegate to subordinate members of your 

command, in whole or in part, the authority herein granted you, and authorize such subordinate members to subdelegate such authority to their 

subordinates.

4. The objective of your military government will be to facilitate to the greatest 

extent possible the accomplishment of your military mission.

According to an internal organizational history of the administration of the Bonin Islands, the operational control of the geographical area of the islands was originally vested in 

the Commander in Chief Far East (CINCFE), General MacArthur, although this did not 

include military government. In a unified command plan presented to President Harry S. 

Truman on 12 December 1946, concerning command of U.S. forces outside the continental 

United States, the Joint Chiefs of Staff noted that although CINCFE would be responsible 

for the security of the islands and that the forces there would be assigned to his operational 

control to “facilitate the discharging of [CINCFE’s] present mission. . . . eventually operational control should revert to the Pacific Command.”60 When Truman subsequently 

released the plan to the public on 17 December, he explained that the Marianas, including 

the Bonin Islands in this case, “will eventually revert to the Pacific Command, the present arrangements being designated to give support to General MacArthur in the military 

occupation of Japan and South Korea.”61 So, while the operational control of the islands 

was under MacArthur’s CINCFE, the actual military government responsibilities fell to 

CINCPACFLT and its subordinate commands.

Shortly after this, in early February 1947, the geographic limits of the Marianas Area of 

the Pacific Command and the four sub-areas into which it was divided were established.62

The Bonin Islands were included in the Bonins-Marianas Sub-Area, which also constituted 

the Marianas-Bonins Command Area (MARBO) of the Far East Command. Through this 

arrangement, according to the same organizational history, CINCFE exercised operational 

control for unified command of the naval forces and facilities in the MARBO area, with 

the Commander in Chief, Pacific and Commander in Chief, Pacific Fleet, who was directly 

below CINCPAC, exercising unified command for the remainder of the Marianas area.63

Nevertheless, as described above, CINCFE’s operational control did not include naval administration, logistics, or civil and military government. These responsibilities remained a 

function of CINCPACFLT’s command. Military government of the Marianas area was 

exercised through the Commander Marianas as Chief Military Government Officer Marianas, with the Senior Naval Officer Saipan in charge of the direct administration of the 

Bonins as Chief Military Government Officer Bonins–Marianas Island Group.64 Under 

him, as seen in the command chart below, was the Officer in Charge Bonin Islands, with 

counterparts in the respective offices. Hagenbuckle was the first officer in charge of the 

Bonin Islands.

In April 1947, a revised JCS 1231 was approved as 1231/12, and it directed the continuation of military government over the Bonin-Volcano Islands “until such time as their 

ultimate international status is determined.”65 Paragraph two stated,
201

Naval Administration and Chichi Jima Life, 1945–68

2. The authority to establish military government in the areas considered by this 

directive is vested in the president. The executive administration of the military 

governmental authority of the president, in this instance, has been delegated as 

an interim authority to the Secretary of the Navy who has further delegated such 

authority to the Chief of Naval Operations, and with the Joint Chiefs of Staff concurrence, to the Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet as Military Governor.66

Because the Bonin Islands were recognized to be historic territory of Japan, this administrative structure toward them did not change when the United States assumed responsibility 

for the trusteeship of the former Japanese Mandates on 18 July 1947, following the establishment of the United Nations trusteeship system and the appointment of CINCPACFLT 

as High Commissioner of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. CINCPACFLT, in 

other words, retained his title of Military Governor of the Bonin and Volcano Islands. The 

Deputy Military Governor, as the renamed Commander, Naval Forces Marianas (formerly 

Commander Marianas Area), however, would administer the area through the Office of the 

High Commissioner. This procedure was apparently adopted to “simplify the administrative 

organization and to enable CINCPACFLT, as High Commissioner, to discharge both the 

responsibilities assumed by the United States under the Trusteeship Agreement with the 

United Nations and the obligation of CINCPACFLT as Military Governor.”67

Despite the Bonins being a part of Japan, in the words of Dorothy Richard Pesce, who 

authored a massive study of the Trust Territory, they “continued to be administered as an 

appendage of the Trust Territory” since the “problems of the [Bonin Islands] were similar 

Figure 7. Chain of command in U.S. Naval administration of the Bonin Islands
202

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

to those of the islands in the Trust Territory and since the population approximated a mere 

130 people existing on a subsistence basis supplemented by supplies provided by the Navy, 

a separate government organization and [set of ] regulations were not justified.”68 However, 

despite a number of administrative, military, and economic connections, the islands were 

not legally a part of the Trust Territory as they were historically Japanese territory. It was, 

in a nutshell, a confusing and in many ways unnatural situation, much like the separation of 

the Amami Islands from Kagoshima Prefecture created numerous problems.69

In any case, the budget for the Bonins came through the so-called EIGLOAN (Expenses Island Governments and Liberated and Occupied Areas Navy) appropriation for 

the administration of the Trust Territory.70 Likewise, all provisions of the Navy Department policy for the government of the territory (incorporating the different changes over 

the past year), promulgated on 15 January 1948, by Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral 

Louis E. Denfeld, were considered “applicable to the Naval Government of the BoninVolcano Islands.”71 This five-page directive introduced in some detail the “principles . . . to 

be considered as a guide for all officers and persons connected with the several governments 

under the cognizance of the Navy Department.” However, it did not provide any guidance 

as to what the final disposition of the Bonin Islands was to be, and as a result, “the optimistic hopes held by the early Navy administrators for the progressive rehabilitation of the 

Bonin Islanders did not materialize.”72

With the confusing command structure, and the administration not succeeding in providing basic services to the islanders, Navy personnel “became convinced that administrative as well as operational control of the Bonin-Volcano area should be held by the Far 

East Command.”73 As a result, the Deputy Chief Military Government Officer Bonins 

recommended in March 1948 to the Chief of Naval Operations that the administration of 

the islands be transferred to SCAP.74 He gave the following reasons: (1) the Bonins were 

geographically, economically, and culturally closely related to Japan and there appeared no 

reason to force them to be a part of Micronesia; (2) geographically, they were distant and 

remote from most of the Trust Territory islands; (3) their nearest neighbor, the Marianas, 

needed no products that the Bonins could produce; (4) the Bonins had no lingual or cultural ties with Micronesia; (5) logistically and administratively, it was difficult for the Navy 

to support them from Guam and Saipan; (6) by contrast, they could find a ready market 

in Japan; and (7) the Bonins were attached to the Japanese people through marriage and 

cultural affiliation.75 Unfortunately, this was not done. According to Pesce, there was no 

record of the CNO having ever received this recommendation.76

Not all of the Navy’s leadership in theater saw the issue the same way. R. W. Kenney, 

a Navy commander who conducted a field inspection trip in the spring of 1948 to Chichi 

Jima, argued that it was important “not to give these islands back to the Japanese. They cost 

too many American lives during World War II and besides, we owe a debt to those Forgotten Americans now living there.”77 Kenney, who wrote these thoughts in a “Letter from 

Yankeetown,” was highly moved by the history of the original settlers and challenged the 

U.S. government to recognize the islanders as American citizens:

Old Nat Savory was a fighter with the American pioneer spirit, living to the ripe 

old age of eighty. Neither Hamilton Fish nor anybody else would have dared to tell 
203

Naval Administration and Chichi Jima Life, 1945–68

old Nat to his face that he was not an American. Young Nathaniel Savory, a greatgrandson, is living on Chichi today and has that same spirit of Americanism—but 

we say that he is a Japanese subject. A Japanese subject with a down east twang who 

could pass anywhere for a Gloucester fisherman! A Japanese subject whose ancestors met secretly on each 4th of July to celebrate that eventful day, and to hold to 

their faith that they were Americans at heart. But for what?78

He goes on to ask, “What is the future of these Forgotten Americans and what as fellow 

Americans have we to offer them in the way of freedom and security?” and suggest that 

“perhaps the United Nations would grant a request to add the Bonins to the Trust Territory 

of the Pacific Islands. It is the least we can do for them!”79 Interestingly, Kenney also suggests that a few thousand refugees from Europe find new opportunities in the Bonins and 

help the islands become self-sufficient so they did not have to be returned to Japan.

In any case, the islands had already been separated from Japanese government control on 

29 January1946, through SCAPIN 677. By separating the islands not only from Japanese government control, but also keeping the islands separate from CINCFE’s administrative control, 

and essentially placing them under the trusteeship architecture for administrative purposes, 

the United States had created a very complicated occupation and administration structure.

Clarifying the Administration of the Islands

The situation did not mean that all things had gone poorly for the islanders following 

their return. Services and products, which included leftover wartime goods, were initially 

provided free of charge by the Navy. Several islanders, including Ikeda Minoru and Jerry 

Savory, were respectively sent to Tinian for training in radio communications and Guam 

for medical training at the Naval Medical Center, along with several women (including 

Martha Savory, Jerry’s sister) who received nursing training.80 With their immediate needs 

covered, the lives of the islanders began to improve. A school was opened for 16 children, 

and taught in English by an elder islander, Frank Gonzales, who had worked for 40 years 

in a British exporting firm in mainland Japan.81 The economy began to grow by exporting 

frozen and dried fish, turtle, pork, beef, and vegetables to Guam and Saipan, although these 

items could only be shipped out every three months.82 To support this, the Bonin Islands 

Trading Company was formed by the military government staff at Saipan, with each “ablebodied man” owning a share of the co-op. By 1948, the 42-charter-member trading company had earned a profit of $10,000 from the sale of vegetables and fish.83 In the same year, 

Navy Seabees laid new water lines, and, subsequently, the Navy provided an additional 25 

tons of construction material for housing.84

When housing was finally constructed, the residences were built—without regard to 

actual land ownership claims of the Japanese residents—in a line to make it easier and 

cheaper with electric, water, and sewer lines. This would cause great problems in the future when the Japanese islanders returned or tried to exercise their property rights. When 

a Western islander demurred about choosing a site along that line, he was told by naval 

authorities: “Do what you want. This is your island.”85 The islanders were led to believe the 

islands would never be returned to Japan.
204

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Despite these construction projects and eventual development of Chichi Jima, living 

conditions in the very early years, according to Pesce, “vacillated from better to worse,” 

depending on the ability of the Navy to supply the islands.86 Items that were brought in 

often could not be paid for as the people did not always have means to get their products 

to markets. Fishing, which was the natural occupation of many of the islanders, was not as 

successful as hoped due to the lack of boats and ability to transport the catch to Guam or 

Saipan in a timely manner. School supplies were lacking, as were proper medical care and 

sanitary facilities. Petty crime and pirating by Japanese fishing boats that illegally visited 

the islands caused fear among the defenseless islanders. Self-government was still slow in 

developing. Overall, a “lackadaisical attitude” was found to exist among the islanders.87

In light of the situation, and the fact that the administration for the Trust Territory 

would be shifting to the Department of the Interior, the Chief of Naval Operations in 

August 1950 told CINCPACFLT that a need existed to make “other plans” for the islands, 

“which will continue indefinitely to be an administrative responsibility” of the Navy.88 In 

particular, because the logistical support group of the Trust Territory, Service Division 51, 

would probably be inactivated at the time of the transfer, it was important to develop plans 

for supplying the Bonins after 1 July 1951, the date the Department of the Interior was 

scheduled to take over.89

One month later on 15 September, CINCPACFLT made its recommendations for future policy options in a long memorandum.90 Essentially, it argued that it had been difficult 

for the Navy military government to fulfill its economic mission and recommended that 

responsibility for the administration should be transferred to CINCFE, because “such a 

transfer would stimulate resumption of pre-war trade with Japan and would be culturally 

desirable from the standpoint of the people, who have been virtually isolated from Japan 

since the end of the war.” It added that another reason for transfer of control was because 

the islands were Japanese territory and their final disposition would be taken up at the time 

of an Allied peace treaty with Japan, it would be logical to have the islands under the control of SCAP. The Chief of Naval Operations apparently favored the proposal, but noted 

that any transfer would have to be coordinated with the other commands of the Marianas 

Area, which remained under the operational control of CINCFE, currently facing North 

Korean forces that had overrun South Korea that June.91

According to Pesce, the “course of the Korean War during the winter of 1950–1951,” 

namely the large-scale intervention of Chinese forces, “caused the Navy to change its thinking” on the transfer of responsibility to CINCFE.92 Instead of shifting responsibility west 

to Tokyo (CINCFE), the Chief of Naval Operations, in a 12 February 1951, memorandum 

to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, argued that control be shifted east to Honolulu. “Because of the 

present world situation,” Admiral Forrest P. Sherman wrote, “I consider it imperative that 

responsibility for the security of the Marianas and Bonin-Volcano Islands and operational 

control of the facilities and local forces in these islands now revert to the Pacific Command” 

with CINCPAC “exercis[ing] unified command over all forces allocated to him by the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff or other authority including forces assigned to the Marianas Islands and 

the Bonin-Volcano Islands.”93 When the joint chiefs, then chaired by General of the Army 

Omar N. Bradley, did not act on the recommendation, Sherman brought the matter again 
205

Naval Administration and Chichi Jima Life, 1945–68

to their attention, arguing that the original purpose for which CINCFE had been given 

operational control over the Bonin Islands was to support the occupation of Japan and 

Korea, which had essentially been fulfilled with the draft peace treaty with Japan almost 

complete.94 The following month, on 9 April, the JCS decided to follow Sherman’s recommendation and transfer the responsibility for the security and operational control of the 

facilities on the Marianas and Bonin-Volcano Islands to CINCPAC, with CINCPACFLT 

continuing to be responsible for the military government and civil administration of the 

Bonins.95 The actual transfer of command was decided through conferences between the 

units and commands involved over the following several months.96

As a result of the JCS decision, it became possible for CINCPACFLT to plan more long 

term for the administration of the islands. In April, shortly after the decision, a chief petty 

officer, Frederick A. Pobst, was assigned to Chichi Jima on 23 April as resident Military Government Representative, a position, as seen in the chart below, that would continue until June 

1968.97 The Navy was finally established in the Bonins, in a way more visible than ever.

This fact would be made clearer with the visit of Admiral Arthur W. Radford, Commander in Chief, Pacific Fleet, in May 1951.98 Radford was as impressed as most people 

were with their first visit to Chichi Jima: “I shall never forget the beauty of that two-mile 

ride into the harbor. The shores of the almost landlocked bay rose gradually and gracefully 

to the rather steep mountains that hem the harbor. The splendor of the island was magnified in the early morning sunlight. I could imagine the feelings of early explorers and the 

original Savory group as they entered the bay for the first time.”99 Radford would become 

the strongest advocate of not only preventing the return of the islands to Japan, but in actually promoting U.S. citizenship for the islanders.

Figure 8. Military government representatives/officers in charge, Chichi Jima, 1951–68
206

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Like Pownall, Radford was enthusiastic about assisting the islanders, and would take it 

upon himself to act as their benefactor as CINCPAC/CINCPACFLT and later Chairman 

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (upon replacing Bradley). Although his visit was short, Radford 

“want[ed] to see all I could of the administrative and residential sections of Chichi Jima, 

particularly of Yankeetown. I wanted to meet with the men of the community to talk about 

plans for their future.”100 After an inspection around the island by jeep, Radford spoke with 

community leaders at the schoolhouse. “It was evident that they were descendents,” Radford observed, “of a hardy group and were now living as they wished to live, as free men, for 

the first time in many years.”101 Recalling his trip, Radford continued,

I have never addressed a more attentive group than I did that bright morning on 

Chichi Jima. I told them of my intense interest in their history and well being, of 

my knowledge of their hardships and my desire to help them. I had not visited 

the islands before but had been able to keep in close touch with the Islanders and 

thought I had a pretty good idea of their problems. I would not only be glad to 

receive but would appreciate any suggestions which they cared to make pertaining 

to the administrative, economic, and social matters of their community.102

In addition to announcing that the request of the male islanders to be permitted to 

marry Japanese citizens had been granted, Radford addressed the appeals for U.S. citizenship that the residents had made earlier that year, which had said “we are willing to offer our 

best to America and ask as little as possible in return. Our greatest desire is to become a part 

of the United States of America.”103 He read them a letter he had written on their behalf as 

military governor and to tell them that he had been directed to inform them that their request would receive careful consideration.104 “I was anxious to help them,” Radford recalled 

in his memoirs, “not only because of historical ties but because I felt that there were many 

good reasons for the United States to retain possession of this island group.”105 He went on 

to explain what he thought these political, administrative, and strategic reasons to be:

In the Bonin Islands, there was no local Japanese population to return to Japanese 

sovereignty and there were no natural resources that made the islands particularly 

valuable. There was local fishing, which furnished a good livelihood and which 

would suffice for many years to come. In the fine harbor of Chichi Jima and the 

airfields of Iwo Jima, the United States could have an excellent advanced naval base 

to complement our bases in Guam and the Philippines. There could come a day 

when we might have to project our strength into the western Pacific again, without 

bases in Japan or in the mainland.106

Specifically, Radford believed that the naval facilities at Yokosuka on mainland Japan 

and in Okinawa were vulnerable to an “all-out” attack by the Soviet Union and thus Iwo 

Jima as an air base and Chichi Jima as a submarine base were “vitally necessary as auxiliary 

bases should U.S. forces be driven from” Okinawa and mainland Japan.107 At the minimum, 

Radford sought the status quo maintained with regard to the islands; if possible he wanted 

their permanent separation from Japan (as MacArthur hoped for Okinawa).108 In the end, 

at the time of the September 1951 Treaty of Peace with Japan, the Allies recognized Japan’s 

“residual sovereignty” over the Nansei and Nanpo Islands, frustrating what appeared to be 

Radford’s long-term desires. The United States, however, was granted administrative rights 
207

Naval Administration and Chichi Jima Life, 1945–68

over the islands, as per Article 3 of the treaty. In light of this decision, it became imperative 

to the Navy that it be able to protect the rights it gained, and not see them lost to Japan or 

any other power.

The Post-Peace Treaty Years Naval Administration: 

Protecting National and Local Interests

Following the decision by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to transfer administrative control from 

CINCFE to CINCPAC, a military government representative was assigned to the islands. 

Subsequently, a chief storekeeper and several personnel were sent to maintain what was 

then known as the Military Government Unit.109 The following year, the unit was expanded 

when Radford wrote to the new Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral William M. Fechteler, 

recommending its enlargement to three officers and 11 men.110 As a result, the U.S. Naval 

Facility, Chichi Jima, was established on 8 March 1952, being upgraded from the smaller 

unit status.111

Shortly after that, a bottom drag, followed by a magnetic sweep of Futami Bay, was performed by the minesweeper USS Shoveler (AM 382) to ensure that the approach channel 

and bay were safe for surface navigation and to minimize the danger from mine ordnance 

to ships anchoring in the harbor.112 It was estimated at the time that Futami could accommodate 20 submarines and two ship’s tenders.113

In addition, in early 1953, Susaki airfield, on the other side of Futami Bay across from 

the village of Omura, was rehabilitated as an emergency landing airfield.114 While subject 

to “tricky cross-winds,” the original airfield was developed by the Japanese to a length of 

3,600 feet, but had experienced difficulties with the surf and reduced the runway to 2,400 

feet with arresting gear at both ends for larger bombers.115 The runway had been damaged 

from bombings and hastily repaired by the Japanese Imperial Navy with “any material at 

hand, such as rocks, earth, parts of wrecked planes . . . for fill.”116 On 9 March, the first U.S. 

Navy plane, a Douglas R4D-8, later designated C-117D Super Gooney, tested the airfield 

when it arrived from Guam.117

Moreover, Chichi Jima boasted two seaplane ramps, one an operational civilian ramp 

located east of Omura pier, and the other, nonoperational, at the former Imperial Navy’s 

seaplane base. Furthermore, there were fuel storage tanks, tunnels, and caves and vaults 

developed or left by the Japanese that would be utilized.

Like most Navy posts in the Pacific region, its address was out of San Francisco: “U.S. 

Naval Facility, Navy No. 905, C/O Fleet Post Office, San Francisco, Calif.” Initially, approximately 15 enlisted personnel and two civilians were assigned to the facility, in addition 

to a detachment of Navy Seabees sent to construct housing.118 After the 103d Division of 

the Seabees began full construction in July 1953, the facility eventually grew to a 30-man 

base, not including dependents. A number of new buildings, 13 housing units, and facility 

improvements were undertaken.

The administration was improved by the arrival in July 1953 of the conscientious Lieutenant Commander Clayton E. Frost, a mustang, or someone who rose to officer rank from 
208

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

an enlisted position.119 Respected by his staff and appreciated by the islanders, his was a 

productive three-year assignment.

Shortly after the establishment of the naval facility, Radford visited the islands again 

in October 1952 with Ambassador to Japan Robert D. Murphy and their respective staffs. 

Ambassador Murphy had been receiving numerous requests from the Japanese government 

and private individuals seeking to return to the islands. Murphy was inclined to permit this. 

Radford felt it necessary to convince Murphy and the State Department that for strategic 

reasons this not be permitted.120 “I urged him,” the admiral wrote, “to meet me in Chichi 

Jima so that I could acquaint him personally with the Islanders, their problems, and the reasons I felt we should not give [the islands] up. Bob was convinced that I was right after our 

visit, and he cooperated with me thereafter in my efforts to hold on to [them].”121 Murphy 

had gone there, however, to at least suggest to Radford a compromise proposal—permitting 

Japanese to return to Haha Jima, south of Chichi Jima, where many Japanese from the 

mainland had traditionally lived (with the islanders of Western descent preferring Chichi).122 “Smaller Haha Jima,” the ambassador wrote, “ha[d] little or no naval interest and 

the several tiny islands represent no practical importance.” According to Murphy’s report 

of the trip, Radford was “unwilling to increase responsibilities of security and supply inherent in the presence of a larger foreign civilian population on these islands.”Radford’s opposition, however, would open the United States to charges of discrimination in its policy 

toward the islands, allowing islanders of Western descent but preventing the resettlement 

of ethnic Japanese islanders from the mainland, something that Murphy and Radford faced 

in the meetings with Foreign Minister Okazaki Katsuo upon their return to Tokyo.

Okazaki was particularly upset about this point. Foreign Ministry officials and a representative of the League of Bonin Evacuees for Hastening Repatriation, Yokota Tatsuo, were 

scheduled to go with Murphy and Radford on their visit to the islands but at the last minute 

had been denied passage.123 As one former leader of that organization noted, “in addition to 

the peace treaty, this was the second time we lost the chance [to get the Bonins back].”124 The 

opportunity would not come again for a number of years. Radford, who would not change 

his views on the importance of the islands, was subsequently appointed chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff in June 1953 and in that position continued to reject Japan’s claims. He 

retired from the Navy in August 1957, after being reappointed chairman in August 1955.

Less than one year after that fateful visit, Admiral Felix B. Stump, who had recently 

replaced Radford as Commander in Chief, Pacific, visited Chichi Jima with members of 

his staff in July 1953.125 Stump served as CINCPAC in Hawaii for another four-and-a-half 

years, until January 1958. Unfortunately, having not left a set of memoirs or other personal 

papers, it is hard to know to what extent he shared the views of his predecessor regarding 

the Bonin Islands. In any case, with Radford as chairman of the JCS, it was he who in the 

end had, for all practical purposes, the final say on this matter. The fact that the status of the 

Bonin Islands did not change at all during Stump’s tenure suggests that he was not willing 

to push the issue, particularly in light of the development of the islands as an important 

submarine base during this time.

At the same time, Radford and the Navy saw as its role in Chichi Jima both the protection of U.S. national security interests and local interests, and as a result, strongly resisted 
209

Naval Administration and Chichi Jima Life, 1945–68

official and unofficial requests for the former Japanese residents of the islands to be allowed 

to return. These concerns were made clear in a letter by Chairman Radford to Secretary of 

State John Foster Dulles in the mid-1950s. Radford argued that

the day we permit any group of Japanese to enter [the] Bonins to colonize [the] 

area is the day [the] U.S. will lose administrative and security control of these 

islands and ex-mandates. Japs will not stop in their efforts until [that] ultimate 

goal is accomplished. Future in the Pacific for the long term indicates we should 

strengthen our position—not weaken it. Problems of Japan are not going to be alleviated in any noticeable extent by a concession in the Bonins.126

In the discussions between the State Department and the military, the Okinawa analogy (that the administration of the islands was becoming increasingly difficult and that a 

backup base area was necessary) was often applied by the services: “On Okinawa, where we 

enjoy administrative authority, we are bound to run into difficulty as the population pressures increase and new weapons come into use. As a backup proposition, the Bonin-Volcano 

Islands are becoming more and more important.”127 As discussed earlier, the Bonins would 

be strategically important if the Soviets knocked out Okinawa and Yokosuka. Politically, 

as well, with the growing instability of the local situation in Okinawa, the Bonins were 

important if the U.S. position in Okinawa eroded further. It was primarily because of these 

fears that Radford strongly opposed attempts by U.S. officials to give the Bonins back and 

by Japanese officials and former residents to reacquire the islands, although he and others 

in the Navy were also paternally motivated by sympathy for the descendants of the original 

American settlers.

In what appears to have been an attempt to prevent efforts by Japan to have the islands returned, the Navy facilitated a trip to Hawaii and Washington, DC, in November 

for members of the Bonin Island Council. Wilson, Jerry, Nathaniel Savory and Richard 

Washington could explain their desire not to see the Japanese return. This followed a visit 

to the United States by representatives of the former residents association in October 1955, 

in which they appealed to Navy and governmental authorities to have the islands returned 

or at least be allowed to return to the islands. The Bonin Island Council also made its own 

appeal to the State Department in an effort to “point out the following true facts and to beseech” the U.S. government to deny the petition of the Japanese, with what can be assumed 

to have been the full blessing of the U.S. Navy.128

According to the official story, the Bonin islanders first read of the petition made by 

the League of Bonin Evacuees in the Guam News, and, in order to contest the league’s 

statements, appealed to Navy authorities to let four of the councilmen go to Washington 

to plead their case.129 Richard Washington, who was then president of the Bonin Island 

Council, remembers that it was the Navy that initiated the proposal. The Navy representative on the island encouraged the representatives of the islanders to go. “Commander [Earl 

D.] Bronson sent me a message to see him at once. ‘If you want this island you should 

request the right to hold it. The Japanese want it back. You must get ready to go to Washington right way.’ ”130 Richard Washington’s version of events is essentially confirmed in a 

letter by Jeff Graham Parsons, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo, 

who was forwarding a report by a member of the embassy staff, Richard M. Lamb, who 
210

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

had visited Chichi Jima as a guest of Admiral Fitzhugh Lee III a few months after the 

conversation. Noting that it was probably good to “keep in the [State Department] family” 

and not include it in the report itself, Parsons stated,

There is reason to believe that the petition of November 2, 1955, signed by all adult 

residents of the islands, was drafted by Cdr Bronson himself on the Navy’s instructions, and was not in any sense a “spontaneous” expression of the islanders’ view. 

Bronson announced with considerable pride that the petition had been drafted 

immediately upon receipt of “referenced message,” and that signatures of all the 

islanders had been obtained in the course of a single afternoon. Cdr Bronson added 

that he had kept the petition short and to the point since long petitions usually go 

unread.131

Parsons went on to mention that Lamb “observed no particular hostility toward the 

former Japanese residents on the part of the natives nor fear of possible ‘reprisals.’ ” The fact 

that the petition was written on what appears to be government letterhead (bonded paper 

with an American government symbol) and in perfect English further adds credence to the 

theory of Lamb and Parsons that Bronson had written it.

In either case, the group departed in early November arriving in Washington on the 

17th before proceeding to New Bedford, Massachusetts, the home of Nathaniel Savory, 

three of whose descendents made up the delegation.132 They were joined by Commander 

Julius W. Jockusch, the island government officer from CINCPACFLT.

Beginning on the 18th, the group first met with Admiral Arleigh A. Burke, who had 

become Chief of Naval Operations in August, followed by calls on Admiral Radford, Vice 

Admiral Robert P. Briscoe (Deputy CNO), and Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

International Security Affairs, Brigadier General J. K. Wilson Jr., who was serving in place 

of Gordon Gray due to the latter’s absence on a trip. In their meeting with Radford, they 

told him that compared to when they lived under the Japanese, they were “happier than 

they had ever been in their lives” and in light of the restoration of fishing industry and 

farming, “we now have an island paradise and we hope it remains so.”133 They expressed 

their concern about the return of the Japanese, “fear[ing] the Japanese will not forget the 

position they took and the facts they gave during [the war crimes trials].”134 Wilson Savory, 

who was the oldest of the group, added how the “speaking of English was forbidden during the war years and a penalty was imposed upon those who spoke English, even in their 

homes. During these years, they (the real Bonin islanders) were closely watched by the 

Japanese and their movements on the islands were restricted.”135

After touring Washington and Virginia over the weekend and meeting with the press, 

the group next met with State Department representatives on 22 and 23 November. Wilson Savory explained to Robert J. G. McClurkin, Richard B. Finn, and Richard M. Herndon, all of the Office for Northeast Asian Affairs, that over the past decade, “life on Chichi 

Jima is now improving, but an influx of Japanese would result in a return to the unfortunate 

prewar status” for the islanders, repeating a concern he had expressed to Radford.136 This 

was a reference to the treatment by the Japanese military on the islands in the late 1930s. 

Jerry Savory, who with his brother Fred had returned to Chichi Jima in late 1945 to survey 
211

Naval Administration and Chichi Jima Life, 1945–68

the island in the hope to repatriate some of the islanders and ended up providing testimony 

while there, stated he favored “continued U.S. protection and control” and would like to be 

American citizens. He mentioned the islanders had already applied for citizenship in 1951 

and had “expected some decision on their request at the time of the treaty effectuation and 

are still waiting.”137

In response to these comments, McClurkin reviewed the international status of the islands, explaining the concept of “residual sovereignty” and Article 3 of the Peace Treaty:

Official statements made since the effectuation of the Japanese peace treaty have 

emphasized that the United States would continue to exercise its present degree of 

control of these islands while threat and tension in the Far East remained . . . The 

concept of bringing the Article III islands under a United Nations trusteeship administered by the United States has not been followed, although no official statement denying such an intention has ever been made. It seems logical to assume, 

therefore, that eventually the islands will go back to Japanese control, although 

this has never been officially stated either. Along with the concept of residual sovereignty, there would appear to follow the concept of residual nationality which 

would apply to the residents of the Bonin Islands today . . . This was roughly the 

same explanation given the Japanese Bonin Islander delegation last month.138

In other words, the islanders were Japanese citizens in the eyes of the U.S. government. 

This was probably not what they wanted to hear, but the delegation did not seem to challenge McClurkin who suggested that the delegation present their new petition directly to 

Assistant Secretary Walter S. Robertson the next day.

The group met with Robertson at 1630 on 23 November and submitted their petition.139

While it did not specifically request citizenship, it did call on the government of the United 

States to “establish the Bonin Islands as a United States affiliate in any capacity which may 

be considered suitable for the protection of these islands, and in consideration of the true 

American principles of self government, free enterprise, and the rights of the individual.”140

It also called on the U.S. government “to deny the petition” of the Japanese islanders, and 

cited a number of contentions both to support their case and discredit that of the Japanese 

islanders. The relevant part of the petition read,

It is the contention of this Council for the people that:

1. These islands are incapable of supporting a population of the proposed 

magnitude. (7,700 as reported by the Guam newspapers.)

2. The Japanese petitioners are not true Bonin Islanders but were mostly 

immigrants of the early 1930s and that only a nominal percentage of that 

population were able to subsist off the natural resources of the islands 

and the surrounding waters. And, that the remainder of this population 

were in fact employed by the military in constructing fortification[s] on 

the Bonin Islands in preparation for an attack on the United States and 

the possibility of ultimate defense of the Japanese Home Islands.
212

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

3. The present residents of these Islands are the true Bonin Islanders. The 

majority having descended from the original settlers who were of American descent and displaced no previous inhabitants.

4. The standard of living under the previous Japanese occupation was far 

below that presently enjoyed by the people.

5. Various members of the Council and of the present population were 

instrumental in bringing Japanese War Criminals to trial and ultimate 

conviction, thereby demonstrating preference for the democratic way of 

life and loyalty to the principles of the United States.

6. The people are grateful for the opportunity to gradually progress into 

self-government and for the assistance in this direction by the Naval 

Administration.

7. The Council and the entire population pledge themselves to continue 

along the lines of progress established and to cooperate with the United 

States in any affiliated capacity granted.

It is further contended that the Japanese delegation has erred in their statements 

to the press in regards to natural resources and the industrial potential of these 

islands. In this regard, the following are the true facts:

1. Mineral resources are limited to small sulphur deposits on Iwo Jima. No 

deposits of any value are known to exist on the islands under consideration.

2. Timber stands of commercial magnitude is nonexistent. Cutting the few 

trees of logging size that do remain would without doubt, cause unacceptable erosion and destruction of the water sheds.

3. Agriculture on a commercial scale of any magnitude is prohibited by the 

extremely mountainous terrain. The present population will, by normal 

increase, require all suitable land that is available in a few years.

4. The above indicates that the majority of any large migrating groups 

would have to exist by fishing, the only truly commercial potential. The 

expert fishermen of the indigenous population estimate that the establishment of a fishing fleet of the size necessary to support the proposed 

population would deplete the fishing in a few years so that even this 

method of support would be destroyed.141

The petition was signed first by Richard Washington, president of the Bonin Island 

Council; Roderick Webb, secretary-treasurer; and members Jerry Savory, Minoru Ikeda, 

and Jesse Webb. It included the signatures of all 82 residents over the age of 18, and was 

certified by Commander Bronson, who had the authority to administer oaths as per Article 

0117, Naval Supplement to Manual for Courts-Martial, 1951.
213

Naval Administration and Chichi Jima Life, 1945–68

A copy of this petition was also given to Murphy—who had become deputy under secretary of state for political affairs in 1955, the highest position to which a career diplomat 

could usually aspire at the time—when the group called on him after their meeting with 

Robertson. After discussing the state of the fishing industry in response to a question by 

Murphy, Jerry Savory asked that the United States keep the islands under their present 

status and prevent the influx of large numbers of Japanese “which would ruin the fishing industry for those now engaged in it . . . [In fishing and housing matters, t]hings were getting 

better after the difficult war-time and post-war years, and naturally enough the islanders 

do not wish to go through such difficulties again.”142 After noting that the league members, 

during their trip to Washington, had made claims that were different from what he was 

hearing, Murphy explained “there was nothing new on the subject of repatriation of Japanese Bonin Islanders . . . [and] that there appeared to be no immediate prospect of a change 

in United States policy in regard to the Bonin Islands.”143 In other words, the Japanese were 

not going to be permitted for the time being to be repatriated.

When the league heard about the trip, they were extremely shocked and disappointed 

and felt betrayed, which further helps support the argument that it was in fact the Navy 

that promoted the petition and trip from the beginning. Writing to Roderick Webb “and 

other fellow islanders,” league president Yokota stated that they placed the Japanese islanders “in a tight corner” if they opposed the return.144 He noted that if the islanders of Western descent feared their return for the effect it would have on their living, it was based on a 

“gross misunderstanding,” and explained the reasons why their return would not negatively 

impact the islanders already there. He ended with a plea:

Believe us that your fears about our pressure upon you and discrimination against 

you are utterly groundless. What we worry about as a matter of feeling between 

you and ourselves in the future is simply your attitude towards us, that is, whether 

or not you will receive us with warm hands. Pray receive us with a smile. And let us 

strive hand-in-hand for the rehabilitation of our war-devastated native islands. You 

and ourselves are fellow countrymen, and there is absolutely nothing which would 

drive both of us into antagonism with each other.

Yokota asked for a reply to clear up the possible misunderstanding, and also sent a copy 

of the letter to Vice Admiral Briscoe as well, but it does not appear that he received a reply 

from either man.

After concluding their work in Washington, the delegation traveled to New Bedford 

to visit the hometown of their ancestor. The group then visited New York City, where they 

spent one week. “We flew on Admiral Radford’s plane just for pleasure,” Washington said 

in an interview, and dined with a sister of Miriam Savory who was living in the United 

States.145 On their return trip, the group stopped in San Francisco to meet with Fleet Admiral Nimitz “and his old lady who served us homemade cookies” for a couple of hours.146

Subsequently, the delegation arrived in Hawaii in early December and met with Admiral 

Stump and Lieutenant General William O. Brice, Commanding General, Fleet Marine 

Force, Pacific, and others on the staff.147 Few of these men needed convincing, however, of 

the importance of the Bonins to U.S. strategy in the area.
214

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

The Islands in the Cold War

The introduction in February 1956, shortly after the delegation’s visit, of nuclear warheads 

for storage in Chichi Jima in the caves of Kiyose hamlet and on Iwo Jima made the U.S. 

position even more difficult to retract. It would not be for another 10 years, after the weapons were removed, before the Pentagon could or would seriously consider returning the 

islands.

One writer speculates that the real reason for Admiral Radford’s October 1952 trip 

to the islands was to examine their utility for storing nuclear weapons.148 Photos of his 

group in a report from the trip include retired Vice Admiral H. E. Overich of the Central 

Intelligence Agency in the copper-lined Kiyose vaults.149 With the status quo officially 

maintained for the Bonin Islands at the May 1953 Hawaii conference and affirmed in National Security Council meetings and by Secretary of State Dulles and President Dwight 

D. Eisenhower in late 1953 and early 1954, it became easier to plan for the deployment of 

those weapons to Chichi and Iwo. The near isolation of the islands and lack of “Japanese” 

residents as potential agitators or spies made them all the more attractive. Marines were 

brought to the islands to guard the entrance of the Kiyose vaults and “Mary’s Little Lamb,” 

which islanders used to describe the mystery contents inside. The islanders, however, knew 

something was up, but they also knew not to ask questions or approach the entrances.150

In light of this, it is not surprising, therefore, that several of the officers in charge of the 

islands during these years were submarine specialists, such as Lieutenant Commanders 

Frost and Bronson. Indeed, when recommending the establishment of a naval facility, Radford had specifically suggested “a submariner as commanding officer.”151 The role of Chichi 

Jima in supporting naval submarine strategy for the region therefore was significant, and 

the need for men who understood the role of submarines in America’s postwar strategy to 

be assigned to the islands as the officer in charge, high.152

Bronson, in an in-depth report on the islands that he wrote upon the end of his command, described his time as military government representative as “by far the most demanding of my naval career . . . The administration of this remote naval facility may well 

be compared to operating a ship continually at sea. That is, the length of supply lines never 

lessen, the necessity to think ahead at least two months is always present. Every job or 

project is bound to contain an element of ‘Make Do.’ ”153 Writing a decade later, the last 

military government representative, Lieutenant Commander Dale W. Johnson, stated almost the same thing—he had to do a little bit of everything and perform a lot of roles in a 

lot of settings: “I have been a civil engineer, cashier, accountant, foreman, and government 

adviser.”154

Symbolic of their importance during the subsequent decade and a half following Radford’s and Murphy’s visits, numerous officials from Hawaii and stateside would continue to 

travel to the islands. State Department officer Lamb arrived in early 1956, later followed 

by Admiral Herbert G. Hopwood, who had just become CINCPAC and, thus, officially 

Military Governor of the Bonin Islands and would continue until relieved in August 1960. 

In March 1958, Daniel K. Inouye, then a young representative from Hawaii, which recently 

had been admitted to the United States as the 50th state in the union, visited followed by 
215

Naval Administration and Chichi Jima Life, 1945–68

others in November 1959, and in the summer of 1966 by Admiral Roy L. Johnson, CINCPAC, and Deputy Governor Rear Admiral C. B. Jones.155

By the time of the visit by Johnson and Jones, the last of the nuclear weapons deployed 

to Chichi Jima had been removed. These were warheads for the Bendix RIM-8 Talos surface-to-air missiles initially brought there in the fall of 1964. In December 1965, they 

were removed.156 The Talos deployments were preceded by the Chance Vought SSM-N-8 

Regulus, which had arrived between March and May 1956 and were deployed there until 

October–December 1964. The Regulus cruise missile provided the first nuclear strategic 

deterrence force for the U.S. Navy. Prior to the Regulus warhead’s deployment to Chichi 

Jima, at least one nuclear bomb was positioned there beginning in February 1956.157

Chichi Jima was not the only island in the Bonins group to which nuclear weapons were 

deployed; Iwo Jima hosted at least one weapon between September 1956 and September–

December 1959, and related components from February 1956 to June 1966.158 According 

to notes of a Stars and Stripes reporter who visited the island, it appears the nuclear weapons 

were stored near the foot of Mt. Suribachi in the ammunition bunker area, just below the 

9,800-foot runway.

After the Battle of Iwo Jima, the island was the site of an Army Air Forces base for the 

20th Air Force and part of the Far East Air Logistics Force. Eventually the base came to 

be called the Central Air Base, and the Far East Air Materiel Command set up shop there. 

The Coast Guard also operated a Loran (LOng-RAnge Navigation) station at the northern 

end of the island with a 1,350-foot tower.159

In the early 1950s, when the Korean War was in full force, Iwo played an important role 

in the Far East Air Logistics Force’s “10,000 mile lifeline . . . 24 hours a day, seven days a 

week” for scheduled and transient aircraft flying the north-south routes between Japan and 

the islands to the south, east-west routes between Wake and Okinawa, and to and from the 

United States.160 The island’s role was “like that of a blood bank, but instead of dispensing 

blood, Iwo dispenses fuel and oil, and instead of injecting it into a human artery, it is injected 

into a giant lifeline of supply, which stretches from the United States to the Korean battlefield.”161 As a “welcome haven” in the middle of the Pacific for the aircraft and crews in this 

lifeline, Iwo in the 1950s played a role similar to that after the island was seized in 1945.162

The lifeline was sometimes interrupted by the strong typhoons that sweep through the 

Bonin Islands, one of which, Rosalind, on 9 October 1947, was particularly destructive, as 

was Louise on 25 September 1955.163 A volcanic eruption in March 1957 also caused concern. When there were some deaths after a particularly bad storm that caused the LORAN 

tower to collapse in early 1964, one Japanese Buddhist priest, Wachi Tsunezo, implied to 

U.S. authorities that it was due to the fact that the souls of fallen Japanese soldiers and sailors on the island had not been laid to rest nor their remains collected, and warned “if the 

present deplorable conditions are left as they are, second and third such disasters will occur 

successfully, I am sure.”164

Beginning in 1954, Iwo Jima was used for large amphibious exercises by the U.S. Navy 

and Marines, and even the Royal Navy.165 The first such event, Operation Flag Hoist, conducted by the 3d Marines in March 1954, was the largest amphibious training exercise 
216

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

since the end of the Korean War.166 The task force feinted at Haha Jima, and then staged an 

invasion rehearsal there prior to landing at Iwo.

At least one exercise—in mid-February 1956—considered the use of tactical nuclear 

weapons by both sides in the scenario. An aggressor force would attempt to take the island 

using the weapons while being repulsed by defenders using similar weapons.167 This was the 

same time that a real nuclear warhead was placed at Chichi Jima. As part of this exercise, 

U.S. Navy jets also “atom-bombed” Muko Jima to the north of Chichi as a prelude.168 The 

bombs included dummies similar in size, shape, and weight to some of the weapons then in 

American stockpiles and included devices to detonate at up to 1,000 feet high. The bombing session was designed to provide training for carrier-based pilots in the fast breakaways 

necessary to get both the plane and pilot out of danger of the blast after dropping the 

bomb. The exercise, dubbed Operation NAVMARLEX I-56, was described as a “massive 

atomic age amphibious maneuver,” and saw the participation of some 40,000 personnel, 

including 11,000 Marines from Okinawa and mainland Japan.169 One of the purposes was 

to help the Navy develop a new method of deploying and positioning ships during a landing to avoid assembling them in so small an area that one atomic bomb could destroy the 

entire force. Nevertheless, a simulated atomic bomb ended up exploding over the task force 

early in the exercise and “sunk” four transports carrying 2,000 men.170 The main purpose, 

however, seems to have been to accustom America’s military to the nuclear age. Said Rear 

Admiral Irving T. Duke, who led the 72-ship task force, “(it is necessary) to penetrate the 

psychological barrier which confronts all of us when we think of what we would do in an 

atomic war.”171

The Air Force had been considering that question as well. The year before, in May 1955, 

it conducted an atomic defense exercise with 300 men stationed on Iwo scrambling to caves 

and huddling there until the danger from an imaginary nuclear air attack passed. “The test 

was considered successful,” a newspaper report stated, “and the ready-built shelters may 

well increase the strategic importance of Iwo Jima.”172 The article added that 5,000 Marines, “were killed digging stubborn Japanese defenders from an underground city carved 

out of the sulphur-ridden innards of the islands. Now the Air Force has begun a program 

to turn the caves into life-saving shelters, and form what will perhaps be the most perfect 

network of any atomic protection found anywhere.”173

Much of this work and planning was made all the easier because of the lack of a civilian community on Iwo Jima. Although in the late 1940s, a mere two years after the battle, 

families of the personnel assigned to the island were initially able to live with them,174

the Japanese islanders were unable to return. As a result, the Air Force command had no 

responsibility for civil affairs, although the base there did assist in transport of people and 

goods to and from Chichi Jima when necessary by ship and seaplane.

Local Government and Life on Chichi

The Bonin Island Council was originally established as the Island Governing Council on 

19 October 1946. In the interim, it continued to function despite the increased presence of 

the Navy administration. Reduced from six to five members (due to the passing of one of 
217

Naval Administration and Chichi Jima Life, 1945–68

the male members of the families represented who had no male offspring to succeed him), 

the council was elected every June by those residents over the age of 18.175 The person receiving the most votes became the president, with the second highest vote count becoming 

the treasurer. The next three highest vote-getters became council members. Moreover, at 

the New England–style open general meetings, all the islanders could express their opinions about issues and participate in government affairs.176 The military government representative served as council advisor.

The council, specifically the president, acted as the islanders’ representative not only in 

local government affairs, but also when meeting visitors to the islands as well as officials 

when on trips off the island. For example, council members represented the islanders’ interests in the United States in November 1955 during discussions of the return of the former 

islanders and in Tokyo in February 1968 while meeting with national and metropolitan 

officials involved in the reversion arrangements.

A Bonin Islands Court was established after the arrival of the military government representative in 1951. The council selected a judge, who would serve for one year, and council 

members served as additional members of the court. The military government representative served as advisor.177

In practice, military government representatives appeared to have grown disheartened 

by the lack of leadership and character among the islanders, which one officer in charge 

described as “their biggest fault.”178 “There is no man amongst them,” a report observes, 

“willing to lead. Any group effort is extremely hard to organize. No one wants to take the 

job of leader because it entails the possibility of making him disliked. If only one strong 

character were available, it would solve many problems in Island leadership.”179 The report 

goes on to complain that

so far it has been impossible to turn any project over to the Council without the 

necessity of frequent check-ups and nagging to gain completion. This attitude is 

without doubt due to generations of Japanese influence. During these times, the 

Japanese made all of the decisions and it was much simpler just to do as ordered. 

The Bonin Islander will carry out specific instructions on an individual basis. He 

will not organize or follow through without assistance.180

Nevertheless, during this time, the situation continued to improve locally. In March 

1952, the military governor set up the Bonin-Volcano Trust Fund for the islanders’ benefit.181 Its main source—$100,000—came from the salvage of scrap metal on the islands, 

discussed during Admiral Radford’s visit in mid-1951.182 The economy, completely dependent on the ever-growing naval presence, was improving; there was no unemployment.

The Navy, meanwhile, had permitted in 1952 the local school to relocate to the former 

administration building. With the impending retirement of 70-year-old Frank Gonzales 

as teacher and the departure of the son of the military government representative, who was 

teaching the upper grades, military government representative C. E. Frost pleaded to the 

deputy governor to hire two Japanese-English speaking teachers for the school staff by 

September 1955. “Replacement for either of these teachers is not available locally under 
218

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

existing conditions,” Frost explained, as “a survey of local talent has revealed a definite lack 

of potential school teachers. . . . Those few who have some potential qualifications have repeatedly refused to accept a teaching position because of personal disinclination or because 

of more attractive positions elsewhere on the island.”183 On another note, Frost explained 

that the addition of two unmarried male teachers to the islands would also “improve existing social conditions for the indigenous women who are of marriageable age.”184 The hiring 

of two new teachers was eventually done by the next year, and, in March 1956, two graduates of the University of Hawaii, George Yokota, who later became principal, and Robert 

Hashimoto, arrived. Later there were a total of four teachers, including Dave Wolcotts and 

Jack Stetenbenz.185 During this time in 1958, the Navy built a five-room school named the 

Admiral Radford Elementary School. Education in English and following an American 

curriculum was compulsory until the end of seventh—and later ninth—grade.186 In 1968, 

enrollment was 69 students—60 islanders and 9 Navy dependents.187 Students had to move 

to Guam or mainland Japan for high school. All but three, Principal Yokota acknowledged 

in an interview later, chose to go to Guam.188

Missionary work, likewise, got an early, albeit modest, start after the return of the islanders. In September 1948, the first missionaries—the Reverend and Mrs. Edward Stevens—traveling on Admiral Pownall’s ship, arrived in Chichi Jima staying for a few days.189

Subsequently that October, the General Association of General Baptists met in Owensville, Indiana, and decided to expand its operations beyond Guam and Saipan and open a 

mission in Chichi Jima by sending Reverend J. W. Greenway and his wife and daughter. 

They arrived in mid-July 1949. When the Greenways went to Saipan the following spring 

for the minister to train in a hospital, Reverend Edward Couch and his family arrived in 

their place. The Greenways returned to Chichi Jima in the fall of 1950. However in the fall 

of 1951, Mrs. Greenway became ill and had to return to the United States. They, in turn, 

were replaced by Stevens, who arrived in January 1952. In the summer of that year, however, 

a pneumonia epidemic hit the island, and Stevens became ill. He was taken to Guam for 

a physical in mid-September but died on board ship. His family was flown to Guam by 

seaplane and later on to the United States. After hearing the news, the Couch family volunteered their services and arrived in Chichi Jima on 31 March.190 Couch was succeeded by 

Reverend Cecil Green in 1955, who, in turn, was replaced by Reverend John E. Kell. He apparently attempted to prohibit alcohol and left—or was asked to leave—in 1959. Following 

his departure, the islanders requested a return to the Anglican church and suggested to the 

Navy that the grandson of a popular pre-war minister take over the duties. As a result, in 

1962, a young minister and graduate of Rikkyo University in Tokyo, Isaac Gonzales, arrived 

on the island to assume responsibilities as minister at St. George’s Church.191 Realizing the 

need for the children of the island to be taught Japanese, the minister began to offer afterschool classes for eighth and ninth graders in 1966, but even that was seen as too little, too 

late, when it became clear in 1967 that the islands would soon revert to Japan.192

A dispensary to provide medical care for the islanders was established early on in a concrete building adjacent to that occupied by the military government representative. On 13 

December 1952, a Navy medical officer arrived on Chichi Jima, having been assigned late 

the previous month. He also became responsible for housing inspections, as well as observing 

livestock slaughtering, and the cleaning of fish to ensure proper hygiene and sanitation.193
219

Naval Administration and Chichi Jima Life, 1945–68

The Bonin Island Trading Company’s Superette, a community-owned store importing 

clothing and food from Guam and Japan, was incorporated on 1 October 1955, with an 

initial capital of $4,500.194 To assist in the establishment of the store, the military governor 

advanced two-thirds of the funds from the Bonin-Volcano Trust Fund to supplement the 

$1,500 provided by the islanders. Most of the items were procured in Japan, using the facilities of the Naval Supply Depot at Yokosuka, and naval vessels for transportation. Guam 

and Saipan also provided supplies.

At the social level, relations with the naval personnel—through fishing, singing, parties, 

movies, marriage, etc.—seem to have been excellent. “These people are good, real good. 

The natives and the Navy here are just like a big family.”195 Nightlife, particularly for single 

men, was quite limited, however. “Most single men who have been stationed here,” advises 

the General Information Brochure (circa 1963), “have found their tour of duty on Chichi 

Jima most interesting and rewarding, plus presenting an outstanding opportunity to save 

money.”196 A song that the 17 single sailors on Chichi were said to have sung captured the 

dilemma in a different way: “We get news from FEN/and some diving in the skin/there’s 

softball, bikes, and tennis/and beer and bingo at the club/with lots of sunshine and good 

fishing/we really shouldn’t yell/but what ain’t we got—you know darn well.”197

A general information brochure for those arriving on the island gave this description of 

the local people:

It is easy to imagine the Bonin Islanders as an isolated, forgotten bit of the human 

race. It is the opinion of those of us who have had the good fortune to live with 

them that they are neither. They are a people who have known oppression, but have 

retained the love for their native island and confidence in the future. Their ways 

often seem strange to us who have become accustomed to a softer way of life, but 

their ways have enabled them to survive for more than a hundred years. The worries 

of the atomic age are lost on these people. Their only apparent concern at times is 

whether or not the fish are biting, and whether or not there will be a ready market 

for their fish when they are caught. But this is a false impression. They hope for a 

better way of life for their children, just as we do for our own. They live not only 

for today, but also for the future. They want their children to have better education 

and better opportunities than they have enjoyed, just as we have the same hopes 

for our own children.198

At the administrative level, as discussed earlier, there was at least one military government 

representative who had less than high praise for the islanders, at least when communicating 

with superiors. Bronson questioned just how “pro-U.S.” in fact the local community was. In 

the report cited above about the lack of leadership, the officer in charge wrote—admittedly 

in a not entirely flattering manner—of the islanders:

Politically, all people profess to be strong pro-American. Considering the influence 

of the American dollar, the logistic situation (entirely dependent on naval vessel), 

the standard of living (far better now than most of them ever dreamed of enjoying), and the fact that we are in the administrative driver’s seat at present, it would 

seem that they would be foolish indeed to profess anything else. My personal feel-
220

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

ing, based on the tendency of the people to hang onto the Japanese language and 

customs, the eagerness with which they visit friends and relatives in Japan, and a 

notable preference for Japanese goods, is that the majority of the Bonin Islanders 

are “fence straddlers.” I believe that they would much prefer to have the advantages 

of both ways of life and the responsibilities of neither.199

Still, Bronson urged Admiral Hopwood that much more needed to be done for the 

islands. He included the following six recommendations, mostly for the military, but with 

the last one for the direct benefit of the residents:

1. That every effort be continued to provide resident administration with high caliber 

military officers and personnel. Any apparent weakness in this area will be reflected in 

immediate activity by the so-called displaced Bonin Islanders and probably in communist propaganda.

2. That present policies be actively maintained until final disposition of the area is attained. Then introduce a system of rigidly controlled homesteading in order to improve the community and above all to strengthen the political position of the Islands. 

I am virtually certain that they will sometime be needed for military purposes and 

just as certain that a strong position from a humanitarian standpoint is the best defense against political aggression and community stagnation. American pioneering is 

needed here.

3. That some occupation, either military or indigenous, be established on Haha Jima as 

soon as practicable. This island is now a major target for the repatriation group and 

our defense is weak, i.e., you have nothing there, why can’t we have it?

4. That the military establishment on Chichi Jima be strengthened and expanded on a 

continuing basis. Every chore finished now is one less that will have to be done on an 

emergency basis in case of mobilization.

5. That military security be maintained at its present level, with as little fanfare as possible. I believe that the lax attitude here toward Japanese vessel entry during 1954–55 

was at least partially responsible for the pressure imposed at the end of that period by 

the Japanese repatriation group.

6. That an agriculturalist, possibly a Japanese-American, be made available for a period 

of at least one year to actively supervise and educate the indigenous people of these 

islands in methods of animal husbandry and farming suitable to this climate and 

terrain. This recommendation is I believe the most important single item that can be 

undertaken now to improve community conditions here. The community could afford 

to pay a small salary and I’m sure that this would ensure full utilization of such an 

employee. A [U.S.] government subsidized man would only serve to strengthen the 

“something for nothing” philosophy that I have tried so hard to subjugate.

In his concluding remarks, Bronson argued that the “small price paid and being paid to 

keep the Bonin Islands and their inhabitants in the American fold is a bargain. Here is one 

of the few places that has not been subjected to foreign policy to the extent of ‘go home 
221

Naval Administration and Chichi Jima Life, 1945–68

American.’ It could still go that way if communism or improper local administration or 

policies are allowed to encroach. Let’s continue to be careful here.”

Bronson’s warnings came in light of the movements during most of the 1950s seeking a 

return to the islands, or their actual reversion, as well as the problems being faced in Okinawa. The U.S. government was basically able to hold the line over the next decade by not 

permitting repatriation and instead agreeing to compensate the former Japanese islanders. 

But it was only buying time. The Western islanders may or may have not known that was 

the case, but it was only a matter of time before the islands would revert to Japanese control.

The Islander’s Anxieties about Reversion

After another 10 years of attempts by the Navy to preserve its special rights on the islands 

and counter tries by the former islanders and Japanese government officials to see them 

returned, the U.S. and Japanese governments agreed in November 1967 at the summit between President Lyndon B. Johnson and Prime Minister Sato Eisaku to return the islands 

to Japan. Eventually, after approximately four months of negotiations, the reversion agreement for the Bonin Islands was signed in April 1968, with the islands finally reverting on 

26 June.

The decision to return the islands was, in the words of the wife of the final military 

government representative, Lieutenant Commander Dale W. Johnson, “a rude awakening both for the U.S. Navy and the Bonin Islanders.”200 “It never occurred to anyone,” one 

woman said, “that the islands would be given to Japan. We thought they would always 

be American.”201 Indeed, as one postmortem report notes, “Little did the inhabitants of 

the island realize how the pressure for reversion was increasing, especially since they were 

repeatedly assured that the U.S. Navy had no intentions of relinquishing the islands. They 

too, thought that 1970 might be a year of reckoning, but none anticipated this accelerated 

schedule. Therefore, they were stunned by the reversion announcement.”202 Obviously, it 

was not the Navy’s fault. The decision to return territory historically Japanese was made at 

the highest level for the sake of U.S.-Japan bilateral relations and U.S. prestige in the world. 

At the same time, however, the Navy was clearly at fault in its administration of the islands 

for pursuing an agenda that suggested to the islanders that they would become a part of 

the United States, or at the minimum, seeking to limit the influence of Japan on their daily 

lives, despite the strong possibility that the islands might in fact one day be returned to 

Japan. The Navy maintained its stance, in part, because it strongly desired to hold on to 

the islands for security reasons; it was deeply distrustful of Japanese attempts to return to 

the islands (not to mention attempts to see the administration of the islands reverted); and 

it was paternalistic in nature, intentionally or inadvertently, creating a local environment 

dependent upon the Navy and desirous of U.S. citizenship. At the least, the Navy did not 

discourage this.

Having been under the administration of the Navy for more than 20 years, the islanders now had to completely change their lifestyles once again, a fact that understandably left 

them quite anxious.203 The first challenge was the administration of the islands and related 

laws, which would shift from the U.S. to the Japanese system. Second, education was a 
222

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

concern. Younger people were for the most part illiterate in Japanese, having been educated 

in English. Third, medical and dental needs had been provided for free by the Navy, as was 

transportation and other logistics support to and from the island. The sudden rise in prices 

for goods and services was of great concern. Fourth, was the question of land ownership. 

No private ownership existed under U.S. administration and land that originally was Japanese-owned had been put to specific uses. Clarifying land ownership would be a problem, 

especially with the influx of the former Japanese residents who had owned the land. Fifth, 

economic and employment opportunities would be lost, as most people had been dependent 

on the Navy for jobs. The economy, therefore, was based on either those working for the 

Navy or fishing, which was also dependent on the use of Navy ships to move their products 

to markets in Guam. With the Navy leaving, those working for the service would lose their 

livelihoods. Fishermen also feared the arrival of large Japanese cooperatives that would fish 

them out of business, as noted earlier in the delegation’s meetings in Washington.

“To tell you the truth,” one of the older residents told an interviewer, “I wish they never 

would come back. We’re content. The Navy has always treated us good. What more could 

we want?”204 Another islander echoed his appreciation for the Navy: “I’ll tell you one thing. 

We’re thankful for what the United States has done. I can’t express it—the way they treated 

us, the kindness. They gave everybody a show to earn a livin’.”205

In light of the islanders’ concerns about reversion, both the Japanese and U.S. governments sought, in some cases haphazardly, to develop immediate and more long-term policies to ease the anxieties. They sent numerous study missions to the islands to investigate 

the local situation. Similar trips were taken by Tokyo metropolitan government officials, to 

which the islands would revert. Likewise, members of the Bonin Island Council undertook 

a mission to Japan from 18–24 February 1968, to explain their concerns. Finally, the U.S. 

and Japanese governments passed special legislation to facilitate the return of the islands. 

In the case of the United States, legislation permitted islanders to immigrate to the United 

States or to go on for further schooling.

Despite these efforts, some islanders could not help but feel abandoned by the Navy. 

“Most of the islanders were heartbroken and felt betrayed,” wrote Shepardson, who conducted her research on Chichi Jima shortly after the reversion.206 “It was a sorry day when 

the Yankees left us, left us on the beach,” one said.207 In the end, however, despite the existence of some bitterness and a sense of abandonment, a number of close relationships between former Navy personnel and the local population have continued through the present 

day. Also, several of the younger generation elected to go on to the United States, although 

most did end up staying on Chichi Jima or moving to the mainland.

A final word is needed regarding the apparently contradictory—and potentially divisive—

relationship between the islanders of Western descent and their views of the “Japanese.” It 

was probably Bonins Island specialist Daniel Long of Tokyo Metropolitan University who 

best explained the dynamics when he wrote,

When they initially petitioned the U.S. authorities for their return to the island, the 

Bonin Islanders stated that they, not being ethnic Japanese, had been the victims 

of horrendous racial discrimination during the period of their evacuation to the 
223

Naval Administration and Chichi Jima Life, 1945–68

Japanese mainland. There is no reason to doubt whatsoever their claim. It is important to realize here that their complaints were against the mainland Japanese, the 

Japanese military, and their pre-war Imperial government. Even the most critical 

reports do not complain about the ethnic Japanese the Bonin Islanders grew up 

alongside, and indeed with whom they intermarried. The most disparaging comments I have encountered by Bonin Islanders about their ethnic Japanese fellow 

islanders focus on who could whip whom in a fistfight—claims more typical of 

friendly rivalry than deep-rooted hatred. The vital distinction is too seldom drawn 

between the Bonin Islanders’ fear, distrust, and dislike of the mainland Japanese on 

the one hand, and their comparatively warmer feelings about their ethnic Japanese 

neighbors on the other.208

Long’s analysis is essentially confirmed by Uncle Charlie Washington on the eve of 

reversion, who said simply and matter-of-factly, “I can’t say anything against the Japs. They 

treated us O.K. Of course, I was born under the round ball, the rising sun.”209 Having seen 

so much in his very long life, Uncle Charlie was probably ready for anything, including yet 

another change—reversion back to Japanese control.

Notes

1

An earlier version of part of this chapter was presented at the Asia Studies Conference Japan held 

at Sophia University, Tokyo, on 21 June 2003, which formed the basis of the article entitled “The 

U.S. Naval Administration of the Ogasawara Islands, 1945–1968,” Ogasawara Kenkyu [Ogasawara 

Research], no. 29 (March 2004), 95–124.

2

Some important studies (in chronological order) of the occupation and administration of Okinawa include Miyazato Seigen, Amerika no Okinawa Tochi [America’s Administration of Okinawa] 

(Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1966); Miyazato Seigen, ed., Sengo Okinawa no Seiji to Ho, 1945–1972

[Postwar Okinawan Politics and Law, 1945–1972] (Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1975); and 

Arnold G. Fisch Jr., Military Government in the Ryukyu Islands, 1945–1950 (Washington, DC: Center of Military History, 1988). Another appropriate comparison, not directly taken up here, is the 

administration over some of the Pacific Islands. See for example, Roy E. James, “Military Government: Guam,” Far Eastern Survey, vol. 15, no. 18 (11 September 1946), 273–77.

3

The author was unable to locate a specific directive establishing English as the official language 

of education. The closest thing to an official directive appears to be the Navy’s revised basic policy 

toward the Pacific Islands (of January 1948), the provisions of which were “applicable to the Naval 

Military Government of the Bonin-Volcano Island.” (“Memorandum from Office of Chief of Naval 

Operations to Commander in Chief, Pacific and U.S. Pacific Fleet on Government of the Trust 

Territory of the Pacific Islands, January 15, 1948,” Operational Archives.) The provisions were “principles . . . to be considered as a guide for all officers and persons connected with the several governments under the cognizance of the Navy Department.” (Ibid.) On the one hand, it suggested that 

“educational programs shall foster and encourage instruction in the native language and history and 

in native arts and crafts,” yet this recommendation was immediately followed by one that described 

English language education as a “prime necessity for inhabitants of all ages.” (Ibid.) It then pointed 

out that “this is not to be construed as discouraging instruction in native languages and culture.” 

(Ibid.) It seems instead that English language education came about therefore by default, out of 

necessity (the isolation of the islands and lack of Japanese teachers, and supply of native English 
224

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

“teachers” and “aides” among the Naval community), out of a desire on part of the local residents, as 

opposed to an actual official U.S. policy. One officer in charge of the naval facility, however, admitted in the mid-1950s that “the mission of the present school has been to convert a predominately 

Japanese-speaking people to the English language, to acquaint them with the American way of life, 

and to provide an adequate foundation in the basic arts and sciences.” (“Memorandum from Officer 

in Charge, U.S. Naval Facility, to Commander Naval Forces Marianas on Bonin Island School and 

Education Facilities; information concerning, April 25, 1955,” Folder: Bonin-Volcanos, Education 

of Natives, 1955–1966, Box 98, Records Regarding the Bonin-Volcano Islands.) This confusing approach contrasted greatly with that of education in Okinawa, also under U.S. administration, and 

would be responsible for much unease and confusion 20 years later when the islands were returned.

4

Mary Shepardson, The Bonin Islands: Pawns of Power (unpublished manuscript, 1988), 177.

5

Ibid., 178.

6

Ibid., 180.

7

Ibid., 179.

8

Ibid.

9

Ibid., 178.

10Mary Shepardson, The Bonin Islands: Pawns of Power (unpublished manuscript 1988, unedited version), chapter 30, 1 (actual page number appears as 30-1).

11U. Alexis Johnson, The Right Hand of Power: The Memoirs of an American Diplomat (Englewood 

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1984), 82, 472. Also see Timothy E. Head and Gavan Daws, “The Bonins—Isles of Contention,” American Heritage, vol. 19, no. 2 (February 1968), 73. Savory was apparently in Guam when he heard the news that their request to return to the islands had been approved. 

See Cant, “Home to Chichijima,” 19.

12See Cant, “Home to Chichijima,” 19, and Sheridan, “Sunday Telegram Writer,” 17 October 1948, 

8. In the prewar years, St. Joseph’s, which was run by the Brotherhood of St. Mary, had a faculty that 

was almost 90 percent American.

13Johnson, The Right Hand of Power, 472.

14“CINCPAC restricted message 180116 (December 1945),” cited in Pesce, Book I, 27.

15“CNO confidential message 281705 (December 1945),” cited in ibid.

16Cant, “Home to Chichijima,” 19.

17Shepardson, The Bonin Islands, 30–35. Also see Cant, “Home to Chichijima,” 19.

18“Minutes of State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee (March 19, 1946),” in Iokibe, ed., Microfiche 2-C-66. Initially it seems that SWNCC had suggested that the islanders resettle in Tinian, in 

the Northern Marianas, as part of a ranching project. That proposal, however, was rejected by the 

then-Commander of the Northern Marianas. Savory was reported to have also suggested Tinian or 

Saipan for the time being, aware that the lack of facilities on Chichi Jima might delay their return. 

See Pesce, Book I, 28.

19“CNO confidential message 291915 (March 1946),” cited in Pesce, Book I, 28, and “Memorandum 

from CNO to CINCPAC on Decision on Return to Bonins of Certain Natives (March 29, 1945),” 

Shepardson, The Bonin Islands, 30–35.
225

Naval Administration and Chichi Jima Life, 1945–68

20Cant, “Home to Chichijima,” 17–19.

21Shepardson, The Bonin Islands (unedited version), 30-5.

22Ibid., 30-6.

23Cant, “Home to Chichijima,” 19.

24Sheridan, “Bit of New England,” 12.

25“CINCAFPAC Tokyo message 041139 (September 1946),” cited in Pesce, Book I, 28. CINCPAC 

agreed with SCAP that families should not be separated and concurred with SCAP’s recommendation to permit the return of the spouses. See “CINCPAC message 152201 (September 1946),” cited 

in ibid.

26Shepardson, The Bonin Islands (unedited version), 30-6.

27Ibid., 31–32. Also see Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 58. There is some discrepancy in the research on the actual date of arrival, with some materials suggesting the 16th and 

others the 17th. It seems that the ship arrived late in the evening on the 16th, and the passengers 

disembarked on the 17th.

28Pesce, Book I, 30.

29Shepardson, The Bonin Islands, 190.

30Ibid., 191.

31Shepardson, The Bonin Islands (unedited version), 31-2. Also see Arima, “An Ethnographic and 

Historical Study,” 58; and “U.S. Naval Facility Chichijima, Bonin Islands Press Kit (undated),” 

Folder: Bonin Volcanos, Description of Islands and Navy Presence, 1946–1965, Box 98, Records 

Regarding the Bonin-Volcano Islands. LCI(L) refers to Landing Craft Infantry (Large) and PC to 

Patrol Craft.

32C. Wells Fendrich Jr., “Bonin Island Historic Events—A Missing Link, By a Member of the 1946 

Navy Repatriation Expedition,” http://john_wick.tripod.com/_a_missing_link.html.

33Fendrich, “Bonin Island Historic Events.”

34Pesce, Book I, 29.

35Ibid. Also see Fendrich, “Bonin Island Historic Events.”

36Shepardson, The Bonin Islands, 191.

37Sheridan, “Bit of New England,” 13.

38Fendrich, “Bonin Island Historic Events.”

39Pesce, Book I, 30. According to Fendrich, the crews were expecting only about 94 to show up, which 

corresponds with the original list presented by Savory.

40Pesce, Book I, 30.

41Shepardson, The Bonin Islands (unedited version), 31-2, and Pesce, Book I, 32.

42Fearing the abuse of the title “police,” which was common during the prewar and wartime period, 

the name “inspector” was given. Position “bosses” were similarly made “supervisors.” See Pesce, Book 
226

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

I, 31. Jerry was subsequently sent to Guam to receive a few months of intensive study in basic medical care at Guam Memorial Hospital.

43“OINC Bonin Islands Rest Report on Bonin Islands Repatriation (October 28, 1946),” cited in 

Pesce, Book I, 31.

44Shepardson, The Bonin Islands, 191. Shepardson’s student Arima writes that a petty officer was left 

on the island for liaison purposes. See Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 59.

45See Paul Sampson, “The Bonins and Iwo Jima Go Back to Japan: An Era Ends for the ‘Yankee’ 

Isles,” National Geographic Magazine ( July 1968), 134.

46Ibid.

47For that account, see Mary-Lou Johnson, A Honeymoon Island, unpublished and undated manuscript, 5–6.

48Pesce, Book I, 31–32.

49Ibid. Beginning in July 1952, naval vessels of Service Division 51 made regular trips every 21 days, 

stopping off at Chichi Jima, Okinawa, and Japan. See “Semi-Annual Report of the Military Government of the Bonin-Volcano Islands Ending 31 December 1952 (May 21, 1953),” Folder: Bonin 

Islands Semi-Annual Reports, 1952, Box 97, Records Regarding the Bonin-Volcano Islands.

50Shepardson, The Bonin Islands, 191.

51Ibid., 194.

52Ibid., 195.

53Ibid., 194.

54Ibid., 196–97.

55Ibid., 197. The Japanese evacuees were not allowed to return due to the SWNCC policy, as discussed in chapter 4, not that of SCAP or Commander, Naval Forces Far East. As mentioned earlier, 

there were 126 islanders of Western descent and their spouses who actually returned, not 120.

56Sheridan, “Sunday Telegram Writer,” 10 October 1948, 12.

57Ibid., 8.

58R. W. Kenney, “Letter from Yankeetown, May 9, 1948,” available at http://members.tripod

.com/%7EJohn_Wick/letter_from _yankeetown.htm.

59JCS 1231.

60Pesce, Book I, 33–34. Also see “Appendix to Enclosure A to confidential JCS 1259/27,” cited in 

ibid., 34. For more on the establishment of the UCP, see David Jablonsky, “Eisenhower and the 

Origins of the Unified Command,” Joint Forces Quarterly, no. 24, 24–31; and Ronald H. Cole, et al., 

The History of the Unified Command Plan, 1946–1993 (Washington, DC: Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint 

History Office, 1995).

61Pesce, Book I, 34.

62“PacFlt ltr 54L-46, revised (February 2, 1947),” cited in ibid., 34.

63Ibid., 35.
227

Naval Administration and Chichi Jima Life, 1945–68

64Ibid.

65JCS 1231/12 cited in Findley, Book II, 62.

66Ibid.

67“CNO ltr ser 773P22 to CINCPAC (August 15, 1950),” cited in Pesce, Book I, 36.

68Ibid., 37–38. Her other study is Dorothy Richard, United States Naval Administration of the Trust 

Territory of the Pacific Islands (Washington, DC: Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, 1957).

69For the financial and humanitarian problems caused in the case of the Amami Islands, see Eldridge, The Return of the Amami Islands, 6–11.

70Pesce, Book I, 36–37. For more, see Don A. Farrell, History of the Northern Marianas Islands (Tinian, 

1991) and Penelope Bordallo Hofschneider, A Campaign for Political Rights on the Island of Guam, 

1899–1950 (Saipan: Northern Marianas Islands Division of Historic Preservation, 2001).

71“Memorandum from Chief of Naval Operations on Government of the Trust Territory of the 

Pacific Islands ( January 15, 1948),” Records Regarding the Bonin-Volcano Islands.

72Pesce, Book I, 38.

73Ibid.

74Ibid.

75“DCMGO Bonins ltr ser 125 (March 5, 1948),” cited in ibid.

76Ibid., 38n1.

77Ibid.

78Kenney, “Letter from Yankeetown.” For the reference to Fish, who served as U.S. secretary of state 

in the 1870s and is seen as having abandoned the islanders of American descent, see chapter 1.

79Kenney, “Letter from Yankeetown.”

80Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 59.

81Ibid. Also see Sheridan, “Sunday Telegram Writer,” 10 October 1948, 12.

82Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 59. Later, each fisherman was limited to 800 

pounds a month as space was limited on the Navy ships. See Sampson, “The Bonins and Iwo Jima 

Go Back,” 136.

83Sheridan, “Sunday Telegram Writer,” 17 October 1948, 8.

84Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 59–60.

85Shepardson, The Bonin Islands (unedited manuscript), 32-8.

86Pesce, Book I, 42.

87Ibid., 45.

88Ibid., 46.

89“CNO ltr serial 773P22 (August 15, 1950),” cited in ibid.
228

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

90“CINCPACFLT ltr serial 3487 (September 15, 1950),” cited in ibid.

91“DCNO (Admin) personal letter to DEPHICOMTERPACIS (September 29, 1950),” cited in 

ibid., 49.

92Ibid.

93“CNO confidential memo, serial 02P30, JCS 1259/198 (February 12, 1951),” cited in ibid.

94“CNO confidential memo (March 15, 1951),” cited in ibid., 50. Incidentally, Bradley thought 

highly of Sherman in his memoirs, describing him as “one of the most impressive military officers I 

have met in any service . . . He was the perfect man to restore discipline in the Navy [following the 

so-called Admirals’ Revolt and Denfeld’s ‘professional death’] and a welcomed face in the JCS.” See 

Omar N. Bradley, A General’s Life (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983), 513. Sherman died shortly 

after this exchange from a heart attack during a trip to Europe in late July.

95“JCS 88006,” cited in Pesce, Book I, 50.

96In the meantime, MacArthur had been relieved of command by President Truman over the handling of the Korean War and his insubordination.

97Pesce, Book I, 51–52. Pobst’s wife and daughter traveled with him there, and a son was also born 

while he was there.

98Radford, From Pearl Harbor to Vietnam, 259. Radford traveled some 300,000 miles during his time 

as CINCPAC. For his views on East Asia and U.S. interests, see, in addition to his memoirs, Arthur 

W. Radford, “Our Navy in the Far East,” The National Geographic Magazine vol. 104, no. 4 (October 

1953), 537–78.

99Radford, From Pearl Harbor to Vietnam, 259.

100Ibid., 259–60.

101Ibid., 260.

102Ibid., 261.

103“Petition from Undersigned Bonin Islanders to Chief Military Officer, Bonin Island on Request 

for United States Citizenship ( January 24, 1951),” Records of the Military Government/Civil Affairs Branch of the Office of the CNO, Series VII Records Regarding the Bonin-Volcano Islands, 

Operational Archives, Naval Historical Center. According to the internal organizational history, 

CINCPACFLT forwarded the petition to the Chief of Naval Operations, who in turn referred it to 

the Secretary of the Navy, Francis P. Matthews (see “CINCPACFLT 2nd Endorsement serial 1633 

[March 23, 1951],” cited in Pesce, Book I, 51). Although Matthews believed the islanders’ request to 

be premature since the status of the islands would not be decided until the peace treaty with Japan, 

he did point out to Secretary of State Dean G. Acheson in a 13 April letter the validity, from a 

humanitarian perspective, of the U.S. plan for a trusteeship for the islands (see “Letter from SecNav 

to SecState [April 13, 1951],” cited in ibid.). The State Department’s reply to the Navy Department 

suggested that the islanders be thanked for presenting their desires and informed them that their 

petition had been studied with care (see “Letter from SecState to SecNav [April 23, 1951],” cited 

in ibid.).

104Radford, From Pearl Harbor to Vietnam, 261.

105Ibid., 260.
229

Naval Administration and Chichi Jima Life, 1945–68

106Ibid.

107“The Ambassador in Japan (Murphy) to the Department of State (October 13, 1952),” Foreign 

Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, vol. 14, 1340–43.

108See Eldridge, The Origins of the Bilateral Okinawa Problem, 290.

109“Confidential Memo from OP-215 to OP-21 on History of Bonin Islanders, October 29, 1954,” 

Records Regarding the Bonin-Volcano Islands, and author’s e-mail correspondence with Jeanie 

Frost, 14 May 2003.

110Ibid.

111Findley, Book II, 66–69. This became effective retroactively on 1 March.

112Ibid., 102–3.

113Ibid., 103.

114Ibid., 105–6.

115Ibid.

116Ibid., 107.

117Ibid.

118Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 60.

119Author’s e-mail correspondence with Jeanie Frost, 14 May 2003.

120Radford, From Pearl Harbor to Vietnam, 261.

121Ibid.

122“The Ambassador in Japan (Murphy) to the Department of State (October 13, 1952).”

123Eldridge, “Ogasawara to Nichibei Kankei, 1945–1968,” 252–53.

124Ibid., 253.

125Findley, Book II, 223–25.

126“Memorandum from Admiral Radford to Secretary of State Dulles (March 15, 1956),” Naval 

Records. A similar argument was introduced in an internal Navy study: “It is clearly evident that the 

Japanese will never slacken their efforts to return to the Bonins and will continue to press for other 

toe holds in the central Pacific . . . The day we permit any group of Japanese to enter the BoninVolcano Islands—for any reason—will be the day the United States begins to lose administrative 

and security control of these islands, including the Marianas and Carolines to the south” [emphasis 

added]. See Findley, Book II, 284.

127“Memorandum from Admiral Radford to Secretary of State Dulles (March 15, 1956).”

128“Petition of the Indigenous Population of Chichijima, Bonin Islands (1956),” Findley, Book II, 

336–37.

129Findley, Book II, 234.

130Shepardson, The Bonin Islands (unedited version), 32-14.
230

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

131“Letter from J. Graham Parsons to Noel Hemmendinger, January 25, 1956,” Central Decimal 

Files, 794C.00/1-2556, RG 59.

132“Memorandum from OP-215 (L. G. Findley) to OP-02 on Tentative Schedule during Visit of 4 

Bonin Islanders in Washington, 18–28 November 1955 (November 9, 1955),” CDF 794C.00/11-

1455, RG 59.

133Findley, Book II, 235–36.

134Ibid.

135Ibid., 237.

136“Memorandum of Conversation on Views of Present Day Inhabitants of the Bonin Islands, November 22, 1955,” CDF 794C.00/11-2255, RG 59.

137Ibid.

138Ibid.

139“Memorandum of Conversation, Repatriation of Japanese to the Bonin Islands, November 23, 

1955,” CDF 794C.00/11-2355, RG 59.

140“Petition of the Indigenous Population of Chichi Jima, Bonin Islands to the State Department of 

the United States of America, November 2, 1955,” CDF 794C.00/11-2355, RG 59.

141Ibid.

142“Memorandum of Conversation (with Robert Murphy), Repatriation of Japanese to the Bonin 

Islands, November 23, 1955,” CDF 794C.00/11-2355, RG 59.

143Ibid.

144“Letter from Yokota Tatsuo to Roderick Webb, December 10, 1955,” Chairman’s Files, Admiral 

Radford, 1953–1957, RG 218.

145Shepardson, The Bonin Islands (unedited version), 32-16.

146Ibid.

147Findley, Book II, 237. For more, see Folder 12 (Bonin-Volcanos Bonin Island Delegation’s Visit to 

New Bedford, RI, 1955), Box 98, Records Regarding the Bonin-Volcano Islands.

148Shepardson, The Bonin Islands (unedited version), 32-7.

149Findley, Book II, 284-A.

150Author’s interview with local islander who was a teenager then, Chichi Jima, 22 August 2007.

151Findley, Book II, 67.

152For more on submarine strategy, see Chuck Lawliss, The Submarine Book: An Illustrated History of 

the Attack Submarine (Short Hills, NJ: Burford Books, 2000).

153“Memorandum from Military Government Representative to Military Governor, BoninVolcano Islands on Information Concerning the Bonin Islands (March 20, 1958),” Records Regarding the Bonin-Volcano Islands.

154Sampson, “The Bonins and Iwo Jima Go Back to Japan,” 137.
231

Naval Administration and Chichi Jima Life, 1945–68

155Johnson, “A Honeymoon Island,” 5.

156“Chronology Deployments by Country,” Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense 

(Atomic Energy), History of the Custody and Deployment of Nuclear Weapons July 1945 Through September 1977 (February 1978), B-2.

157Ibid. For more, see Robert S. Norris, William M. Arkin, and William Burr, “How Much Did 

Japan Know?” The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, vol. 56, no. 1 ( January/February 2000), 11–13, 

78–79.

158“Chronology Deployments by Country,” B-3.

159Information on the units serving on Iwo Jima was taken from press clippings from the Pacific Stars 

and Stripes from the 1940s and 1950s. The author is grateful to Murota Norio of the Pacific Stars and 

Stripes for providing access to these clippings.

160“Porkchop: Iwo is Important Link in FEALF Lifeline,” Pacific Stars and Stripes, 3 September 

1952.

161Ibid.

162Ibid.

163“Louise Slams Iwo Jima, Cuts Off Island Radio, Heads for Japan,” ibid., 26 September 1955; 

“Louise Flattens Iwo, Heads for Kyushu,” ibid., 27 September 1955; “Louise Levels 90 Percent of 

Iwo Jima, Eyewitness Reports Jeeps Tossed About,” ibid.

164“Letter from Wachi Tsunezo to William P. Bundy on the Deplorable Matters of Iwo Jima, April 

3, 1964,” Folder: Bonins Visit, Box 26, Central Files, 1947–1964, Office of East Asian Affairs (FE/

EA), Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs, RG 59.

165“3rd Marines Leave Iwo,” Pacific Stars and Stripes, 30 March 1954. According to the article, the 

British ships participating were the destroyer HMS Cockade and the cruisers HMS Birmingham and 

Constance. For more on the importance of amphibious doctrine and training for the Marine Corps 

during this time, see Joseph H. Alexander and Merrill L. Bartlett, Sea Soldiers in the Cold War (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1995).

166“Iwo Marines ‘Attack’ Nidan Hill; General Hull Returns to Tokyo,” ibid., 24 March 1954; “3rd 

Marines Stage Iwo Assault in Decade’s 2nd Invasion of Island,” ibid., 21 March 1954.

167“ ‘Assault’ on Iwo,” ibid., 10 February 1956.

168“Navy ‘A-Bombs’ Isle on Way to Iwo,” ibid., 15 February 1956.

169“1st Wave of Marines Steams Toward Iwo,” ibid., 11 February 1956.

170“Navy ‘A-Bombs’ Isle on Way to Iwo,” ibid., 15 February 1956.

171“11 Years Later, Marines Land Again on Iwo Jima,” ibid., 6 March 1956.

172“Once Hid Japanese Troops, Iwo Caves to be AF A-Shelters,” ibid., 29 May 1955.

173Ibid.

174“Iwo Life Like ‘Camping Out’ Trip, Says Teacher,” ibid., 21 April 1948.

175Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 60. The other main family, Robinson, had daughters who married into other families and thus was not represented.
232

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

176Ibid.

177Ibid., 61.

178“Memorandum from Military Government Representative to Military Governor (March 20, 

1958).”

179Ibid.

180Ibid.

181“Briefing Paper on Bonin-Volcano Islands for Secretary of Navy.”

182Radford, From Pearl Harbor to Vietnam, 260.

183“Memo from Officer in Charge, U.S. Naval Facility, to Commander, Naval Forces Marianas, on 

Bonin Island School and Educational Facilities; information concerning, April 25, 1955,” Folder: 

Bonin-Volcanos, Education of Natives, 1955–1966, Box 98, Records Regarding the Bonin-Volcano 

Islands.

184Ibid.

185Mary-Lou Johnson, “A Honeymoon Island,” 3. Author’s e-mail correspondence with Dave Wolcotts, May–June 2003, and author’s interview with George Yokota, 23 August 2005, Kilauea Military 

Camp, Hawaii.

186Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 61.

187“Bonin Isles May Become Japan’s Hawaii,” Pacific Stars and Stripes, 21 January 1968.

188Ibid. For more on the educational situation in the islands, see Kikuchi Takehisa, “Amerika Shisekenka no Kokoseitachi o Tazunete: Ogasawara Koto Gakko no Zenshi no Kochiku no Tame ni” 

[Visiting the Former High School Students from the American Administration Days in an Effort 

to Understand the Early History of Ogasawara High School], Tokyo Toritsu Ogasawara Koto Gakko 

Kenkyu Kiyo, no. 8 (1994), 75–82.

189Doris Dossett, Crater Islands: Chichi Jima (City unknown: Foreign Mission Society of General 

Baptists, 1954), 25.

190Ibid., 65.

191Arima, “An Ethnographic and Historical Study,” 204. Interview with Reverend and Mrs. Isaac 

Gonzales (Ogasawara Aisaku), August 2000. The original church was built in 1909, but was destroyed during the war. At the time, it was set up in a Quonset hut. In 1967, the Navy built a new 

church on the same site as the original.

192“Bonin Islanders Face Problems in Japan Reversion,” Pacific Stars and Stripes, undated 1968.

193Findley, Book II, 79–81.

194Ibid., 114–16. Also see “Bonin Isles May Become Japan’s Hawaii.”

195Sampson, “The Bonins and Iwo Jima Go Back to Japan,” 134.

196“A Special Word for the Single Man,” Brochure of General Information, History, and Living Conditions Chichi Jima, Bonin Islands (1963), http://members.tripod.com/~John_Wick/chichi_navy

_brochure.html.
233

Naval Administration and Chichi Jima Life, 1945–68

197Jim Falk, “Somewhere on a Bonin Isle,” Pacific Stars and Stripes, 21 December 1967.

198Brochure of General Information.

199“Memorandum from Military Government Representative to Military Governor.”

200Johnson, “A Honeymoon Island,” 7.

201Shepardson, The Bonin Islands, 184.

202“Report of Termination of Military Government Administration of the Bonin-Volcano Islands 

and Closure of U.S. Naval Facility, Chichijima, B.I. ( June 26, 1968),” Folder: Bonin Volcanoes, Description of Islands and Navy Presence, 1946–1965, Box 98, Records of the Military Government/

Civil Affairs Branch of the Office of the CNO, Series VII Records Regarding the Bonin-Volcano 

Islands.

203“Bonin Islanders Face Problems in Japan Reversion.” Also see “Chichijimans Uneasy About Return to Japan,” Japan Times, date unknown.

204Sampson, “The Bonins and Iwo Jima Go Back to Japan,” 134.

205Ibid., 128.

206Mary Shepardson, “Pawns of Power: The Bonin Islanders,” in Raymond D. Fogelson and Richard 

N. Adams, eds., The Anthropology of Power (New York: Academic Press, 1977), 112.

207Ibid.

208Daniel Long, “Conclusion,” in Shepardson, The Bonin Islands, 209–10. As Shepardson had passed 

away before her manuscript was finished, Long helped complete it by writing the final chapter.

209Sampson, “The Bonins and Iwo Jima Go Back to Japan,” 134.
234

Chapter 6

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and

Repatriation, 1952–57

We have many difficult issues with Japan. With respect to some of them, such 

as Okinawa, there is nothing we can do at this juncture to meet the Japanese 

view. However, with respect to the Bonin Islanders, I do feel strongly that 

we can, without jeopardizing our basic and fundamental interest or security, 

be forthcoming enough to find reasonable solutions. This is very important, 

because the Bonin Island problem is a very contentious issue which has deep 

psychological overtones which cannot but affect our long-term relations with 

Japan.

—Telegram from Ambassador Douglas MacArthur II to

Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, 20 September 1957

Although the Peace Treaty allowed Japan to retain “residual sovereignty” over the islands, 

and thus a near fatal wound to the postwar U.S.-Japan relationship was avoided, the 7,000 

islanders who could not return to their homes in Chichi Jima, Haha Jima, Iwo Jima, and 

Kita Iwo Jima, as well as the nation as a whole, were unhappy with the fact that Japan was 

not permitted to administer the islands that had been historically theirs for at least 70 years, 

and some would say 360 years. This dissatisfaction, or irredentism, would gnaw at U.S.-

Japan relations over the next 15 years until the decision to return administrative control 

over the islands was made in November 1967 and the return completed in June 1968.

Before examining the bilateral discussions on reversion and repatriation, it is necessary 

to briefly look at the situation of the islanders of Japanese descent who wished to be repatriated and their efforts to realize that desire, as it is their hopes for return and the U.S. Navy’s 

unwillingness to allow them to return that were the subject of the bilateral talks.

The League of Bonin Evacuees

and Their Desire to Return Home

Islanders of Japanese descent had petitioned General MacArthur’s headquarters in early 

1946 to be allowed to return, but they never officially received a reply regarding their plea. 

In the meantime, 130 islanders of Western descent, who had made similar pleas shortly 

before theirs, were able to return in late 1946.

The economic situation in Japan in the meantime had worsened, with inflation and unemployment high. The islanders of Japanese descent, lacking social and other connections 

and permanent livelihoods on the mainland, faired poorly in this situation. In particular, 

funds for their community were getting low as the national subsidies they had been receiv-
235

ing as part of their evacuation from the islands were ended for fiscal year 1946 and the salaries of public workers for the Ogasawara Village Office—which was temporarily housed in 

the Shitayatake-cho Elementary School in Tokyo—after April were unlikely to be paid.1

As a result, community leaders gathered and decided to form a group to continue their 

appeals to the central government and Tokyo Metropolitan Government for continued 

economic assistance. The Ogasawarato Iwo Jima Hikiagesha Renmei (League for Ogasawara 

and Iwo Jima Evacuees) was subsequently formed in July 1946, with Kikuchi Torahiko 

(from Chichi Jima, who drafted the earlier petition) as its chairperson and Yokota Tatsuo 

(from Haha Jima, who presented the petition to MacArthur’s headquarters) as vice chair. 

The league was successful in getting financial support from the metropolitan government 

in October and in getting special tax treatment for having lost their assets on the islands 

that same month.

Around the same time, the islanders of Western descent were allowed to return to Chichi Jima, and their return, while causing some jealousy, also acted to embolden the islanders 

of Japanese descent. In July, about 800 gathered for a rally at the Shitayatake-cho Elementary School to demonstrate their desire to return to the islands. At this time, they disbanded the league, and created a new one—the Ogasawarato Iwojima Kikyo Sokushin Renmei

(League of Bonin Evacuees for Hastening Repatriation).2

 Kikuchi was named chair again, 

and Yokota as vice chair. The rally also approved a petition that was subsequently forwarded 

to General MacArthur; Matsuoka Komakichi, the speaker of the lower house; and Yasui 

Seiichiro, the governor of Tokyo.

Hoping for a favorable response from occupation authorities, the league waited and 

exercised restraint, but with nothing forthcoming after a year and a half, it regrouped in an 

attempt to strengthen its position. They submitted new petitions, this time to the Marianas commander and the speaker of the upper house, Matsudaira Tsuneo, in addition to 

MacArthur, Governor Yasui, and lower house Speaker Shidehara Kijuro, the former prime 

minister (1945–46), who had replaced Matsuoka on 11 February 1949.3

 With this, and the 

fact that the league was garnering the support of some Japanese politicians and bureaucrats, it gained the attention of occupation authorities, who were now more willing to crack 

down on political agitators. It was investigated in June 1949 by the Special Investigation 

Bureau of General Headquarters to determine if it was involved in political activities and 

if it should be considered a political organization. It was, and its chair, Kikuchi, having 

been purged for heading the Omura Sonendan (Omura Village Young Men’s League) in 

Chichi Jima, was rendered ineligible to head the league any longer. He stepped down, and 

was replaced by Yokota in June 1950, who in turn was succeeded by Asanuma Keisaburo as 

vice chair through a vote of the organization members.4

 This did not stop the league from 

continuing its appeals, however.

One of the first things the new leadership did was conduct a house-to-house survey in 

October that year of the islanders to clarify their desires with regard to repatriation to the 

islands.5

 Some 500 households, or 3,000 people, were asked about their living standards—

now six years after their forced removal—and their desire to return. Based on this survey, 

the league prepared a detailed plan to develop local industry and business to support the 

islanders upon their return. This was to be used as a briefing document for the Japanese 

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57
236

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

and U.S. governments and other interested parties. According to Kikuchi, as the movement 

spread, the league learned that not many in Japan and its leadership knew of the plight of 

the islanders. They thus shared the findings of the survey with as many as they could. The 

group followed the 1950 survey with another in May 1953.

The league also began submitting petitions—nearly 100 over the years—addressing 

their return to the islands, the retention of sovereignty over the islands by Japan, or the 

return of the islands to Japan (see appendix 4 for a full list). While residual sovereignty 

would in fact be retained, administrative rights were not. Nor were the islanders granted 

their desire to return home.

Seeking an Early Solution to the Bonins Problem

Shortly after the peace treaty went into effect on 28 April 1952, the Japanese government 

renewed its efforts to see the islands returned, and if that were impossible, to have the islanders returned to their homes. On 26 June, Foreign Minister Okazaki Katsuo, who had 

drafted one of the first position papers on the territorial issue in the summer of 1947, met 

with the new U.S. ambassador to Japan, Robert D. Murphy, to discuss the fate of the islanders and to request their repatriation. Mentioning the “constant flood of oral and written 

petitions” from the evacuees, Okazaki explained “their situation is deplorable” and that “all 

they ask . . . is the right to return to their homes where they can make a living.”6

 Okazaki 

stated that it was hard for the Japanese government to understand U.S. reluctance to perFigure 9. Survey on living standards, 1944–53.

Conducted by League and Tokyo Metropolitan Govt, Somukyoku Gyoseibu Chihoka Ogasawara 

Kankei Toseki Jimusho, see testimony in Fukuda, Ishii, 151. Adapted by author from survey
237

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

mit their return, especially when the 135 former Bonin residents who were descendents of 

American and European settlers were already permitted to do so. “Security considerations 

can be no greater than those concerning Okinawa and Japan proper,” Okazaki asked rhetorically, “so what is the reason for preventing their return?”7

Murphy, a career diplomat with extensive experience with refugees and other politicalmilitary issues in occupied Europe as General Dwight D. Eisenhower’s political advisor, 

had already received a petition from the league at the end of May, a month after he began 

his duties in Japan, so he was probably familiar to some extent with the situation of the 

islanders. This was not the last petition he was to receive; after he returned to Washington 

as undersecretary of state, he would receive numerous petitions and visitors concerning the 

Bonin Islands.8

Murphy seems to have had difficulty answering Okazaki’s question, and wrote to Secretary of State Dean G. Acheson for instructions, sending copies to Commander in Chief, 

Far East General Mark W. Clark based at Ichigaya in Tokyo; Commander, Naval Forces, 

Far East Vice Admiral Robert P. Briscoe based at Yokosuka; and Admiral Arthur W. Radford, Commander in Chief, Pacific Fleet, at Pearl Harbor. After explaining the embassy’s 

difficulty in answering “this seemingly reasonable request” as a result of not having heard 

the Navy’s reasons against permitting the return of the evacuees, Murphy warned,

Unless there are important contrary considerations of which the Embassy is not 

aware, we cannot but feel that responsible naval authorities are performing a grave 

disservice, not only to the evacuees themselves but also to over-all U.S.-Japan relations, in refusing to permit repatriation. In this connection, it should be pointed 

out to the Navy that this refusal is giving rise to charges in Japan due to racial 

discrimination, territorial aggrandizement and general unhumanitarian action on 

part of U.S., and constitutes a growing source of potential friction between U.S. 

and Japanese Governments.9

Likely on the instructions of Foreign Minister Okazaki, Ambassador Araki Eikichi in 

Washington, raised the same issue in a meeting on 8 July 1952, with Assistant Secretary 

John M. Allison. It is not clear what answer Allison gave, but according to a letter he sent 

a week later to Frank C. Nash, his counterpart as assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, the State Department supported the views of Araki and Okazaki 

and believed that the former residents should be allowed to return to the islands.10 Allison, 

referring specifically to Murphy’s telegram of 2 July, outlined the situation with regard to 

the islands and requested that, because they were under the Department of the Navy, representatives of the Defense Department inform the State Department’s Office of Northeast 

Asian Affairs (NAA) as to what “appropriate reply” could be given to the Japanese government. About six weeks passed before Allison received an answer from Nash, but Murphy’s 

telegram and Allison’s subsequent inquiry raised warning bells in the Navy and indirectly 

within the Defense Department.11

Admiral Radford was “very surprised,” almost hurt it seems, to receive Murphy’s telegram recommending the islands’ return to Japan.12 “Our first post-war ambassador to Japan 

. . . had been . . . a good friend of mine. I believed we [had] talked over the future of the 
238

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Bonin and Volcano Islands several times but am not certain,” Radford wrote. Radford immediately voiced his concerns in a message to Chief of Naval Operations Admiral William 

M. Fechteler, who was not initially informed of the State Department’s telegram.13 Radford 

described Murphy’s views as “very disturbing” because it “indicates a lack of continuity between the ambassador and former political sections of SCAP . . . [and] complete unawareness of current existing directives, which so far as CINCPACFLT is aware, are the current 

United States policy directives on this subject.”14 Radford pointed out that the case for 

retention of the status quo, as outlined in JCS 1380/135, “is not a unilateral Navy position, 

nor was the 1946 repatriation decision,” and as such, the State Department should “support 

the conclusions reached by the JCS in these papers” and the ambassador be “so instructed.” 

In the meantime, Radford “took immediate steps to delay any [attempts to return the islands] and urged [the ambassador] to meet me in Chichi Jima so that I could acquaint him 

personally with the islanders, their problems, and the reasons why I felt we should not give 

them up.”15

Radford’s four-page communication spells out in great detail his command’s opposition 

to the return of the islands and the repatriation of the evacuees. The arguments were heard 

in the past and would be heard again. But this is a good place to introduce them in detail, 

particularly as they were written on the eve of a trip to the Bonins by Radford and would 

serve as the basis for the Navy’s opposition over the years to any changes in the status quo.

As part of his efforts to “acquaint himself with the people and problems of the western Pacific,” which was the area of responsibility that Radford inherited when he became 

Commander in Chief of the Pacific Command/Pacific Fleet on 30 April 1949, and High 

Commissioner of the Trust Territory of Pacific Islands, Radford visited the Bonin Islands 

in May 1951 after the situation had stabilized on the Korean Peninsula.16 His trip was more 

than for sightseeing, however, and he met with the islanders and inspected the administrative and residential sections. The admiral’s views on the geo-strategic importance of the 

islands were probably confirmed at the time of this first visit and reinforced on his second 

visit in October 1952. His thoughts were made quite clear in the July communication.

After explaining the respective policy directives, Radford began his memo by noting 

that most of the present residents of the islands were “never particularly happy under Japanese rule” and had not been “fully trusted” by the Japanese government or the Japanese 

citizenry, even though they had been “forced to accept Japanese citizenship and Japanese 

names.”17 The present islanders, as a result, were against the repatriation of the Japanese 

ex-residents and had “argue[d] that many of the latter had flimsy and short-time ties with 

these islands.” Others “fear the return of Japanese because of testimony present residents 

gave in connection with the war crimes trials,” Radford added, mentioning specifically the 

case of cannibalism. “All in all, the present residents of Chichi Jima are entitled to consideration. They are, to all intents and purposes, the only real natives of these islands.”

Radford next explained that, even when the islands were under Japanese rule, “civilian 

travel throughout the Bonins was severely limited” and that they were heavily fortified. 

The farmers and fishermen, Radford noted, “primarily supplied the needs of the Japanese 

military,” and that the “great majority” of those who were not farmers or fishermen, were 

“engaged in construction of fortifications and other military facilities which was in progress 
239

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

for 20 years prior to World War Two.” Moreover, based on records gathered in Tokyo, the 

land titles for the Bonins, according to Radford, showed that the Japanese government 

owned “78% of all Bonin land at the start of World War Two and undoubtedly took over all 

of it during the war.” As a result, the admiral stated, Chichi Jima and Haha Jima can be said 

to have been primarily military bases prior to the war, and that the majority of the civilians 

were there “solely because of this fact.” As if to drive home the point, he added, quoting 

from Murphy’s telegram (who was quoting Foreign Minister Okazaki), “the idea that they 

led simple bucolic lives and wish to return to their ‘native hearth’ just does not jibe with 

cold hard facts.” Mentioning the evacuation of the civilians in 1944, Radford believed that 

the Japanese government could “readily understand” the situation regarding the exclusion 

of civilians from the area “for the same reasons which prompted the Japanese government 

evacuation decision.”

In addition, Radford pointed out that “All vestiges of former villages and homes have 

disappeared. Some were destroyed by bombing and fire and some by Japanese military. At 

any rate, there are no homes to which former residents can return and it would be a very 

expensive project to resettle them.” In looking at possible alternatives and compromises, 

Radford mentioned the idea of resettlement on some of the smaller islands, but said it was 

not “realistic even if feasible from [the] security viewpoint.” Nevertheless, he stated from 

that point of view, Chichi Jima and Haha Jima are “interdependent and must be considered 

as one U.S. base. The dual control of this base, which would inevitably ensue were [the] 

proposed influx of non-U.S. nationals permitted, would be most undesirable.” Citing an 

example from the discussions over the use of Yokosuka Naval Base for friendly third-power 

vessels in which, because of the “split-control situation,” there were “interpretative differences” between Japan and the United States “within days of the security treaty’s acceptance” 

by the two countries. “[I]t is crystal clear that maintenance of single authority in a territory 

eliminates the possibility of stalemating differences ever arising.”18

One compromise Radford did suggest was that consideration be given to “compensating 

Japanese landholders for 22 percent of [the] Bonins which they once held.” In addition to 

its humanitarian appeal (“sympathetic move”), Radford argued that it would be a “decisive 

action to close the door to further futile requests for repatriation.” Finally, Radford argued 

that a “physical sighting of the islands in question is a tremendous aid to clear evaluation of 

Japanese government proposal,” and he later encouraged Murphy to go to the islands and 

see for himself.

Fechteler apparently was impressed with Radford’s memo and seems to have shared his 

concerns. During a tour of the Far East later in July, he visited with Ambassador Murphy 

specifically to discuss this issue.19 Murphy reiterated the points in his telegram, emphasizing the humanitarian nature of the situation. He noted that it is “one item in a list of economic and population problems” that would “sooner or later . . . have to be faced.” Murphy 

also stressed the political importance of the issue for the Japanese government (a pattern 

that would be seen repeated regularly afterward): “A small gesture in the present case, if 

that is possible, could have an important effect needed by a friendly Japanese government 

which is facing general elections in the near future and which is under increasing attack by 

the opposition on the score that it is subservient to American interests.” Murphy argued 
240

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

for an approach in which “some measure of satisfaction could be given,” and ended by saying that he was “not convinced of the validity” of treating the Ryukyus (where the islanders 

were allowed to continue to reside) and the Bonins differently, particularly as the Bonins 

involved a situation of only 7,000 people, which was the equivalent of roughly 1 percent 

of the number of those in the Nansei Islands. Fechteler replied that he now understood 

the “political problem caused by this exiled group” but still supported Radford’s position 

(which, it seems, was forwarded to Murphy at some point). “With the type of Naval installations in the Bonins,” he did not see how it would be possible for the former residents to 

resettle there. Fechteler invited Murphy to visit the islands for himself, probably forwarding Radford’s invitation. Murphy accepted, admitting that he did “not understand all the 

factors involved in the Navy’s point of view.” The Navy had won its first battle in the war 

against repatriation, one front in the larger war against changing the status quo with regard 

to the islands.

The Navy’s initial victory in Tokyo was followed by a delaying action in Washington. 

Nash, who headed international security affairs in the Defense Department (known as the 

“Little State Department”), finally responded to Allison’s 15 July letter with one of his own 

in which he carefully laid out the Department of Defense position.20 He concluded that the 

Defense Department supported the JCS conclusions of 22 January 1952 that “no change in 

U.S. policy in regard to these islands should be contemplated until a condition of stability 

has been firmly established throughout the Far East,” and observing that the “return of so 

many Japanese citizens to an area not under the control of Japan would create administrative difficulties, including questions of criminal jurisdiction, and by their very numbers 

would tend to prejudge a later decision on the eventual disposition of the islands—a decision which it is not desirable to make at this time.” Nash concluded by stating that it was 

“not in the best interest” of the U.S. government to revise the present repatriation policy 

and recommended that no further action be taken until Allison had the opportunity to 

speak with Radford, Clark, and Murphy during his trip to the Far East.21

A week later on 5 September, Allison met with Admiral Radford, who was visiting 

Washington on a trip necessitated in part because of the Bonins issue.22 It was at this time 

that Allison suggested that some representatives of the Japanese government and “one or 

two leaders” of the former residents of the islands accompany Radford and Murphy on 

their trip to the islands to “show them local conditions and not only difficulty but perhaps 

undesirability of return of large number of these former residents.” Radford promised to 

consider it.

When Radford arrived in Hawaii, a letter from Prime Minister Yoshida Shigeru awaited him requesting that the islanders be permitted to return and that economic activities 

by Japanese nationals, including mining, fishing, and farming, be permitted in the former 

mandated islands.23 Yoshida explained that the islanders “have no foothold, social or economic, in Japan proper; they are helpless and almost destitute. Their only hope is to be 

allowed to go back to their islands . . . Disappointment and growing poverty are rendering 

their lives more miserable than ever,” and “being convinced that the resettlement of the 

Bonin Islanders will contribute substantially to the strengthening of friendly ties between 

Japan and America.” Yoshida was “appeal[ing] personally to you for help toward its realiza-
241

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

tion.”24 It is not clear if Radford, who had hosted Yoshida the year before when the latter 

came through Honolulu on his way to and from San Francisco for the peace treaty conference, immediately responded, but he was no doubt unhappy about this request from the 

prime minister of a former enemy state.25

The Yoshida government was under political pressure, or at least perceived itself to be so, 

and explicitly linked a resolution to the issue with future elections, hence the reference in 

Yoshida’s letter to Radford that “concrete action . . . taken by your Government immediately

. . . would not only gladden the hearts of the islanders in distress and bring joy to all Japanese, 

but also to serve to strengthen the Government’s position in the coming general elections 

scheduled for the 1st of October next” [emphasis original].26 This was not the first reference 

by the Japanese side to domestic politics—Okazaki’s 23 June letter to Murphy had alluded 

to the “strong dissatisfaction . . . revealed by members of the Japanese Diet now in session 

in connection with the tardiness of the Japanese Government action” on the issue of repatriation—and it would not be the last, but it seems to have been the first written expression 

of concern about the electoral effects if the Japanese government’s desires were not realized.

Murphy alerted the State Department about the Japanese government’s concerns, after 

meeting with Okazaki on 30 August, at which time he was shown a copy of Yoshida’s letter 

to Radford and informed Okazaki that Allison and Radford might visit Tokyo that fall.27

Murphy mentioned that Okazaki said he was happy about their visit, but that pressure on 

the Foreign Ministry was continuing and Okazaki was disappointed that a resolution had 

not been found earlier, “especially in view . . . of elections on October 1, [Okazaki] hoped 

for some results (rpt [repeat] not) too distant future.”

Murphy clearly wanted to help and tried to keep the ministry informed on the one 

hand, and reminded U.S. military officials on the other of the Japanese political situation. 

In his July meeting with Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Fechteler, for example, Murphy had stated rhetorically, “The present Japanese government would need support of this 

nature if it is to remain in power and I assumed that we would like it to remain in power.”28

It would not be the first or last time for Murphy to do so.

By early September, Ambassador Murphy had decided to accept Admiral Radford’s 

invitation to visit the islands and was encouraged to do so by Allison. The date for the 

inspection was set for early October. On 9 September, Murphy called on Foreign Minister 

Okazaki to tell him about the trip with Clark and Briscoe and mentioned that Radford 

would be meeting them there. Murphy invited the Foreign Ministry to send a government representative and have one of the former residents come along as well.29 Acting 

on a request from the State Department,30 he also asked Okazaki to confirm whether the 

Japanese government had the financial ability to pay for the transportation of the islanders 

and their living costs on the island, where the Japanese government planned on having the 

settlers relocate (as most of the land was Japanese government-owned and being used by 

the U.S. Navy, which had no immediate plans of returning). He also asked about the large 

discrepancy in the figure of more than 7,000 people who supposedly wished to return to 

the islands when some 80 percent had been there to build fortifications from 1940 or so on, 

and did not represent the 20 percent who were traditional resident farmers and fishermen. 

Okazaki promised to get back to Murphy with the answers.
242

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Okazaki did so on 22 September, with a two-page memo entitled, “Memorandum on 

the Repatriation Plan of the Japanese to the Bonin Islands.”31 In it, he answered each of the 

questions and offered an overview of a plan being considered to repatriate the islanders. He 

explained that 5,000 of 7,711 residents as of 1944 desired to return, the remainder having 

already established themselves in Honshu with no desire to return. Of the 5,000 residents, 

according to Okazaki’s plan, 2,000 would return to the islands as soon as permitted and 

the remaining 3,000 would go once the first group had “settled down and [was] ready to 

accept them.”32 Reemphasizing at the end of the memo that the Japanese government was 

prepared to extend assistance, financial or otherwise, to the resettlement of the islanders, 

Okazaki requested that “in view of the fact that the economic life of the resident Japanese 

in the Bonin Islands will depend much upon that of Honshu as it was in the past . . . traffic 

and economic intercourse between Honshu and the Bonin Islands be permitted as much as 

possible and so long as the military and security reasons permit.”33

This was not the only plan Okazaki submitted. In late June 1952, he wrote to Ambassador 

Murphy explaining that the Foreign Ministry had forwarded a petition on 5 March from the 

League of Bonin Evacuees to SCAP requesting favorable consideration of their petition, but 

“no reply has . . . been given us.”34 In this note, which prompted the meeting between him 

and Murphy, Okazaki suggests that if “mass repatriation” was difficult because of housing 

and other subsistence issues, then “their ardent desire” could be achieved on a gradual basis, 

conditioned on U.S. security interests and so as not to be “burdensome” to the United States.35

Sometime around the time of the receipt of this memorandum and the trip to the Bonins, Murphy was forced to relay an unpleasant message—the decision, probably by Radford 

in his desire to maintain the status quo, to not permit the two Japanese representatives to 

go to the Bonins. It is unclear when exactly Murphy relayed this, and how and when the 

decision was made, but it no doubt came as a shock to the Japanese side. During the summer, the Japanese government, through the efforts of Okazaki and Ambassador Araki, had 

been raising the Bonin question, along with those of Amami and Okinawa, and had been 

led to believe that things were moving forward with the Bonins and that a resolution to the 

problem of repatriation was near.36 It was a particularly big disappointment for the league. 

“As a result of this abrupt cancellation,” league member Kikuchi wrote, “a second chance to 

go home was lost,” the first being at the time the peace treaty went into effect.37 The Navy 

had won its second battle.

Prior to departing for his inspection tour, Murphy said he had felt that Radford and the 

Navy were starting to accept the State Department’s views on the issue of returning the 

islands to Japan.38 “Instead,” Murphy told his State Department colleague in an “eyes only” 

message, “I found Radford sympathetic but adamant in his determination to maintain the 

status quo.”39 Interestingly, writing of the visit, Radford said, “Bob was convinced that I was 

right after our visit, and he cooperated with me thereafter in my efforts to hold on to the 

islands.”40 Murphy confirmed this in his memoirs written a decade later: “My investigation 

convinced me that Radford’s views were right.”41 The Navy won its third battle.

Murphy departed for Iwo Jima by plane on 2 October with John J. Conroy, first secretary at the embassy, naval attaché Captain Ethelbert Watts, and Colonel Walter R. Hensey 

Jr., the assistant G-5 (civil affairs) chief of staff from the Far Eastern Command. The next 
243

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

day, they were joined by Admiral Radford and members of his staff and Commander, Naval 

Forces, Marianas Rear Admiral Ernest W. Litch.42 One day later, the group departed Iwo 

Jima on board the USS Toledo (CA 133) for the 150-nautical-mile trip northeastward to 

Chichi Jima, anchoring in Futami Port that afternoon.43 Already in Futami Harbor were 

the submarine tender USS Sperry (AS 12),44 submarines Cabezon (SS 334)45 and Sea Devil

(SS 400),46 and LST 611, which had participated in the September 1950 Inchon landings, 

as well as those in Leyte and Mindoro in October and December 1944, respectively. On the 

morning of the 4th, Radford, now on his second visit, escorted his guests ashore.

The visitors were met by Roderick Webb, president of the Bonin Islands Council, and its 

other members, Jerry Savory, Grover Gilley, Frank Gonzales, Wilson Savory, and Richard 

Washington.47 They then departed in jeeps, visiting the former Japanese naval station, the 

new housing project for Navy dependents, the military government headquarters area, the 

gun emplacements, the copper-lined vaults located in the village of Kiyose (used later to 

store nuclear weapons), the old Japanese seaplane hangar, the underground POL (petroleum, oil, and lubricant) storage tanks, and a few other sites, such as the Westerners’ cemetery. In the afternoon, they traveled by helicopter to see Susaki airstrip and Haha Jima.48

A photograph of the inspection tour—Murphy surrounded by seven naval officers that 

shows inside of one of the copper-lined vaults—seems to capture Navy efforts to convince 

Murphy, and thus the State Department about the need to retain the islands.49 Murphy 

came to better appreciate that Navy planning and development of Chichi Jima had progressed quite a bit and recognized that “as far as I am able to ascertain, Chichi Jima provides 

[an] ideal submarine and naval base with super natural harbor,” in addition to the gun emplacements and other facilities Japan had built during the war.50 Murphy was less impressed 

with Haha Jima, mentioning that there was “little or no naval interest and the several tiny 

islands represent no practical importance.”51 Nevertheless, he felt that the Navy’s views of 

the “strategic situation and present danger together with its idea of its own responsibilities 

and needs are difficult to dispute” and thus came around to endorsing the Navy position. 

He suggested that the State Department pursue a compromise with Japan along the lines 

of a leasehold arrangement and compensation to the former residents.52

Murphy traveled with Radford on board the Toledo to Tokyo, which allowed the two 

to discuss in greater detail the disposition of the islands. Murphy, in reporting to the State 

Department, mentioned that they explored a number of possible alternatives in the event 

that the JCS did not budge on the issue. One was a bilateral arrangement for a “form of 

leasehold along the lines of wartime agreement[s] covering bases at places like Bermuda, 

Trinidad, or Argentia.”53

The leasehold arrangement was explored more when Murphy and Radford met with 

Okazaki upon their return to Tokyo. Prefacing his remarks by saying the idea was “a personal and unofficial thought,” Murphy suggested to Okazaki that negotiations over continued use of the islands could be undertaken in exchange for leasing 18 frigates and 50 

LSSLs (landing ship support, large) to the Japanese government, part of the military buildup that Japan was expected to do.54 Murphy emphasized that the State Department had 

not authorized him to make the suggestion. Okazaki seemed to understand, Murphy noted, 

and said it was worth careful study.
244

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Okazaki was still probably trying to recover from the exchange he and Radford had 

just had. Okazaki explained the Japanese position, including the feeling that the Navy’s 

policy of allowing islanders of American and European descent to return but not the former Japanese islanders was one of “racial discrimination.”55 Radford “vehemently” denied 

this, but his reply that 25 percent of the residents were being allowed to marry Japanese 

nationals and bring them back to the island greatly missed the mark. He stated that the 

policy is in place as a “strategic necessity, which [your] government should understand as 

it had removed [the] civilian population for the same reason in 1944.”56 Murphy observed 

that Okazaki was “most disappointed” over the Navy’s attitude.57 In his report to Washington, Murphy prophetically warned that while there was “only mild public interest” shown 

with regard to the Bonins or even the Ryukyus “at the moment,” it could easily grow if the 

Japanese government “saw fit to stimulate it.”58 While the government saw no “large scale 

agitation . . . on the horizon,” he admitted that it is “always hard to assess [the] size to which 

a political issue of this type might be blown” up.

While it would not blow up per se, it did have the potential to become a very tense issue 

in the relationship, and it did over the next decade before a settlement along the lines of 

compensation of the former residents would be finalized. But even then, no one was satisfied. In any case, the repeated petitions by the league and pressure by the Japanese government on this question clearly suggested that the U.S. government needed to devise a clearer 

policy with regard to the Article 3 islands under American administrative control. If it did 

not, distrust in the United States in this critical post-treaty period would likely grow.

Clarifying U.S. Post-Treaty Policy on Retaining Control

of the Islands

That fall, Washington was preoccupied with the presidential election of 1952, but by early 

the next year, both State and Defense Departments were ready to take up the issue of the 

Article 3 islands again. In particular, the State Department raised the issue and proposed a 

compromise to the internal debate on returning the islands. The compromise was part of an 

intricate formula by which the Amami Islands would be returned, but the status quo would 

be maintained for the Bonins and Ryukyus, while a more flexible civilian administration 

would be explored for Okinawa.

Although both departments had been examining the question of the islands’ disposition 

in the spring and summer of 1952, it was not until September that representatives of the 

State-Defense working group met to discuss the issue again. In the meantime, both had 

been considering the issue as the document NSC 125, “Interim Policy with Respect to Japan,” which included a section on the islands, was being circulated within the government. 

The State Department was concerned with the Defense Department’s efforts to seek the deletion of references to an agreement with the Japanese government regarding the disposition 

of Okinawa and the Bonins, and limiting any statement to simply state the intention of the 

United States to retain bases on a long-term basis.59 Eventually, a compromise was reached 

in the wording to the related paragraph appearing in NSC 125/1. Completed on 17 July, it 

stated in part in section 2 (d): “The United States security interests will require long-term 

retention of bases in the Ryukyu and Bonin Islands in view of the eventual possibility that 
245

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

future Japanese governments may severely restrict or exclude United States use of military 

facilities in Japan proper.”60 As part of the courses of action, paragraph 7 (b) 1 stated that the 

long-term military requirements relating to the Article 3 islands would be sought based on 

recommendations to the president from State and Defense. After some unrelated amendments, NSC 125/1 was approved by President Harry S. Truman on 7 August as NSC 125/2, 

“United States Objectives and Courses of Action with Respect to Japan.”61

The following week, Chairman Omar N. Bradley of the JCS informed Secretary of 

Defense Robert A. Lovett that there “should be no change in the status quo of the islands 

in question until such time as the politico-military situation in the Far East becomes stabilized in a way favorable to United States security interests.”62 The JCS, Bradley noted, 

believed that a “firm, early decision . . . is necessary.” Further, he recommended that their 

position be conveyed to Secretary of State Dean G. Acheson and that he be told the Department of Defense would be willing to provide representatives to a State-Defense working group on the issue.

Deputy Secretary of Defense William C. Foster forwarded the JCS memo to Acheson 

and explained he “fully concur[red] in the view of the JCS that there should be no change 

in the status quo” and mentioned his willingness to appoint people to a joint working 

group.63 Acheson responded two weeks later, naming the State representatives and suggesting that a meeting be arranged as soon as Defense representatives were decided.64 In fact, 

it was Defense that had been ready and wanting to meet since at least the week before, but 

there apparently was a mix-up within State about who was representing the department.65

In fact, State was confused about more than just who was to represent it. There was 

uncertainty about how to approach the talks—what the department “wants to do about 

the Defense position,” as Kenneth B. Young, who had become director of the Office of 

Northeast Asian Affairs in March 1952, wrote in a memo to his predecessor, John M. Allison.66 Young and Charles C. Stelle of the Policy Planning Staff, who would both represent 

State, felt that the courses of action proposed by the JCS in its staff study (submitted on 

15 August to Foster) was “inadequate and unresponsive,” in that it provided only a cursory 

analysis of base requirements, misquoted State Department views on possible courses of 

actions, and eliminated them “all too briefly and even flippantly.”67

In the end, the working group did meet on 12 September, and on and off through the 

fall. In the September 22 joint meeting Defense representatives spoke in some detail about 

the Bonins in response to questions the State Department had asked in written form.

Defense representatives, which included Captain Joseph F. Enright,68 a Navy submariner famous for sinking the Imperial Japanese Navy aircraft carrier Shinano on its maiden 

voyage on 29 November 1944, explained that continued political control was necessary 

to effectively use the islands militarily and argued that there should be no change in their 

present status. As far as military requirements went, in addition to the submarine base, they 

pointed out that “various covert operations69 are now centered on the Bonin Islands” and 

that it was important to deny the islands to others: “Some of the islands—for example, 

Okino Torishima—are not worth much directly but in unfriendly hands would jeopardize 

the line of communications. In addition they may be useful for staging areas and to increase 
246

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

the element of deception in certain military and naval operations.”70 For the Defense Department representatives, security problems would increase if Japan was once again in control of the islands. In addition, they argued thatif they were under Japanese administrative 

control, it would likely become more difficult and time-consuming to get agreement when 

building new facilities there.71

Over the course of the talks, however, State Department representatives increasingly 

found over the course of the talks the Defense Department’s position “an inflexible presentation of the JCS viewpoint,” and stated that they believed the “question carries sufficient political importance to warrant its being presented to the president.”72 With regard 

to the Bonin Islands, Young informed Allison that, while there is a question about them 

because of the presence of a submarine base, the State Department’s position should be to 

recommend to the president their return. “In any event,” Young emphasized, “we should 

insist upon permission for the Bonin Islanders to return.”73 This became one piece of the 

compromise puzzle within the U.S. government that would be worked out later that year 

for the Article 3 islands.

Allison did precisely this in a memorandum dated 18 March 1953 for the new secretary of state, his former boss during the Japanese peace treaty negotiations, John Foster 

Dulles.74 Allison informed Dulles that the NSC policy paper on Japan, approved by President Truman on 7 August 1952, had left the disposition of the islands unresolved and that 

“extensive staff discussions” saw no change in the Defense position that “retention of all of 

these islands in their present status is essential to United States strategic interests.”75 Allison, as part of his explanation to Dulles, argued that, with regard to the Bonin Islands, 

the “case for the strategic necessity for their retention is weaker than for Okinawa” and 

recommended that the islands should be returned to Japan or that arrangements be made to 

allow the repatriation of those inhabitants who wanted to return. Allison requested Dulles’ 

authorization to develop a paper for presentation to the Department of Defense or to the 

National Security Council, making specific recommendations for the disposition of the 

islands. Dulles immediately granted it.76 Allison and his staff began refining their study.

Two weeks later on 3 April, Allison and Dulles met with Nash to discuss a number of 

issues in the U.S.-Japan relationship that concerned both the State and Defense Departments. On the question of the Bonins and Ryukyus, the secretary “went down the line for 

us,” Young informed Murphy in a “top secret” letter to him dated 8 April.77 Young meant 

that Dulles had argued for the “necessity of doing something other than maintaining the 

status quo,” which is the position Young and Allison had been urging for some time.78 Interestingly, Nash volunteered the information in a personal view, which Young requested 

Murphy not mention to anyone: the Bonin Islanders could be repatriated (and the Amami 

group returned to Japan) if the State Department agreed to retaining jurisdiction over Okinawa and the islands south of the Amami group. An understanding was reached, however, 

that the question would not be decided by the NSC until after Allison and Nash had the 

opportunity to speak with Admiral Radford in Honolulu in May.79

Allison and the State Department would continue to study the issue80 and prepare the 

paper on it to be taken up by the NSC in June. In the meantime, however, Admiral Radford 

essentially closed the door to any changes in the status quo with regard to the Bonins at the 
247

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

Honolulu conference held between 11 and 14 May. At that time,an unofficial agreement 

was reached to maintain the Bonins current status “during the present unstable security 

situation in the Pacific,” as well as to retain the policy of closing the islands to “further 

colonization, as established by the State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee in 1945,” i.e., 

not permitting the return of the evacuees.81

The agreement did not have the official support of the State Department, but was one of 

five “agreement papers” worked out by the attendees, who included participants from State, 

Defense, Interior, and the Navy Departments. Navy officials represented the CNO, CINCPACFLT, COMNAVFE, and COMNAVMARIANAS (Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, 

Marianas).82 Allison, who had been appointed ambassador to Japan that spring but had yet 

to actually arrive in Japan, represented State.83 He was outgunned in Hawaii, it seems, and 

the Navy won yet another engagement. One hundred years to the day of Commodore Matthew C. Perry’s visit to Peel Island (Chichi Jima), the United States finally decided that it 

was going to stay for some time.

It is unclear why Allison cooperated at this point with the Navy’s position. He may 

have had his eyes on his next assignment and was not ready to make a decision that would 

have to be implemented by his successor as assistant secretary, Walter S. Robertson. A mere 

10 days after the Hawaii conference, Allison arrived in Tokyo on 23 May to assume the 

ambassadorship.84 His agreement to not permit the return of the evacuees was obviously 

not “consistent” with the position Secretary of State Dulles had approved on 18 March, a 

fact Dulles was reminded of in a memo prepared after the Honolulu conference at the end 

of May.85 Nevertheless, Assistant Secretary of State Robertson reported to Dulles that his 

office “concur[red]” with Allison’s approach taken in Hawaii.86 The immediate reasons for 

this were provided in Robertson’s memorandum forwarded to Dulles on 2 June:

In view of the strategic factors and the fact that the political status of these islands 

generates somewhat less political heat in Japan than the Ryukyus, it is desirable for 

the United States to retain political control. Since the return of the Bonin Islanders 

while the islands are under United States control would create administrative and 

security difficulties, it is preferable to refuse to permit repatriation of the islanders 

for the present.87

The arguments used to justify the decision are debatable, particularly in light of the fact 

that Nash had admitted the return of the islanders was possible. (Radford, of course, continued to oppose it.) What is clear, however, is that the issue had become much larger than 

that of simply the disposition of the Bonin Islands, or of the repatriation of the islanders. It 

had to do with the future of U.S. policy with regard to all three groups of Japanese islands 

under U.S. administration—the Bonins, Amami, and the Ryukyus. The State Department, 

looking at the issue from a politico-diplomatic perspective, was asking itself: what would be 

best for the United States, U.S.-Japan relations, and the islanders under U.S. administration 

or denied entry? What was the balance?

It appears that the department’s rather abrupt policy shift with regard to the Bonin 

Islands was based on these larger considerations and was twofold in nature. First, it saw a 

resolution to the Amami issue, with its 219,000 inhabitants unnecessarily separated from 
248

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

mainland Japan, as the more pressing issue, and one that Japan was pushing more. By agreeing to the status quo of the Bonin Islands and the strategically vital Ryukyus south of the 

Amami group, the State Department could resolve a larger humanitarian and politically 

troublesome issue. Second, it hoped to see the administration of the Ryukyus improved, 

particularly with regard to local autonomy and land acquisition, as well as allowing the 

Japanese government an increasing role in the governance of the islands, and called upon 

the Defense Department to do so. Agreeing to military demands with regard to the Bonin 

Islands would help its case for the Ryukyus. In short, the State Department had shifted 

emphasis from the Bonins to the more problematic Amami and the Ryukyu Islands. This 

can be described as a tactical move; the department was not giving up on finding a solution 

for the Bonins altogether.

The decision on the Bonins was officially made in the National Security Council meeting held on 25 June, based on a report prepared by the NSC Planning Board, which recommended that the council agree to “maintain the degree of control and authority now 

exercised, pursuant to Article 3 of the Peace Treaty with Japan, over all islands mentioned 

in Article 3, until conditions of peace and stability prevail in the Far East.” This approach 

was adopted at the 25 June meeting with Admiral Fechteler88 and the new Director of 

Central Intelligence, Allen W. Dulles, in addition to Secretary of State Dulles and Secretary of Defense Wilson, among a dozen others present.89 President Eisenhower, who had 

stopped in Iwo Jima because of serious engine trouble with his plane on the way to his 

promised inspection of the Korean battlefront several weeks after his election in November 

1952, had personally experienced one of the reasons for Iwo’s strategic importance—its 

airfield.90 Although he would favor returning the Amami Islands, as he witnessed during 

other occupations how residents would come to “hate our soldiers,” felt “with regard to our 

‘fortress positions,’ or main bases, such as Wake, Okinawa, and Iwo Jima, that was a different story.”91

The return of the Amami Islands to Japan would be at an appropriate time in the future.92 This decision was announced on 8 August, when Dulles visited Tokyo after meetings 

in South Korea. The Amami Islands were returned to Japan on 25 December 1953, making 

it a “Christmas present” of sorts, after military, financial, and other arrangements were concluded.93 At the time of Amami’s reversion, the United States also made a public statement 

announcing it would continue to “exercise its present powers and rights” in the other islands 

specified in Article 3 of the Peace Treaty “so long as conditions of threat and tension exist” in the region, for it “would be an abdication of responsibility to the common effort of 

these free nations, including Japan, for the United States to adopt any other course set out, 

since the remaining Ryukyuan and other islands specified in Article [3] of the Peace Treaty 

constitute an essential link in the strategic defense of the whole Pacific area.”94

While the decision to return the Amami Islands was appreciated by the Japanese government, there was still great disappointment that Okinawa and the Bonins were not being 

returned. When Allison informed Dulles of Okazaki’s comment that he “guess[ed] it could 

not be helped” that the other islands were not returned, and stated that it “was better to live 

in poverty and be independent than be prosperous and be under foreign rule,” Dulles exploded.95 “The Japanese are constantly asking more and more from the U.S.,” Dulles wrote, 
249

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

“without feeling any obligation themselves to do what is necessary to promote security in 

Asia.”96 In writing this, Dulles set the conditions for Japan by which Okinawa and the 

Bonin Islands were to be returned.

It would be a long time, however, before those conditions were met by Japan. In the 

interim, the issue of the reversion of both groups of islands, as well the repatriation of the 

islanders to the Bonins, would continue to plague the relationship.

Japanese Efforts

Okazaki was not the only one disappointed in the failure to see the islands returned at this 

point. There were Many of the evacuees and their supporters, as well as those in the Diet, 

were unhappy, too. At the same time, the decision to return Amami gave them hope that 

their islands could be returned, or at least their repatriation to the islands would be permitted. Amid the disappointment, the Japanese government, the islanders, and their supporters 

would have to find a way to see their demands met.

One such person was Fukuda Tokuyasu, who had begun to take up the cause of the 

evacuees and had sought the participation of Japanese representatives on the trip. Many 

evacuees, including league Chairman Yokota, lived in his electoral district of Tachikawa 

City and approached him sometime after the Peace Treaty.97 This would begin a long and 

deep association, giving Fukuda the name “Father of Ogasawara’s Reversion (Ogasawara 

Henkan no Chichi)” in later years and seeing a statue raised in his honor after reversion.

Fukuda had been in the Foreign Ministry prior to running for the Diet in the 24th lower 

house elections held in October 1949 that saw many former bureaucrats enter politics under 

Yoshida’s tutelage. Fukuda enjoyed the confidence of Yoshida and had been his secretary 

(shusho shuseki hishokan) in May 1946 when he was seconded there from the ministry.98 He 

used his influence in the political world and bureaucracy, as well as his diplomatic background, to pursue their cause, arguing that the “Bonins’ problem is a problem for the islanders, but it is also a problem for the people of Japan, too.”99 Symbolic of this, Fukuda and the 

league sent a petition to Secretary of State Dulles on 8 August urging him to permit the 

return of the islands.100 This was the second petition to Dulles in his capacity as secretary, 

the first was on 20 February 1953. There had been an even earlier one on 5 December 1952, 

after the November presidential elections, but before Dulles became secretary of state.101

The August petition, timed with Dulles’ visit to Japan, came a few days after the Diet’s 

House of Representatives had unanimously passed a resolution proposed by Utsunomiya 

Tokuma of the ruling Liberal Party and some 89 other members of the lower house calling for the government to take measures for the repatriation of the islanders, as “we can no 

longer sit idle looking on their difficulties.”102 The league called on Dulles to “take steps to 

rescue the Bonin evacuees from the present difficult situation” as the “national polity of the 

United States, laying stress on fairness, freedom, and humanity, is known to the world.”103

Unfortunately, by this point, the U.S. decision to retain the islands had been already made.

The resolution introduced by Utsunomiya was not the first one on the territorial issue. 

Prior to the Peace Treaty being finalized in June 1951, Uehara Etsujiro, a veteran lawmaker 

and former academic who had studied at Washington State University and in London, and 
250

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

18 others sponsored a resolution calling on the Allies to respect the desires of Japan when 

deciding on the territorial clauses in the peace settlement.104

A second resolution was passed about nine months later when the treaty went into 

effect. This one, sponsored by the president of the lower house, Hayashi Joji, stated that, 

among other things, the Japanese government would pursue a fair resolution of the territorial issues.105

The third resolution was passed on 31 July 1952, in the lower house, and was named 

the “Resolution on Territory.” Promoted by Tokonami Tokuji from Kagoshima Prefecture, 

where the Amami Islands are located, the resolution had 20 other cosponsors and, among 

numerous issues, called “first for the return of the former inhabitants [to the Bonin Islands] 

and then for the early and expansive involvement of the Japanese government in the fields 

of education, industry, family registrations, and other areas.”106

The next resolution dealing directly with Bonins was put forth a year later on 7 July 

1953, and although they had not been immediately successful, this did not stop the league 

and its supporters from further pursuing the issue, which they did on four fronts—by 

continuing to send petitions, by having the Diet raise the issue, by pushing the Japanese 

government to deal with the issue, and when all the above failed, by meeting directly with 

U.S. officials.

On 24 September 1953, for example, the league sent a petition, its 39th to date (according to its own records), to Radford’s successor as Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet, 

Admiral Felix B. Stump, in light of the new resolution, which was enclosed, and the new 

announcement by Dulles.107 The tone of this petition was somewhat stronger than those in 

the past:

We feel it most deplorable that the United States continues to disregard the natural 

desire of the Bonin evacuees for returning home and to shackle their efforts for securing the freedom of movements, despite the fact that the question of repatriation 

of Bonin evacuees, it is considered, can be solved adequately without giving any 

inconvenience to the United States strategically and that the unfortunate evacuees 

have waiting [sic] nine years after their evacuation from the native place for the 

adoption of generous steps by the United States in respect to their question.108

The 21 July letter to Stump, interestingly, had included the latest data on the situation of 

the islanders, updating the previous study done in 1950. Whereas the 1950 results showed a 

dramatic worsening of their situation, as compared to 1944 when they were first evacuated, 

the May 1953 survey (see figure 9) confirmed that it had become drastic: the number of 

those well-off had declined to a few households, and those struggling numbered more than 

1,000 families. The petition also referenced a story in the Yomiuri Shimbun on 17 May 1953, 

which reported that 147 of the evacuees had died due to the stress and other problems related to being separated from their homes and another 18 died from family suicides.109

Turning their attention next to the Diet, the league worked with parliamentary members to have a resolution submitted at the time of the deliberations on the bills concerning 

the return of the Amami Islands. Entitled “Okinawa Oyobi Ogasawara Shoto ni Kansuru 
251

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

Ketsugian (Resolution concerning Okinawa and the Ogasawara Islands),” the resolution, 

which passed on 7 November 1953, had been officially introduced by Sato Eisaku, who 

later was prime minister when the Bonins and Okinawa were returned.

It is not clear to what extent the earlier petitions and the Diet resolution had a role, but 

on 12 November, Counselor of Embassy Samuel D. Berger responded on behalf of Dulles 

to a 10 September letter from Fukuda in which he told Fukuda that the issue was under 

“careful study and consideration” within the U.S. government and that it was the “earnest 

hope” of the secretary that a “practical solution” might be found in the near future.110 Dulles’ 

letter was subsequently introduced in the Diet in February 1954, when the Bonins problem 

was taken up in the Foreign Affairs Committee of the lower house in great detail.111

In the meantime, Prime Minister Yoshida made a statement in the Diet on 27 January 

1954 that his government would do its best to persuade the United States to return Okinawa and the other islands to Japan.112 U.S. officials in Washington immediately told the 

press they saw no possibility that they would be returned soon, but emphasized that it did 

not mean that the U.S. intended to hold them forever.

The next month on 10 February, beginning at 1030, recessing for 90 minutes at noon, 

and continuing on until a couple of minutes before 1700, the Foreign Affairs Committee 

met for five hours to discuss the Bonins problem. Attending the meeting as witnesses were 

Yokota and Fujita from the league, and Deputy Mayor Haru Hikoichi from the Tokyo 

Metropolitan Government. Following the questioning of Haru as to the lack of support 

that the Tokyo government had given to the islanders over the past decade, Fukuda had 

Yokota and Fujita provide an introduction of the situation that the islanders had found 

themselves in and an explanation of their desires to return to the Bonins and of their willingness to work with the government and the United States for a practical solution.113

The Bonins were discussed again, this time briefly, two weeks later in the Foreign Affairs 

Committee on 24 February. In a published news story the day before, Secretary of the Navy 

Robert B. Anderson mentioned the ultimate intention of the United States to return the 

Ryukyus and Bonin Islands to Japan in a letter to Nakayoshi Ryoko of the Association for 

Reunion of the Okinawan Islands with Japan (Okinawa Shoto Nihon Fukki Kiseikai).114 In 

testimony by a government witness, the Parliamentary Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs 

Kodaki Akira expressed his happiness with the story, introduced by Fukuda, and mentioned 

that Foreign Minister Okazaki would be raising it in his next meeting with Ambassador 

Allison scheduled for the following week.115 Kodaki, who later served briefly as the director 

general of the defense agency in the Ishibashi Tanzan and Kishi Nobusuke cabinets in early 

1957, added that the embassy in Washington would also be taking up the issue.

The two-pronged strategy of the league and its supporters in government developed 

over the next couple of weeks. While it is uncertain if the issue was taken up at the subsequent Okazaki-Allison meeting,116 it is clear that the issue was raised both in Tokyo and 

Washington, and that the U.S. embassy in Tokyo and the State Department were watching the debate in Japan, as well. The embassy, for example, followed the deliberations and 

expressed doubts to the State Department about the policy’s status. Jeff Graham Parsons, 

who was in the process of succeeding Berger as embassy counselor, wrote to Robert J. G. 
252

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

McClurkin, the deputy director of Northeast Asian Affairs, asking where the policy of allowing the islanders to return stood.117 The State Department, after observing the discussions in the Diet and the comments by Parliamentary Vice Foreign Minister Kodaki, noted 

that “the exploitation of Mr. Anderson’s letter is but the latest in an organized attempt to 

maintain pressure on the Japanese and U.S. governments for the return of the islands.”118 If 

this view is true, then the next attempts were made in early March.

On the evening of 5 March, Japan time, Fukuda and Omori Hachiro of the Foreign 

Ministry’s planning division (Keikakuka) invited Counselor of Embassy Berger119 to dinner 

where Yokota Tatsuo and Fujita Hozen of the league were waiting. Exactly two years had 

passed since the ministry wrote to the diplomatic section of GHQ, requesting sympathetic 

consideration and forwarding a translation of a petition to Prime Minister Yoshida from 

the league. According to Berger’s later account of the meeting, “it was clear that the purpose of the dinner was to talk about the Bonin Islands.”120 Fukuda mentioned that both the 

Communists and rightists were “stirring up anti-Americanism feeling” on the issue of the 

islands, and suggested he was aware of the differences between the views of the State Department, which “favored repatriation,” and the Navy, which opposed.121 Berger explained 

that prospects for the return of the islands were much later in the future and that the issue 

of the return of the islanders was continually being reviewed by the department. A review 

had just been completed, he said, and there were no changes anticipated in the current 

policy.

That same day in Washington, Shima Shigenobu, minister of the Japanese embassy, paid 

a visit in the late afternoon to Young and Frank Hawley of the Division of Northeast Asian 

Affairs. Shima submitted a memo entitled “Points for Consideration”122 concerning the return, “on an experimental basis” of an “initial group of 1,000 [islanders] who, if successfully 

reestablished, would be followed by the remainder of those evacuated from the Islands.”123

Shima stated he understood the problem was difficult but he hoped that for “humanitarian 

reasons” the Navy would permit the return of the islanders on an experimental basis. According to the memo, the Japanese government would pay all costs of transportation and 

repatriation and would be prepared to assist through loans and grants those repatriated 

in reestablishing their homes and businesses. The memo also stated that the government 

would “exercise every precaution to ensure all those chosen would be able-bodied men and 

women, prepared to support themselves by farming and fishing within a short time following their resettlement.”124

Shima also seemed aware of the difference of opinion that existed between the State 

Department and the Navy on this issue, but also the delicate situation that the department 

was in: “[Shima] did not wish to press the request so hard,” the memorandum of conversation noted, “as to get a flat denial and expressed the hope that the Department of State 

would give support to the Japanese aspirations at such time as the matter was taken up with 

the authorities responsible for the administration of the Islands.”125 Young responded that 

they would study the points raised by Shima and asked, if the experimental repatriation 

failed, would the Japanese government undertake the return of the islanders to their present homes, and to what islands, other than Haha Jima, did they intend to relocate. Shima 

responded that the government had not considered the return of the islanders back to their 
253

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

current residences if the experiment failed, but “assumed [it] to be logical for his Government to make such a commitment.”126 With regard to the other islands, Shima, who 

thought Haha Jima alone would be able to support all 3,000 resettled islanders, stated that 

the designation of other islands would depend on the economic capacities of the islands and 

U.S. security considerations.127 Later that evening, however, after examining the proposal, 

Hawley recommended that a review of policy should not be made at this time: “the return 

of former residents of the Bonin Islands . . . is not in accord with current policies.”128

Allison discussed the issue with Secretary of Defense Wilson, who was visiting Japan in 

June, and gave him a memorandum dated 11 June, that took up the issue of repatriation.129

However, little was done with regard to the islands over the coming months and instead, 

several issues came front and center, including the problems relating to the handling of the 

Dai Go Fukuryu Maru (Lucky Dragon No. 5) incident in which the crew of a Japanese tuna 

fishing boat was exposed to radiation from a thermonuclear device test in the Bikini Atoll. 

The U.S.-Japan relationship faced its first serious crisis in the post-peace treaty period. In 

the background of this crisis lay the increasing political instability in Japan as conservatives 

tried to challenge Yoshida’s rule. At the end of May, Murphy, who was the Acting Secretary of State, informed President Eisenhower that the State Department “doubt[ed] that 

Yoshida will remain much longer as Prime Minister.”130 Another issue that year was the 

minister’s planned trip to the United States in June, which was postponed until November 

primarily due to the domestic political situation. Eventually, he visited the United States in 

the first and second week of November, but within a month of his visit was forced to resign 

office. He never returned to the premiership, but remained a force behind the scenes and 

through his “students,” especially Ikeda Hayato and Sato, both prime ministers.

In preparation for Yoshida’s visit, Foreign Minister Okazaki visited Washington in October and had working level talks with Assistant Secretary Robertson on a variety of issues. 

Most prominently compensation as a result of the Fukuryu Maru incident, but the Bonins 

problem also came up.131 Although Yoshida wrote in his memoirs that his trip was “not so 

much to talk with [the Eisenhower administration] with reference to any specific question 

or issues as to explain to them the actual political and economic state of affairs in Japan, 

and so, I hoped, promote better understanding between our two countries,”132 there were at 

least six things that Yoshida wanted to discuss, according to previously submitted discussion papers, and hence the need for the working-level talks.

One such preparatory meeting on 23 October saw Foreign Minister Okazaki take up 

with Assistant Secretary Robertson the issue of a limited return of islanders to the Bonin 

Islands.133 Okazaki had consulted with Radford the day before, saying it would be difficult 

to repatriate the islanders and suggested that compensation for them be explored.134 Another meeting on the 28th, with neither Radford nor Okazaki in attendance, saw Ambassador Iguchi Sadao (March 1954–February 1956) raise the issue again and mention that 

the Japanese government would finance the repatriation so as not to place an economic 

burden on local authorities.135 Robertson promised to “look into the matter and see what 

might be done.” Takeuchi Ryuji, director of the European and American Affairs Bureau of 

the Foreign Ministry and a future ambassador to the United States, asked if the islanders 

could be compensated for their loss of private property, and Iguchi added that the Foreign 
254

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Ministry was looking into the issue to see if a formal claim might be filed, particularly since 

Radford suggested it.136

Between the two meetings, the embassy prepared a two-page memorandum on the issue 

of compensation and repatriation and submitted it to the State Department on 25 October. Handed by Tanaka Hiroto, first secretary of the Japanese embassy, to Richard B. Finn, 

the acting officer in charge of Japanese affairs who had recently returned from Tokyo after 

almost seven years there, it stated that the Japanese government “wishes to reiterate that its 

primary interest is still and will continue to be the repatriation of [the former residents],” but 

requested the U.S. government give “serious consideration” to the demands of the islanders 

for compensation “founded on an established principle of international law, i.e., the inviolability of private property.”137 The memo pointed out that “the private property situated on 

the Bonin Islands is subject to discriminatory treatment when compared with the treatment 

accorded to the private property situated on the Ryukyu Islands, although the legal status of 

the Ryukyu and Bonin Islands is exactly the same, as borne out by the provisions in Article 

3 of the Peace Treaty with Japan,” and explained that the losses suffered by the islanders 

were estimated to total approximately 820 million yen since the treaty went into effect.138 

The second page of the memorandum, recreated here, displayed a concise chart (figure 10) 

computing the losses suffered by the islanders in the areas of agriculture and fishing.

After spending time in New York, where Yoshida spoke before the Council on Foreign 

Relations and was wined and dined by Governor Thomas E. Dewey—the former Republican candidate for president in the 1948 presidential election who had visited Japan in 

1952—and the business community, led by John D. Rockefeller III, the Japanese delegation 

arrived in the capital on 7 November.139 While there, Yoshida met with Dulles, Secretary 

Wilson, and, of course, President Eisenhower, in addition to his close friend, former Ambassador to Japan Joseph C. Grew, whose help he no doubt tried to enlist in the cause.140

Yoshida, in his talks with Secretary of State Dulles on 9 November, also raised the issue 

of compensation for the islanders,141 but no conclusion was reached. The joint statement 

between Yoshida and Eisenhower released on 10 November mentioned that the issue had 

been “reviewed” but it did not say if any agreement had been made.142

By chance, the same day that Yoshida was visiting Washington—the Marine Corps’ 

Birthday—the bronze U.S. Marine Corps War Memorial, sculpted by Felix de Weldon of 

the Iwo Jima flag raising, was unveiled in Arlington. Both Eisenhower and Vice President 

Richard M. Nixon were in attendance. Nixon stated that the

statue symbolizes the hopes and dreams of America, and the real purpose of our 

foreign policy. We realize that to retain freedom for ourselves, we must be concerned when people in other parts of the world may lose theirs. There is no greater 

challenge to statesmanship than to find a way that such sacrifices as this statue 

represents are not necessary in the future, and to build the kind of world in which 

people can be free, in which nations can be independent, and in which people can 

live together in peace and friendship.

Yoshida’s presence in Washington at that time symbolized how far the relationship had 

come, while the monument using the iconic image of the flag raising would show how psy-
255

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

chologically important the island was to Americans and how far the U.S.-Japan relationship would have to go before it would be returned.

For some Japanese, especially Wachi Tsunezo of the newly created Iwo Jima Kyokai

(Association of Iwo Jima), the monument represented an insensitive celebration of the 

U.S. victory on Iwo Jima. Wachi protested it in a letter to the head of the Marine Corps 

War Memorial Foundation, Major General Merritt A. Edson.143 In Japan, members of the 

league were also disappointed, having been convinced that a resolution was near. “It was the 

fourth time we lost the chance to return home,” Kikuchi wrote later.144

This did not mean that Eisenhower and Dulles were unimpressed by the appeals. Both 

had received petitions from the league dated 24 September 1954, on the eve of Yoshida’s 

trip, urging the U.S. government to make his visit “fruitful” by granting the request and 

explaining that the league was “convinced that the United States will be benefited instead 

of being placed at a disadvantage if our desire [to return to the Islands] is granted.”145 In 

the end, it seems that Dulles wanted to feel the Japanese side out before committing to 

anything, particularly with Yoshida’s uncertain political life.

The fact that the State Department was moved by the Japanese appeals can be best 

seen in a memo from Robertson to Dulles in early December 1954. He urged Dulles, who 

Figure 10. Estimated income losses in agriculture and fishing
256

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

viewed the Defense Department as “rabid” on the Bonin Islands question,146 to make clear 

to the Department of Defense once again the importance of returning the former residents 

to the Bonins in America’s relations with Japan. To Robertson, it went beyond a partisan 

issue limited to Yoshida’s government: “I do not consider that Yoshida’s resignation will affect Japan’s interest in the matter.”147 The Bonin issue would continue, in other words, until 

it was resolved.

Dulles’ letter to Secretary Wilson suggested that the State Department still hoped the 

islanders could be repatriated, but if that were not possible then it wanted to explore the 

possibility of compensating them. Dulles told Wilson that, while the compensation issue 

was a “complicated legal one,” he believed it would be one that would continue to “plague 

us” for the legal position in the Bonin Islands was similar to that in the Ryukyus where the 

United States was already compensating owners of private property when their land was 

being used for military purposes.148 Dulles asked for Wilson’s views on the subject and for 

any information the Defense Department had on property holdings in the Bonins. Closing his letter, Dulles stressed that the issue would “continue to be [an] area of friction with 

Japan. . . . I hope that some gesture can be made to alleviate their inability to return, either 

in the form of a token repatriation of a small number of Bonin Islanders or through an informal agreement to consider the compensation issue. These issues are vexatious but in the 

interest of our relations with Japan I believe that they should be explored.”149

In retrospect, it was clear that the department would reject even a “token repatriation” 

as it was against any repatriation at all. Compensation, initially raised by Radford in 1952, 

was a solution of interest and would become a temporary compromise that everyone could 

live with—the league, the Japanese government, the State and Defense Departments. That 

agreement, however, would be several years off.

The embassy did not waste any time considering the issue, particularly in light of the 

start of the new government of Hatoyama Ichiro in December 1954 and the general elections expected to be held the next February—as part of the deal with the opposition parties to name Hatoyama premier. On 7 January 1955, Ambassador Allison wrote to Dulles 

telling him that, while the elections would not be the “last chance” for the conservatives, 

he did believe that “some compensation” for the dispossessed islanders was a question that 

deserved “serious consideration” at this juncture.150 In response, Dulles wrote that “any initiative” on the Bonin Islands should come from the Japanese side and provided a couple 

of responses for the embassy to give.151 If the question of the return of the islanders came 

up, Dulles suggested, then the U.S. position was to state that “U.S. security considerations 

preclude [their return].”152 If the question of compensation arose, the Japanese side, Dulles 

noted, should submit a “formal note giving a detailed legal basis” for the compensation 

claim and explaining how land ownership could be established, after which the United 

States would then examine the question.153 Dulles added that he agreed with Allison’s view 

that the compensation issue deserved serious consideration but it had to be based on a 

“clear exposition” of Japan’s claim.154

Dulles ended the telegram by referring to a conversation between Foreign Minister 

Shigemitsu Mamoru and Admiral Radford, who was touring the Asia-Pacific region in 
257

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

December 1954 and January 1955 and had paid a courtesy call on the foreign minister.155

Shigemitsu raised the issue of the return of the islanders to the Bonins, but did not go into 

detail. The State Department, nevertheless, saw the conversation as significant; it was the 

first time the new Hatoyama government had mentioned it.156 A memo by the Office of Far 

Eastern Affairs for Deputy Secretary of State Herbert C. Hoover Jr. later that month determined that the issue of compensation was so complex that it could not be “readily settled” 

nor would it be possible to reach a settlement by the 27 February general elections.157 In any 

case, it would be up to the Japanese to raise the issue.

Shortly after this exchange within the State Department, the Japanese side did raise it 

again when First Secretary Tanaka of the Japanese embassy took up the issue of the return 

of the islanders with Finn on the Japan desk, and asked if the U.S. government would be 

willing to pay compensation to the islanders if they were not permitted to return to the 

islands.158 Finn responded that repatriation was impossible for security reasons, but if the 

Japanese government prepared a detailed report on the reasons for the request for compensation, the U.S. government would consider it. Finn’s suggestion was acted upon—later 

that year, the Japanese embassy presented a detailed claim for compensation on behalf of 

the islanders. The “to be raised at Japanese initiative” idea would become the mantra for the 

remainder of the year.

On the Japanese side, there was some movement to ease the islanders’ situation when, 

following the testimony of representatives of the evacuees’ league in the Diet in February 

1954, the government decided to provide financial assistance of 17.65 million yen to the 

islanders for the period prior to the peace treaty going into effect, and the Tokyo Metropolitan Government agreed to pay another 35 million yen.159 In 1955, the government paid 

out an extra 100 million yen, but this was to be returned to government coffers if and when 

the U.S. government paid compensation to the islanders.160

As the Japanese side dealt with this issue, and with the effects of movements toward 

political party mergers in Japan, there were no bilateral discussions on the Bonin issue until 

late summer when Foreign Minister Shigemitsu visited Washington. The U.S. side saw his 

visit as a combination of both an “internal political move,” by which he wanted to bolster 

his personal prestige, and a move that would “serve Japanese foreign policy purposes.”161

Although the embassy had been told the trip was to be “general in character [with] no formal agenda [being] necessary,” an agenda was already being prepared.162 As a result, and as 

with all visits, the State Department prepared a series of position papers on the issues that 

were expected to come up during the talks. The question of the Ryukyus and Bonin Islands 

ranked fairly high in the list of a dozen topics.163

The Bonins issue was introduced in a general statement in the first meeting conducted 

on 29 August164 and taken up more fully in the third meeting two days later.165 At the latter session, Shigemitsu presented and read from a paper, “The Ryukyu and Bonin Islands,” 

that called for both island groups to be returned.166 He described the issue as a “problem of 

major importance” and said it was the “ardent hope of the entire Japanese people” that the 

islands be restored to Japan, and reemphasized that “national feeling is very strong” on the 

issue.167 Specifically, Shigemitsu, who also served as deputy prime minister, stated,
258

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

3. With regard to the Bonin Islands where military installations are few, the return 

of administrative rights is very strongly hoped for and will prove an effective 

gesture of good will on the part of the United States. If as an immediate initial 

step, measures could be taken to allow the former inhabitants of these islands 

to return to their original homes, a great stride forward would nevertheless be 

made in improving Japanese-American relations. These islanders are undergoing 

extreme hardship, being obliged to make their livelihood away from their home 

islands. For their relief the Japanese Government, together with the Municipality of Tokyo, paid some 37 million yen in Japanese fiscal year 1954. In Japanese 

fiscal year 1955, the Japanese Government will, in order to comply with a Diet 

Resolution, by itself make disbursements to the extent of 100 million yen for the 

relief of these people. In this connection, we hope that the United States Government will give their sympathetic consideration to the claims which have been 

presented with regard to the losses sustained by the islanders through not having 

been permitted to return to the islands.168

Dulles pointed out that the United States was not willing to give any consideration 

to the status of the Bonins and Ryukyus, but recognized that Japan still retained residual 

sovereignty over them. He added that as the United States was making “large defense expenditures” in those areas, it did not seem to be “in the common interest for their status to 

be agitated.”169 On the issue of the status of the inhabitants of the Bonins, Dulles feigned 

ignorance of their situation and said he preferred not to comment, but he recalled that the 

Department of Defense was opposed to the return of the inhabitants, and that it had “valid 

security concerns.”170 Shigemitsu interjected, incorrectly, “Iwo Jima is the only one that is 

fortified.” Although only one person on the U.S. side, Murphy, had actually been to the islands, every one of the 11 American participants in the meeting knew there was more there 

but probably decided it was better not to inform the Japanese side. The meeting concluded 

with Dulles and Shigemitsu reviewing the joint statement to be released at the end of the 

visit. Unlike the original draft joint statement, which included a reference to the islands, 

the final version did not mention it, probably reflecting Dulles’ desire not to highlight the 

issue any more than necessary.171

Fukuda and the League in America

About five weeks after the foreign minister’s visit, Ambassador Iguchi, having been asked 

by Shigemitsu to follow up on his conversation with Dulles, paid a call on Robertson 

and Finn on 7 October to discuss several issues, including the repatriation of the islanders.172 Iguchi told Robertson that a “Diet representative familiar with this problem” would 

be arriving shortly in Washington to discuss the issue.173 Iguchi recognized that security 

concerns existed and that the issue was complex. Robertson agreed, but informed him that 

the matter was under “active consideration” with the Department of Defense and that they 

hoped to give the foreign minister an early answer.174

The reference to a Diet member concerned the trip to Washington by Fukuda Tokuyasu, 

who in addition to being a member of the lower house was the deputy secretary general of 
259

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

the Liberal Party and an advisor to the league of evacuees. Robertson was already aware of 

the visit, as he had just sent a response to Fukuda, who requested a meeting with Dulles 

to seek “favorable consideration” for the evacuees.175 A former Foreign Ministry official, 

Fukuda was a believer in bipartisan diplomacy.176 One of his strongest concerns was the 

Bonins problem. In fact, he was so involved in the problem, he wrote in his memoirs, that 

people asked him if he was from the islands.177 Fukuda’s trip focused exclusively on the 

Bonins issue, and he brought with him Yokota and Fujita from the league and Ishii Michinori, director of the Southern Islands Liaison Bureau of the prime minister’s office.

Fukuda’s delegation departed Haneda Airport in Tokyo on 15 October, and stopped 

first in Hawaii, where they met with Japanese Consul General Kaneyama Masahide to arrange an appointment with Admiral Felix B. Stump, the commander in chief of the Pacific 

Command, for the return trip.178 The next day, they flew on to the mainland and arrived 

in Washington, DC, on the 17th. On the morning of 19th, the group, along with Tanaka 

and Attaché Masuda Hiroshi of the embassy, presented a petition at the State Department, 

with attendance by members of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs and Commander L. 

G. Findley of the Chief of Naval Operations office, among others, and explained the purpose of their visit.179 The petition stated the background to their situation and proposed a 

limited repatriation of 2,000 people to Haha Jima.180 Yokota read the document; Fukuda, 

using his status as a politician, spoke for the group.

The next day, 20 October, the group met with Assistant Secretary Robertson and Richard M. Herndon of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs. In addition to the four members 

of Fukuda’s group, Minister Shima and several embassy officials attended.181 Fukuda spoke 

not at all of compensation, instead focusing entirely on the issue of repatriation. The 7,000 

evacuees had been waiting patiently in their “enforced exile” while sensing there was “outright racial discrimination” involved in not letting them return to the islands while granting 

permission to the 135 former residents of Caucasian descent. The Communists, Fukuda 

warned, were trying to take advantage of the situation and infiltrate the group if the league 

was “unable to show some results after 10 years of efforts.”182 While aware of the security 

concerns, the league failed to understand why they could not return, while in Okinawa 

100 times the population coexisted with the military bases. It was not only a local issue, 

however, but a national one as well. Fukuda cited a Mainichi Shimbun editorial that urged 

something be done for their situation.183

Robertson noted that the State Department had asked the Defense Department to 

review the situation and mentioned that it was the U.S. opinion that the islands had constituted a “prewar Japanese military base, [and] there must have been a considerable number 

of Japanese on the islands in employment connected with the military installations.” This 

essentially echoed the mistaken view of the U.S. military that almost all of the islanders 

were former military contractors. Robertson then went on to describe the Cold War situation in East Asia and made a completely unrelated comment: “A pull-out of our forces 

would result in a Communist take-over.”184 It is unclear in the memorandum of conversation if the Japanese responded at this point, but they should have—they were not asking 

for U.S. forces to pull out of anywhere; they were asking to be allowed to return to their 

homes.
260

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Minister Shima did raise a few points, however, explaining that the Japanese did not 

understand how the United States could interpret Article 3 of the Peace Treaty as applying 

to the issue of repatriation, how the issue of security was a question if 135 islanders had 

already been allowed to return, and why security would be difficult to enforce on a small 

island. As an option, the Japanese official suggested a trial return of islanders to Haha Jima, 

“where it is believed that no military installations exist.”185 Robertson asked again whether 

the 7,000 were there “solely in connection with the Japanese military bases,” and Shima 

explained that this was not the case. “Both the 135 repatriated islanders and the 7,000 in 

Japan were prewar residents apart from those who were temporarily employed in the islands in war-connected work. . . . The evacuees in Japan represented the fourth generation 

of the earliest Japanese settlers.”186 Robertson thanked the delegation for the presentation 

and promised that the repatriation question would be carefully reviewed.

The following day, the delegation held a press conference to raise American public awareness of the plight of the evacuees. Through the Foreign Ministry, a public announcement 

was sent through the consulates in the United States at the beginning of the month,187 the 

media was likely aware of the general nature of the trip, but the press conference provided 

a chance for the delegation to explain their pleas in greater detail. The appeal was released 

to the press by the league president, Yokota.188 Writing about the reaction of the press, Fukuda noted that Stewart Hensley of United Press International described their requests as 

completely justified.189

Over the next few days, Fukuda and the group met with other officials, including former Ambassador Robert Murphy, Assistant Secretary of Defense Gordon Gray, Admiral 

Radford, and Vice Admiral Robert P. Briscoe, the deputy chief of Naval Operations.190 In 

particular, Fukuda followed up with Admiral Briscoe on the issue of repatriation by letters 

and petitions, “appeal[ing] to the wisdom and generosity of the American nation for the 

consideration of this question from a larger point of view, wishing that a new hope will be 

brought to the Bonin Islanders.”191

Fukuda met with State Department officials again on 25 October to discuss the issue 

and other matters. Fukuda, Shima, and other embassy officials stressed the importance of 

the islanders being allowed to return to their homes and questioned whether security considerations were really such an obstacle to repatriation.192 They surmised (incorrectly, as we 

now know) that the opposition to the return “only reflected excessive precautions favored 

by the lower echelons in the Navy,” and that if raised at higher levels, such as that of Admiral Radford, would be overruled.193 Representing the State Department, McClurkin said 

that this was not the case and that security issues had a “valid basis.”194 The embassy officials 

then asked if repatriation were impossible, compensation could be made to the displaced 

islanders. The State Department side said that it would be considered if “formal representations were made” to the United States.195

The next day, 26 October, Ishii accompanied by Second Secretary Nemoto Hiroshi, 

visited Herndon at the department to discuss the issue of compensation, presenting an “informal paper” on a possible claim against the United States on behalf of the islanders and 

three other issues.196 The first concerned granting permission to the Japanese government 

to visit the islands to update its records on the inhabitants and inspect the graves of island-
261

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

ers who had died since 1944. Ishii requested that some evacuees be allowed to participate 

in such a mission. The second concerned permitting the evacuees to share in the proceeds 

of the sale of scrap located on the islands and in territorial waters. The final issue was the 

reestablishment of a land-based whaling station on the islands, which had been profitable 

in the prewar years and which only required people on the island between April and July 

each year.197

After their rounds of meetings in Washington, the group left for San Francisco and 

Hawaii on their return to Japan. While in San Francisco, the delegation met with former 

Commander in Chief, Pacific Fleet and Pacific Ocean Areas, retired Fleet Admiral Chester 

W. Nimitz, who reportedly stated he could not understand why the islanders were being 

prevented from returning.198 Nimitz promised to speak with Secretary of the Navy Charles 

S. Thomas, who was scheduled to visit San Francisco the following week. “It was an unforgettable experience,” Fukuda later wrote, “speaking about the future of U.S.-Japan relations 

[with Nimitz] in San Francisco, famous for its fog.”199

Arriving in Hawaii on Saturday, 4 November, the delegation met with Admiral Stump 

the following morning. He promised to give “favorable consideration” to the requests of the 

delegation and arranged for the group to meet with his staff the following day for followup discussions.200 Fukuda felt “quite happy with this answer, considering the bitter taste of 

negative responses they had usually received to date.”201

Overall, the Diet legislator was satisfied with the trip. He was not expecting a miracle 

when they started out, he wrote, considering their trip was only about one month after 

Shigemitsu’s visit and that the issue of the islands had been removed from the joint statement between the foreign minister and Dulles. He sensed, however, that the U.S. side was 

supportive and wanted to find a solution.202 He also was happy to have corrected some of 

the Americans’ misunderstandings—that most of the evacuees had been military contractors and that the islands were too small to support a population of 7,000 or so.203 The biggest result, however, according to Fukuda, was the willingness of the U.S. side to consider 

a plan to relocate the islanders.204 Shortly after their return to Tokyo, the league began 

drafting a revised plan that accommodated for the return of 2,639 evacuees who desired to 

return to the islands.205

Their efforts were probably given greater impetus when they learned that a few of the 

islanders of Western descent, having heard of the league’s trip, decided to take one of their 

own and, with the assistance (or active planning) of the Navy, lobbied the State Department and others not to allow the evacuees to return.

A New Airing

In Japan, Shigemitsu was scheduled to meet with Ambassador Allison on 15 December to 

review the history of the problem and the desires of the evacuees and to share the league’s 

study.206 The day before, Allison wrote to Robertson to express his support for the latter’s 

21 October letter to Gordon Gray encouraging the Department of Defense to review the 

matter in order to respond to the foreign minister.207 Indeed, he went beyond this simple 

support by arguing that the whole issue needs “an airing” before an “impartial tribune,” such 
262

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

as the Operations Coordinating Board, designed to monitor the implementation of NSC 

presidential decisions. The board was “unusually well adapted for short-circuiting obstructions in the Pentagon” and could deal with the interests of the Central Intelligence Agency 

(CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA), allusions to which was “one of the cleverest of 

the Navy’s stratagems.”208 The ambassador went on to explain his view of the issue:

The basic difficulty is and always has been the rooted determination of the Navy to 

keep foreigners, particularly Japanese, out of the islands they administer. Radford 

has personally been committed to this for years. The Navy simply dug in right after 

the war and has fought tooth and nail ever since to hold the line. This makes me 

suspect that alleged “security” considerations are really rationalizations in defense 

of Navy policy, rather than reasons on which national policy should logically be 

decided. One line of thought which I imagine is present though seldom if ever put 

on paper is: returning residents to former Japanese islands promotes reversionism 

and is therefore an entering wedge for eventual loss of control whereas the islands 

might some day be valuable to us. If so, the argument should be frankly laid on the 

table by the Navy, specifying what they want the islands for and when. Then these 

purposes could be weighed against our other national objectives.209

Allison included an additional letter of the same date that went beyond a simple endorsement of Robertson’s approach and, hoping to avoid yet another “perfunctory exercise 

undertaken in order to tell the Japanese that we have not changed our minds,” challenged 

the way the government approached the issue:

I hope this interchange will give rise to a careful scrutiny of underlying problems 

conducted by a group which is qualified to weight the relative merits of security and 

other considerations. We have tended too often in the past, I think, to adopt a compartmentalized approach which inevitably makes the “security” reasons for excluding 

the Japanese from the Islands seem absolute, whereas if these reasons could be balanced specifically against other pertinent points something in the way of a compromise might turn out to be preferable in light of overall national objectives.210

Allison went on to dissect the arguments used for preventing repatriation and returning 

the islands, arguing that the situation had changed. He was thus very much prepared and 

involved when he met with the foreign minister the following day.

Shigemitsu asked that the United States consider the repatriation of a small number 

of islanders to a limited area on an experimental basis and submitted a note explaining 

the government’s position.211 In addition to the three-page note addressed to the ambassador that called for the islanders to be allowed to return “as soon as possible,” Shigemitsu 

submitted a copy of a document titled “Program of Return of Former Inhabitants to the 

Nanpo Shoto” and a “List of Inhabitants of Nanpo Shoto Whose Return to Their Home 

Islands is Desired,” both of which were prepared by the league. The submission of these 

materials was noted in the press.212

Shigemitsu also met with Secretary of the Navy Thomas, who was visiting Japan, on 20 

December, and requested favorable consideration.213 Thomas, according the Japanese side’s 
263

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

description of the meeting, stated he was familiar with the issue and was working on it. A 

couple of weeks later, when Radford visited Japan as part of his inspection of the region, his 

Japanese hosts repeated the request.214

Fukuda followed up these requests with a letter of his own to Robertson in the new year. 

He repeated the arguments in favor of repatriation, or limited repatriation, either in number or location (suggesting Haha Jima, where no one was living, on an experimental basis). 

He also linked the resolution of the issue to broader U.S.-Japan relations.

Now that I have expressed my personal view on the question of the desired return 

of former inhabitants to the Bonin Islands, I wish to appeal to the wisdom and 

generosity of the American nation for the consideration of this question from a 

larger point of view, wishing that a new hope will be brought to the Bonin Islanders. Serving as Chairman of the United States-Japan Cooperation Committee 

of the Democratic Liberal Party, I participate in the establishment of diplomatic 

policies towards the United States and am making every effort for a settlement of 

the question of the Sunakwa military base which has come to fore recently. The 

question of the Bonin Islanders is also one of the important questions requiring an 

early settlement, and I sincerely hope from the viewpoint of cooperation between 

our two countries that it will be settled as soon as possible.215

Of note, the letter was signed in Fukuda’s capacity as chairman of the committee and 

not in his capacity as advisor to the league. He also sent a letter to former Ambassador 

Murphy, now deputy under secretary of state, and U.S. Navy officials as well.216

Robertson did not need Fukuda’s letter, for he was already clearly moved on the subject 

and in favor of reconsidering the repatriation issue. In a 9 January response to Allison’s 

earlier letters, he wrote,

On the basis of my separate talks in recent months with both the Japanese Bonin 

evacuees and the four-man delegation from Chichi Jima, it was apparent that the 

Japanese found our emphasis on “security” hard to understand, while the presentday residents unabashedly based their opposition to the return of the Japanese 

on understandable arguments of economic self-interest plus the fears of reprisals 

growing out of testimony they gave in war crimes trials. It was clear that the Japanese could not understand why the return of prewar residents who were not of 

Western descent should constitute a security threat when the return of those of 

Western descent did not constitute such a threat. They were frank in stating that 

the difference in treatment seemed to them to be racial discrimination. It was of 

interest talking with Chichi Jima representatives to note from their account of 

daily life in the Bonins that “security” does not seem to inhibit them at all as far as 

their personal lives are concerned.217

In the meantime, as mentioned above, Robertson had written to the Defense Department after his meeting with Fukuda, and the earlier ones with Shigemitsu, on 21 October 

and requested that the Pacific Island Coordinating Group, which had been established in 

May 1953, be convened.218 Although Assistant Secretary Gray wrote in his response of 4 

November that the Defense Department did not recommend any “present change in the 
264

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

situation,” he did agree that any decision or policy could be reviewed at any time and would 

not object to convening such a meeting.219 The participants eventually met on 2 February 

1956, at the State Department, which officially called the meeting, to discuss the repatriation issue, among other matters.220

William J. Sebald, the deputy assistant secretary of state and former political advisor 

in Tokyo under General MacArthur, and Radford, the senior-most Defense Department 

official attended. The fact that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff attended this meeting suggests the importance the military—and Radford personally—placed on the Bonins 

question. Sebald described the decision to allow 129 islanders of Western descent to return, 

but not those of Japanese descent, as a “mistake [because] it discriminated against certain 

Japanese in favor of others. . . . Security is as compelling in Okinawa as in the Bonins, 

but the Japanese can go to Okinawa.”221 Sebald explained that the Japanese memo of 15 

December “present[ed] a good case” for the return of the islanders and that the State Department desired to “get rid of some of these problems” that are continually arising, “Our 

arguments do not convince the Japanese as to why they can’t return to the Bonins.”222

Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Administration) Vice Admiral G. L. Russell interjected that, “Japanese logic is what they want it to be. Their position is weak in regard to 

the Bonins. They were the ones who evacuated the people, not the U.S. The Japanese Peace 

Treaty gives the U.S. every right in the Bonins. The residual sovereignty takes over when 

we leave, not before.”223 Admiral Radford continued by asking if the State Department 

had given any thought to how the islanders who desired to return would be taken care of. 

“I have seen no suggested plan,” the chairman of the JCS stated.224 Radford then pointed 

out that Haha Jima had “no means of supporting that number” and noted that everything 

to restart and support the return of the islanders would have to be brought in and done 

so through Chichi Jima “as Haha Jima has no harbor.”225 Furthermore, the admiral stated 

that, while the peace treaty gave the United States full administrative authority, the Japanese government expected to administer Haha. “Under any arrangement,” he notes, “there 

would be continual problems requiring resolution.”226

Citing the comments made by the group of islanders of Western descent who visited the 

United States in November, Radford explained,

Today we have the nucleus of a group loyal to U.S. interests in the Bonins. I cannot 

see how the group that wants to come in could or would have loyalties other than 

to Japan. Security in the area cannot help but suffer with the addition of an alien 

element in the Bonins. The Bonins have a strategic importance in preserving the 

national security. They will become more important as we withdraw our forces now 

in Japan, under pressure from the Japanese Government, to areas farther back from 

the defense perimeter currently maintained in the Pacific. Under such conditions 

the value of the Bonins would not be enhanced by the presence of a larger number 

of Japanese. Our problems on Okinawa today are much greater because of the 

Japanese than they would be without them. If the Japanese press this problem of 

returning the former residents, they will make a bad situation worse. It is bound to 

cost them more to support these people in the Bonins than in Japan. The Japanese 

should move this group to Hokkaido where there is plenty of room. The problem 
265

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

is a social one rather than a political one. . . . The future in the Pacific for the long 

term indicates we should be strengthening our positions—not weakening it. The 

problems of Japan are not going to be alleviated in any noticeable extent by a concession in the Bonins.227

In response, Sebald asked about compensation for the islanders who wished to return 

but were being denied the right. Radford, who had originally called for compensation in 

1952, strongly agreed that it was a solution to the problem.

The Japanese government was aware that this meeting was scheduled to be held, and 

prior to it, Ambassador Iguchi paid a call on Dulles on 13 January to encourage the United 

States to quickly address Japanese requests228 and to invite Dulles to Japan on his return 

home from the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) conference in Karachi.229

On 4 February, Robertson met with Iguchi and told him of the Defense Department’s 

continued concern with security and its lack of enthusiasm for any changes in the policy.230

On 10 February, Iguchi, in what was a “last appeal” on the issue prior to his return to Tokyo at the end of his term of ambassador, called on Dulles and left a “short paper” on the 

Bonin Islands.231 Iguchi asked that the issue be taken up at the highest level and that, if it 

was not, it would be difficult to resolve the issue. Iguchi did not seem to get a satisfactory 

answer, however.232 Dulles was “non-committal” during the ambassador’s visit, but wrote to 

Robertson about the meeting to say that he “ha[s] the impression that the political advantages of this return [of islanders] override[s] the possible security risk, and I feel we might 

be justified in asking the President to make a decision to this affect.”233 Robertson had the 

staff begin working on a memorandum to the secretary on the issue.234

After Iguchi left Washington, Acting Ambassador Shima called on Sebald on 21 February to explain that the Japanese government intended to take up the matter again when 

Dulles visited Japan (on 18 and 19 March), and that the Japanese side desired a real discussion, not the lip service it always received about security concerns.235 Other officials at 

the embassy in Washington kept the pressure on the State Department by “constantly and 

not too subtly telling us that there are rumors in Japan that the secretary [will] make an 

announcement” when he went to Tokyo, much like he did at the time of the August 1953 

announcement to return the Amami Islands.236

By the 24th, Noel H. Hemmendinger, Charles H. Pletcher, and Herndon of the Division of Northeast Asian Affairs had finished the memorandum under Sebald’s guidance 

and submitted it to Dulles.237 The paper argued that the “vague and speculative security 

advantage to the U.S. does not outweigh the grave political disadvantages from refusing 

without plausible reason to accept the Japanese request [of repatriation] . . . Refusal runs 

seriously counter to the major U.S. objective of securing Japan as an ally.”238 Sebald recommended that Dulles, after consulting with Defense Secretary Wilson, seek a decision 

on the “repatriation on a trial basis of a limited number” of islanders, such as 150 families, 

with consideration to be given later for the additional repatriation of more individuals. If 

necessary, Sebald urged, Dulles should seek the president’s decision, too. If such a decision 

is made, the announcement should be made while Dulles was in Tokyo. In doing so, Dulles 

should make clear that there was no change in the status of U.S. control over the islands.
266

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

The next day, 25 February, the newly arrived ambassador, Tani Masayuki, a veteran diplomat who once served as foreign minister in the Tojo Hideki cabinet, called on the leadership at the State Department, explaining the history of the problem and requesting a 

solution. He was told that the situation did not look promising in the near future due to the 

position of the Defense Department.239 Tani subsequently informed the Foreign Ministry 

that, if the Japanese government raised the compensation issue alongside the repatriation 

problem, it would only weaken their negotiating position. In early March, the Japanese embassy went so far as to urge the ministry to refrain from making an official presentation on 

the compensation claim until after Dulles’ visit in the hope that the U.S. secretary of state 

would make an announcement while in Tokyo, approving “token repatriation.”240

The ministry had not taken a definitive stand on what it wished to do by this point,241

which likely prompted the above recommendations, but it appeared to lean toward emphasizing repatriation over compensation. In answering questions on the Bonins in the 

Diet on 25 February, for example, Asian Bureau Chief Nakagawa distinguished between 

claims for compensation and plans to return the former residents, and he denied that the 

proposed submission of claims meant that repatriation plans were being abandoned.242 To 

U.S. embassy officials, he stated that he realized the issue was “delicate” and that it could 

not be settled during Dulles’ visit, but emphasized the government took the problem “very 

seriously” and would probably raise it with the secretary.243 Moreover, while he denied press 

reports that he had indicated the Japanese government hoped to settle the issue of islanders’ 

return when Secretary Dulles visited Tokyo, he noted that he had said the government, of 

course, would “miss no opportunity” to do so.244

Based on Tani’s 7 March recommendation and earlier suggestions, the Asia Affairs Division, which was assigned the issue of the Article 3 islands among other duties, recommended that the ministry only introduce the compensation issue when it was clear that 

there was no hope for a solution on repatriation.245 As a result, Shigemitsu, who had succeeded Tani as foreign minister in 1943, handed Allison a long memorandum for Secretary 

Dulles, with a section dedicated to the Bonin Islands. Shigemitsu warned that the problem 

is “now assuming a character of a national issue . . . I appeal again most fervently for your 

kind consideration.”246 As a compromise, Shigemitsu proposed limiting the number of returnees and places of resettlement in a way that would be compatible with U.S. strategic 

requirements.

By this point, Dulles had left Washington for the SEATO meeting in Karachi, which 

was held from 6 to 8 March. He was also to visit Vietnam, the Republic of China, and 

South Korea before going to Japan. Prior to departing from Washington, Dulles spent 

much time examining the issue and decided not to raise it with the president at this point, 

but instead intended to look into it personally while in Tokyo.247 He instructed his staff to 

prepare a position paper laying out the pros and cons of repatriation to be sent to him in 

Tokyo. Based on interactions with the Japanese and U.S. embassies, the State Department 

expected the issue to be “very high on the list” of subjects to be raised by the Japanese side.248

The position paper reached Dulles without a problem prior to his arrival in Japan.249

Dulles seemed to enjoy his trip to Tokyo. In reporting on it to the cabinet on 23 March, 

he described his meetings in Japan as “the best talks I’ve ever had—[they] included some 
267

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

of the party people who are the real power behind the officials.”250 Dulles’ first meeting 

in Japan was on the 18th and, on the following day, in his meeting with Prime Minister 

Hatoyama, the minister raised the repatriation issue and requested that Dulles help find a 

solution to the problem.251 Dulles told Hatoyama, Foreign Minister Shigemitsu, and other 

influential cabinet and Liberal Democratic Party (LDP)252 members gathered—including 

future prime minister Kishi—that he had in fact studied the problem and while he had 

been “inclined to believe the islanders should be allowed to return . . . the more he studied 

the problem the less confident he became.”253 Dulles said he doubted whether the islands 

could sustain such a population and feared creating a Cyprus-like situation, where an island saw divided rule and loyalties. “[I]t was quite possible that after the islanders had been 

returned they would want more and more . . . Letting the Bonin islanders return might do 

more harm to Japanese-American relations than good.”254 He noted the strategic importance of the islands for the United States and its allies, and that it was necessary to view the 

problem from “a long range basis.”255

It is likely that Dulles’ true reason for opposing the return of the islanders was due to 

the fact that nuclear warheads had been stored in Chichi Jima the month before.256 Dulles, 

in an 18 November 1955 letter, noted that he was not opposed to storing nuclear weapons 

in the Bonins and the Volcano Islands, but explained that he did not want to see that fact 

used as a way to deny the return of the islanders.257 He does not seem to have informed the 

Japanese side that the weapons wereon the island.

While Hatoyama and the Japanese side did not appear to object to Dulles’ explanation, 

and despite Dulles’ favorable report of the trip, they were no doubt unhappy about the situation. Miki Bukichi, one of the meeting attendees and an important member of the LDP 

and ally of Hatoyama, pointed out that while Japanese leaders were aware of the reasoning 

behind U.S. policy, the people did not understand it and saw the United States as “heartless” 

for refusing to allow repatriation.258 “Mountains could be undermined by ant hills,” the 72-

year old veteran politician warned.

Back in Washington, the State Department staff, which had supported approving repatriation, was also concerned about the effect the Bonins’ issue could have on the relationship. Acting director of the Division of Northeast Asian Affairs, Noel H. Hemmendinger, a 

lawyer who shortly thereafter entered private practice,259 told Robertson, “We cannot afford 

to ignore these appeals from Japanese leaders.”260 U.S. policy, he continued,

Recognizes that we cannot count upon Japan’s friendship as Japan grows stronger, 

but we tend to assume that Japan’s allegiance will be a matter of cold calculation. 

Cold calculation alone does not explain the degree to which Japan has cooperated 

with the United States. . . . Japan’s cooperation is based in part, in the Japanese way 

of thinking, on what Japan owes us, as the stronger partner; the counterpart of this, 

in the Japanese way of thinking, is that we owe Japan receptiveness to Japanese 

interests and aspirations . . . In deciding the repatriation question, we have to weigh 

our security interests in unimpeded control of the Bonins against our security interest in keeping Japan as an ally. The Bonins alone, of course, will not determine 

Japan’s future course. But the Japanese think the issue is important, and, unlike 

some of the other problems on which our help is sought, it is one which we have 
268

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

the power to resolve. To underestimate the role of intangibles in making the decision could prove to be an historic mistake.261

The “intangibles” that Hemmendinger alluded to were the same ones that existed elsewhere in the U.S.-Japan relationship yet were “not fully appreciated” by the Americans.262 The 

repatriation question, he noted, “cuts across a large number of more or less clearly defined aspirations of the Japanese,” with migration being one, but also included “national pride, which 

suffered ignominiously from defeat and loss of territory, and resentment of racial discrimination, which has often in the past characterized the United States attitude toward Japan.”263

By chance, this latter point had become particularly prominent around that time due 

to the situation in which Arthur Ackerman, an islander of Eurasian descent, was granted 

permission by the U.S. Navy to return to the islands with his six family members.264 The 

Japanese press and the league made much of the Ackermans, who had left the islands to 

live in Japan much earlier, while others, who had lived on the islands much longer and still 

had property and possessions there, were not permitted to return. The Foreign Ministry 

also raised the issue with the embassy. Allison, who had only been informed of the CNO’s 

decision when Captain William C. Norvell, his naval attaché, told him, was indignant. “I 

can see absolutely no justification for this kind of discriminatory treatment, apparently 

based on Eurasian background of Ackerman and wishes of present island inhabitants.265

Such action obviously arouses resentment here, and makes our delicate position on Bonin 

repatriation issue even more difficult.”266 Allison encouraged the department to take steps 

to defer the Ackermans’ repatriation to consult with the Navy and investigate the case further. The following day, a decision to cancel the permission was made. Still bothered by the 

Navy’s handling of the issue, Allison told the department that the incident was an “entirely 

avoidable embarrassment” and that he would not take responsibility for it because he had 

not been consulted in advance.267

The embassy and the Division of Northeast Asian Affairs had been in regular communication over the Bonins’ issue, and they saw “eye-to-eye.” Deputy Chief of Mission Parsons 

and NAA’s Acting Director Hemmendinger, in particular, often wrote to one another, and 

even Ambassador Allison personally wrote to Dulles in early April.268

Meanwhile, in Tokyo, former Japanese Ambassador to the United States Iguchi, who 

had recently returned to Japan, spoke before the Japan-America Society on 30 March. 

Spending some time at the end of his speech on the Bonins problem, he stated,

One item of unfinished business relates to the pleas of the former inhabitants of 

the Bonin Islands to be allowed to return to their native islands to live in a manner 

to which they have long been accustomed and to earn a living in a way they best 

know how. Now, they are a sort of displaced people, suffering hardships and forced 

in many cases to fall back on government aid. If the door is opened, they will be 

moved back to the Bonins at Japanese expense. They will observe any security or 

other regulations as are necessary. But they want to live in the home islands of their 

ancestry, just as the people of Okinawa are living on their own native soil.269

It was not only Iguchi, but his successor Tani, who took up the issue quickly and earnestly. On 11 April, Tani paid Robertson a “courtesy call,” but the conversation immediately 
269

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

turned substantive.270 Tani wanted to get his reactions to the talks in Tokyo between Dulles 

and Shigemitsu, which Robertson had also attended. After that discussion, the ambassador mentioned that Japan needed “tangible encouragement” as a way to “consolidate and 

strengthen the conservative merger.”271 This, of course, was not the first time the Japanese 

government—regardless of who headed it—asked for a diplomatic favor to resolve a domestic problem. Tani, noting that “Hatoyama would not last much longer,” called for “a 

gesture of friendship” from the United States and suggested a “token repatriation” of Bonin 

Islanders of about 2,500 of the 7,000 total.272 Robertson explained the comments made 

by Dulles at the Tokyo meetings and why it was difficult to meet the demands, but Tani 

pointed to Okinawa, which had many more bases with numerous Japanese citizens living 

there. He also reminded Robertson that “The . . . conservatives [in Japan] would be encouraged by a friendly gesture by the United States—even a small gesture.”273 When Robertson 

thanked him for his “views,” the ambassador brusquely replied that they were not just his 

views but his “conviction.”274

The following week, First Secretary Tanaka called on the new officer in charge of Japanese affairs, James V. Martin Jr., who was born in Japan and had recently returned to the 

department after serving as the consul general in Fukuoka, to discuss the question of compensation.275 Specifically, Tanaka wanted to know the likelihood of the U.S. government 

paying those islanders who had not been repatriated should an official request be made. 

Martin said he would not make any promises but it certainly was possible. Although he was 

surely aware of the answer, Martin asked Tanaka why the Japanese government “desired 

to make such a big issue” of the islanders’ situation. Describing their claim as of “relative 

unimportance,” Martin accused the Japanese government of having “some other motive 

in urging for repatriation.”276 If offended, Tanaka did not show it. He explained that the 

government simply wished for repatriation at the present time, and also desired the United 

States to announce that the Ryukyus and Bonin Islands would be returned to Japan in the 

future. Martin then launched into a Dullesian lecture to the effect that if Japan desired the 

return of the islands it had to create the “conditions favorable” for their return by building 

up its defense effort and “making itself a truly valuable ally.”277 It was, Martin continued 

with an added note of finality, “the fear of the possibility that Japan might swing toward 

neutralism which made the United States unwilling to think of returning the Ryukyus or 

the Bonins for the foreseeable future.”278 The message was clear: Japan needed to confirm 

that it was politically stable, pro-United States, and militarily capable.

This did not mean that higher levels in the State Department were unconcerned about 

the Bonins problem, however. Earlier, on 5 April, Allison wrote a letter to Secretary Dulles 

that urged repatriation, and Dulles agreed to consider the matter further.279 Allison told 

him that the Dulles visit to Japan had been generally well received, but the matter of repatriation was one with which he remained “deeply concerned.”280 Allison’s letter was very 

much like the description Jeff Graham Parsons gave of Allison’s dealings with Dulles in 

Parson’s unpublished memoirs—not afraid to argue with him.281 Allison, who unlike his 

predecessor Murphy and like his two immediate successors never visited the Bonins himself, told Dulles that it was “difficult even for me, let alone the Japanese,” to see how the 

policy of nonrepatriation could be justified.282 The Navy had “no military facilities worthy 

of the name” and the “security considerations . . . cannot possibly outweigh the potentially 
270

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

grave effect which our continued refusal to permit repatriation or make some mutually satisfactory deal on the Bonins is likely to have on our relations with our Japanese ally.”283

As an example of this warning, Allison mentioned the reactions in Japan to Dulles’ 

conversations in Tokyo about the Bonins problem. While the actual discussions were not 

reported in the press, it was “common knowledge in Tokyo . . . that [Dulles] was ‘cool’ to the 

idea of repatriati[on]. On practically all levels, the Japanese reaction to this ‘rejection’ . . . has 

been bitter.”284 Allison noted that, within the Foreign Ministry, there were those who felt 

the prime minister and party leadership had not presented the repatriation issue effectively 

in the talks but, “in general . . . the resentment has been directed solely at the United States, 

and there has been not the slightest understanding or sympathy displayed for our position 

on the issue, which is regarded as being a ‘heartless’ one, without any kind of moral or other 

justification.”285 Allison also informed Dulles that, in light of Soviet intransigence on the 

Southern Kuriles, U.S. policy on the Ryukyus and Bonin Islands has been linked in the 

minds of Japanese officials and citizenry, and Hatoyama has been unwilling or unable to 

reply to opposition attacks on the apparent “conspiring” of the Navy with the islanders of 

Western descent to prevent the repatriation of the evacuees.286

Allison stated that he agreed with Dulles regarding the “Cyprus parallel,” namely, that 

repatriation would tend to increase pressure for reversion, but urged Dulles to be forthright 

on the issue:

Personally I think it would benefit and help to establish our partnership with Japan 

to let her have the Bonins back as soon as she gets an adequate navy. But if—for 

some reason not yet made clear to me—we must insist on retaining them for a long 

period, I think we ought to tell the Japanese so and arrange a deal on that basis—

for example, repatriation in return for a long-term lease, or some other quid pro 

quo that would definitively close the reversion issue for decades.287

Dulles agreed to consider the matter further and, later in the month, some recommendations were written for him by Hemmendinger on 24 April 24. Among other ideas, 

Hemmendinger, a lawyer by training, recommended placing the issue before the National 

Security Council.288 Sebald, however, did not approve of raising it before the NSC at this 

point, and the matter continued unresolved. The issue, however, did not go away.

On 24 May, Tani visited Robertson again and repeated much of the same message he 

relayed at his 11 April session. He described the denial of the right of the former inhabitants to return to the islands as “social injustice” and argued that there was a way in which 

their needs and the security needs of the United States could be met.289 Robertson noted 

Dulles’ conversation in Tokyo, where he had referred to the Cyprus situation, and suggested 

that repatriation of 2,500 would only exacerbate the Bonins problem. Tani also raised the 

issue of compensation, which he described as separate from the repatriation problem, and 

mentioned that the government wanted to pursue it more in the near future.

Robertson’s staff seemed concerned about the memorandum that Tani had left with 

him, which alluded to the “treacherous winds that blow from the Red continent” that were 

weakening the present government, and explained to the Americans that the Japanese government believed an “urgent solution [to the Bonins problem] is indispensable in bolstering 
271

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

the efforts of Japan’s present leadership to consolidate their position and to strengthen the 

partnership” between the two countries.290 Once again, this time under Robertson’s signature, recommendations were prepared for Dulles in late July urging him to discuss the issue 

with Secretary of Defense Wilson and, if no new reasons are advanced, “to seek a decision 

at the highest level” to permit repatriation as “a trial step” of 2,639 former inhabitants.291

Again, no decision seems to have been forthcoming, and it is unclear if a meeting or any 

exchanges took place between the two secretaries. In the meantime, on 5 July, the Foreign 

Ministry submitted to the U.S. embassy a note requesting 960 million yen as compensation 

for the islanders.292 The Japanese, as noted earlier, had been hesitant for a long time to make 

such a request, as it felt that in doing so, its case for repatriation would be weakened. The 

State Department, it turns out, had also been hesitant to pursue such an approach in that 

it felt “it would be an admission of the rights of the former inhabitants and in the absence 

of plausible reasons for refusing return would leave us hopelessly in the wrong in Japanese 

eyes. The bill would probably not be modest, and Japanese residual sovereignty would not 

be extinguished.”293 Nevertheless, the department recognized that compensation had to be 

considered as one possible solution in case repatriation or reversion was not realized. It informed the U.S. embassy in Tokyo that, when the text of the Japanese note arrived, it would 

“start the legal wheels in the Department moving to obtain a determination of the extent 

of our liability,” anticipating that it would “take some time.”294 Time it would take—it was 

not until 1961 before payment was finally made after Congress authorized the funds.

In the meantime, State Department officials, not to mention the Foreign Ministry, had 

not given up hope that the repatriation issue might be resolved. The department, of course, 

had to continue to show a united front with the Department of Defense vis-à-vis Japan, 

even though it clearly disagreed with DOD’s Bonins policy. On 10 August, Tanaka from 

the Japanese embassy called on his State Department counterparts to ask about the status 

of their thinking with regard to the Bonin Islands.295 Martin told him that the claim for 

compensation was being reviewed and that repatriation was under consideration as well. 

Tanaka suggested a concession on the Bonins be made before Japan and the Soviet Union 

concluded their normalization of relations talks (eventually completed in October 1956), 

as it would “have a better effect coming as a more voluntary concession on the part of the 

United States rather than coming as a reaction to some Russian concession.”296 Martin said 

he could not promise anything, and warned the Japanese embassy “not to push the department too hard on the matter because if pressed for an immediate answer, that answer would 

probably be negative.”297

In the end, the Soviet Union failed to return the Northern Islands to Japan at the time 

of the normalization talks, and the issue remains unresolved to this day. The Soviet Union’s 

missed opportunity did not get the United States off the hook, however, with Okinawa and 

the Bonin Islands, and the problem would continue to haunt the relationship. So much so 

that the U.S. embassy in Tokyo, as part of its 34-page dispatch entitled “A Fresh Start with 

Japan,” raised the issue, warning, that

our entire policy in the Bonins in fact is interpreted by most Japanese as an attempt 

to detach the islands from Japan and annex them to the U.S. As long as the former 

residents are excluded, the Bonin issue will continue to be a source of nationwide 
272

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

resentment against the United States, a major irritant in U.S.-Japan relations. There 

is no possibility that the issue will fade gradually away.298

Allison explained that the embassy continued to believe that “despite the disadvantages 

which might accrue, it would be in the overall interests of the United States to permit at 

least some of the islanders to return, with generous compensation to be paid to those who 

(like the former inhabitants of Iwo Jima) cannot be absorbed due to change of circumstances.”299 Robertson, who visited Japan later that year in December, was strongly in favor of 

many of the recommendations Allison made and with the ambassador’s general thinking. 

In early September, just before he was sent the embassy’s report, he received another letter 

from Fukuda regarding a story that had appeared in the news about how the United States 

intended to refuse to pay compensation to the islanders. Fukuda felt this was too much, 

especially as their real desire was repatriation, which was denied to them and which caused 

much of their financial, mental, and other hardships. Fukuda reported that Ambassador 

Tani assured him that the story was false and thanked Robertson for his continued interest. 

Fukuda also alluded to some of the domestic and bilateral risks of U.S. intransigence on 

this issue.

I am very happy I can tell you that there has so far been not a single Bonin Islander 

who turned anti-American because of their privations. In fact, at the time when The 

People’s Mass Meeting was about to be held in Tokyo (on July 4 last) as a gesture 

of protest against the Price Recommendation on the Okinawa Land Problem, the 

Bonin residents of Tokyo were repeatedly and tenaciously called upon by the sponsoring agencies, including the So-hyo (General Council of Japanese Trade unions—

Japanese counterpart of C[ongress of ] I[ndustrial] O[rganizations]), to join them in 

their demonstrations, but which they declined determinedly. In light of the delicate 

circumstances in which Japan’s issues with the Soviet Union are being weighed in 

terms of her relations with the United States I trust that you can very easily appreciate just how Japanese intelligent public are [sic] looking forward for the American 

decision and just how much the matter is worthy of careful consideration.300

Robertson responded shortly after receiving Fukuda’s letter, emphasizing that no official 

U.S. government reply has been made to the Japanese government’s request for compensation for the islanders, and added that the State Department “understand[s] and have sympathy for the problems of the Islanders.”301 Robertson, in addition, saw the letter as a “good 

presentation of Japanese viewpoint” and proposed that it be forwarded to Gray at the Department of Defense.302 Gray responded in mid-October, promising to give “careful consideration” to the request for compensation of the former islanders.303 Gray’s letter, however, 

implied that the group had changed its position from repatriation to compensation, but 

that was not the case—it simply shifted to compensation if repatriation was not possible at 

the time. The islanders still desired repatriation, as well as the return of the islands.

Around this time, Robertson met with Harry F. Kern, the director of the New Yorkbased magazine Foreign Reports and a former foreign news editor for Newsweek. It is unclear 

who initiated the action, but Kern—a prominent Republican and staunch supporter of Japan through the lobbying group, the American Council on Japan—reported to Robertson 
273

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

that he had gone to the Navy to discuss the issue and suggested that the Navy make an 

“informal explanation of the their attitude to the Japanese” in order to reach a settlement. 

In his discussion with Rear Admiral Hebert D. Riley, Kern suggested that former U.S. 

Ambassador to Japan and Under Secretary of State William J. Castle, who had served with 

Joseph C. Grew as the co-chairman of the ACJ and who was “greatly trusted and [whose] 

views are heeded” in Japan, be utilized to bring the two sides together.304 Kern warned of 

the consequences, particularly in the media and public opinion, if the United States did not 

adequately deal with the issue. “The Japanese assure me,” Kern wrote in a follow-up letter to 

Riley after their meeting in late October, which followed the signing of the Japanese-Soviet 

Joint Declaration that normalized relations, “that a settlement would be of the greatest importance to the conservative regime in the near future.”305 It is unclear, however, what Riley 

or the Navy did with this offer by Kern. It is also unclear if Robertson actually approved 

this effort, as there is no evidence he tried to stop it.

In light of the changes in the Japanese-Soviet relationship and pending issues in the 

U.S.-Japan relationship, Robertson wrote a memorandum to Dulles in early January 1957 

entitled “Our Japan Policy: Need for a Reappraisal and Certain Immediate Actions.”306

One of those actions he urged was repatriating 2,639 of the Bonin Islanders.307 Solving 

this, in addition to the war criminals issue, “promptly and generously,” Robertson felt would 

“buy us time to develop solutions on our own initiative” to several larger problems, including the status of the Ryukyus, reviewing security relations with Japan, and examining the 

question of to what extent the United States should lend support to Japan in the United 

Nations, which it had recently joined in December 1956, and in leading the Afro-Asian 

bloc.308 Robertson suggested that Dulles hold a meeting the following week with his senior 

staff, including Douglas MacArthur II, counselor of the Department of State and who had 

recently been designated to succeed Allison as ambassador to Japan; Robert R. Bowie, assistant secretary of state for policy planning; and Robertson and Howard L. Parsons. Dulles 

agreed, and the meeting was held on 16 January. Unfortunately, no record of it was found 

in State Department files.309 In any case, Dulles does not seem to have raised the issue in 

the cabinet meeting held on the 18th, so it can be assumed that a decision was not reached 

at the department meeting.310

Again, as Allison noted, the issue would not go away.311 In Diet testimony in February, Acting Prime Minister Kishi Nobusuke, who was serving in place of the hospitalized 

Prime Minister Ishibashi Tanzan (December 1956–February 1957), stated that the government was “making various efforts to secure the return of administrative control of the 

islands, but from the standpoint of international strategic conditions, the U.S. would not 

agree.”312 While most reports of Kishi’s comments focused on Okinawa and noted that 

“pledges seeking the restoration to Japanese administration of Okinawa and the Bonins . . . 

were long considered political necessity here and has been made by every Japanese government since the Peace Treaty,” the embassy nevertheless planned to point out to the Foreign 

Ministry the “difficulties” such statements created.313 Although the telegram also said that 

the statements were “apparently so commonplace that the vernacular press paid little attention to it,” in fact, Kishi, when he became prime minister just 10 days later on 23 February, 

would once again seriously begin to raise the issue, among others, including revising the 

security treaty.314
274

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Kishi’s concern over the Bonins and Ryukyus, as well as on security treaty revision, was 

based on recognition of the need to strengthen the U.S.-Japan bonds. He saw those issues 

eating away at the relationship, as did many in the State Department, including the new 

ambassador, MacArthur, who presented his credentials on 25 February. Kishi and MacArthur immediately began meeting privately to discuss overhauling the relationship and, 

in April, Kishi discussed some papers with the ambassador, explaining the “national sentiments of the Japanese people regarding U.S.-Japan relations” and analyzing the causes “impeding cooperation” between the two countries.315 One of the papers given to MacArthur 

concerned territorial problems.316

Regarding the Bonin Islands, Kishi’s paper pointed out that the U.S. government had 

never explained what military interests would be jeopardized if the former inhabitants were 

allowed to return. Kishi then proposed that a 10-year time limit be set on the Article 3 islands, during which time, in the case of the Bonins, the “former inhabitants will be permitted to return progressively, and islands of lesser military importance will be fully restored 

to Japan, as expeditiously as possible.”317 While MacArthur did not think Kishi “reasonably 

expects us to buy his proposals out of hand,” he did believe that the issues were “so basic 

and require urgent attention.”318 The ambassador, who served closely with Dulles for several 

years, traveled with him extensively, and probably spent more time together than they did 

with their own wives,319 continued,

I urge that Kishi’s approach be taken with utmost seriousness and that the U.S. government make a basic and fundamental review of our policy regarding Japan . . . If 

we are unable to lay solid groundwork with Kishi when he visits Washington with 

constructive suggestions for achieving readjustment in our relationships, I am not 

optimistic about the future in terms of our long-term interest in Japan.320

With tensions still high over the Girard case, in which a Japanese woman was shot by 

a U.S. soldier on a firing range on 30 January, and Okinawa and other related problems, 

MacArthur’s concerns could not be ignored. After speaking with Kishi, who raised the issue of the repatriation again on 1 May, MacArthur once again encouraged the department 

to seek a solution.321 While it agreed, the department had to instruct MacArthur that in his 

talks with Kishi in Tokyo to repeat the mantra—“for general strategic reasons the United 

States does not favor repatriation of the 7,000 Bonin Islanders at the present time”—and 

tell Kishi not to get his hopes up.322

CINCPAC was very much worried about MacArthur’s willingness to accommodate Kishi. “An inherent danger” exists in such willingness, Stump warned the Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Arleigh A. Burke, in that “it may provide too fast a tempo and could mislead 

the Japanese into misinterpreting U.S. intentions.”323 The Navy’s continued distrust of Japan 

was particularly clear in this message, but so were its concerns over regional stability.

It would be well to remind Mr. Kishi that his predecessor Mr. Shigeru Yoshida in 

discussing territorial issues . . . stated “I cannot but hope that the administration of 

[the Ryukyu and Bonin] islands will be put back into Japanese hands in the not too 

distant future with the reestablishment of world security—especially the security 
275

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

of Asia.” This condition of desired security seems prerequisite to any change in the 

status of these island groups.324

Nevertheless, the State Department supported MacArthur’s views, including his call 

in early May to permit the repatriation of “few hundred former residents to those islands 

on which we do not maintain important security installations.”325 Writing to the deputy 

chief of mission, Outerbridge Horsey, Office of Northeast Asian Affairs Director Howard 

Parsons admitted, however, that the Bonins issue, along with that of the Ryukyus and war 

criminals, “offer ground for endless debate. . . . We have tried and failed so often that our 

hope is not too bright, but we are making the strongest possible effort.”326 One effort involved restarting talks with the Defense Department on the Bonins problem. Robertson, 

who argued that “we must somehow accommodate the reviving Japanese nationalism with 

respect to which the Bonin Islands have become an important symbol,” urged Dulles to 

give him permission to seek the agreement of the Department of Defense to permit the 

return.327 Receiving Dulles’ permission on 5 June, Robertson met with Radford to discuss 

the matter, but found him unwilling to change his view that “such repatriation would jeopardize our security position in the Bonins Islands.”328

A State-Defense meeting was finally had on 17 June, after MacArthur had returned to 

Washington on the eve of Kishi’s visit.329 Also in attendance were Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense John N. Irwin II; Navy Captain Berton A. Robbins Jr., the regional director, Far East, representing defense; and Dulles, Ambassador MacArthur, Deputy Under 

Secretary Murphy, Assistant Secretary Robertson, Assistant Secretary Bowie, and Parsons, 

Martin, and Harry F. Pfeiffer Jr., of the Northeast Asian Affairs Office representing the 

State Department.330 Both sides were well prepared for the meeting, although the DOD, 

outmanned, ended up once again battling the State Department to a stalemate, and thus 

technically won, by preserving the status quo.

Taking a hard-line position going into interagency talks, the Navy recommended that 

the U.S. position on the Bonins problem should: be nonnegotiable; not relinquish any 

island of the Bonins until “strategic considerations” permit the reversion of all of them, including the Volcano islands; make no commitment as to the date for the islands’ reversion; 

and not permit any repatriation of the former islanders until the islands are reverted.331

The Navy explained that its recommendations were based on the following considerations, 

some of which were reiterations of earlier views and some which reflected new realities. As 

they are insightful into the thinking of the Navy, they are cited below in full.

(1) Our base system in the Pacific Ocean is a single strategic entity comprised of 

numerous island positions. Most of these positions represent potential capabilities only. Although economy of forces and the dictates of strategy will not permit 

maintenance of garrisons or continuous use of all these positions, the maximum 

U.S. control must be maintained everywhere in time of peace to assure the maximum availability in time of war.

(2) The physical value of the Bonins to Japan is negligible. They have almost no 

economic potential, and the Japanese are not in a position to make use of any 

military potential.
276

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

(3) Since return of the islands to Japan is primarily a symbolic issue, it is susceptible 

of a symbolic solution, such as a commitment to restudy disposition at such time as 

a changed security situation may permit release.

(4) In areas under exclusive U.S. control, in which all or nearly all foreign nationals are excluded, it is possible to conduct classified activities not feasible in sovereign foreign territory. Reduction or loss of U.S. control, or admission of additional 

aliens, would reduce or destroy this capability.

(5) In the atomic era, dispersal of forces is a recognized necessity. This makes necessary many small mobile bases with the widest possible choice of locations.

(6) Repatriation of a few hundred former islanders, instead of relieving political 

pressures, would redouble the pressure from the remaining few thousand, making 

the issue more of an irritant than at present.

(7) The present islanders’ family residence in the Bonins pre-dates the arrival of the 

first Japanese. They feel they were oppressed under Japanese rule, and the arrival of 

Japanese latter-day colonists would introduce a serious local irritant that does not 

now exist.

(8) In the face of the security restrictions, which it would be necessary to apply to 

some repatriates, the Japanese Government would find it necessary to champion 

their cause and demand a voice in the administration of the Bonins.

(9) The few present residents are content under a simple government administered 

as additional duty by the three officers and 12 men of the U.S. Naval Facility, Chichi Jima. Enlargement of the indigenous population would make necessary a larger 

and more costly government.

(10) The policy of keeping the Bonin-Volcano Islands closed to further colonization was established by the State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee in 1945. It 

was reviewed and reaffirmed by the Pacific Islands Coordinating Group (StateDefense-Interior) in 1953 and again in 1956.

(11) The United States has not deported or removed any residents since it gained 

control of the islands in 1945, and hence does not bear responsibility for the dislocations which are the basis for the claims of former residents.

(12) Additional Japanese in the Bonins would present daily problems and difficulties, and in many matters would be at odds with the U.S. administration. Whenever 

they raised an outcry there would be an immediate reaction in Japan with serious 

domestic political implications. It is only natural under these circumstances that 

the Bonins would preoccupy the Japanese public.332

After exchanges regarding security treaty revision and U.S. force levels in Japan, the 

discussion the morning of 17 June turned to the Bonins problem. Dulles explained that 

his department was planning to tell the Japanese side that repatriation of some individuals 
277

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

would be permitted with costs to be borne by Japan. Dulles mentioned that he had “taken 

a strong line against this in the past and had hoped agitation would drop but it has not 

done so,” and stated his doubts that the U.S. position could be continued much longer in 

light of the existence of a much larger population in Okinawa amid U.S. bases.333 Radford, 

in what would be one of his last interagency meetings on the issue as he was soon to retire 

as JCS chairman, seized this opportunity to launch a detailed review of the situation and 

picked apart traditional arguments used by the Japanese to justify repatriation based on the 

internal study. According to the memorandum of conversation prepared by Navy Captain 

Robbins, “State representatives at the meeting had little to offer in rebuttal other than a 

general statement by Assistant Secretary Robertson” who argued that it would be difficult 

to keep out the Bonin Islanders who had lived in the islands for several generations.334

Dulles, according to the memo, even went so far as to say he “had some serious questions 

as to the validity of the Japanese proposals,” curiously suggesting that the issue was simply 

being used for “political agitation” and that the Japanese side “did not really want to settle 

the matter.”335 As a result of the State Department failing to convince the Defense Department, the meeting ended “with a clear understanding that there had been no final decision” 

on the State Department’s proposal to allow the return of a few hundred islanders and that 

it “would make no unilateral decision on this matter. End of meeting.”336

Although the author was unable to locate a State Department version of the memorandum of conversation, it seems that some in the department took away a completely 

different impression as to what been decided. According to a memorandum prepared for 

Ambassador MacArthur, the suggestion arose that the Bonin Island Council “should screen 

and approve” the former islanders who wished to return.337 Marshall Green, a long time 

Japan-hand who was serving as a regional advisor in the Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs, 

disagreed, describing the council as “a creature of the U.S. Navy [which] largely engages in 

endorsing USN actions.”338 He went on to caution, “Since all five members of the Council 

. . . are of Caucasian origin, any decisions made by the Council . . . would be denounced by 

the Japanese as discriminatory. The race issue would be revived on a grand scale.”339 Instead, 

Green proposed that a different screening and selection process should be developed, and 

that it be proposed to Kishi:

(a) The U.S. determines the number who could be repatriated and transmits this 

figure to the Japanese government, (b) The Japanese Government determines 

which families should be repatriated using length of family residence on the islands, desire and need to return, and security factors as principal criteria, (c) Visa 

applications are then submitted to the U.S. Embassy Tokyo for those selected, (d) 

The U.S. will issue visas in accordance with usual screening and other procedures, 

(e) The Japanese Government will defray all costs of transportation and proper 

resettlement of islanders, [and] (f ) The Japanese Government agrees to deal with 

all complaints that might arise out of this process.340

Green’s memo became the basis for a formula shared with the president, at the latter’s 

request.

The following day, as per prior arrangement, Dulles met with President Eisenhower—

along with Robertson, MacArthur, Deputy Secretary of Defense Donald A. Quarles, As-
278

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

sistant Secretary Mansfield D. Sprague, Admiral Radford, and some others—to prepare 

him for Kishi’s visit.341 With regard to the Bonins problem, Dulles explained that his department was ready to agree to some islanders being repatriated, and Robertson indicated 

that the number it had in mind was about 2,500.342 DOD, however, it was pointed out, 

was opposed. Radford explained that if the islanders were to return, they “would adopt 

an attitude of hostility toward our military organizations there, and will steadily demand 

more from us.”343 Dulles, as in the 17 June meeting, again failed to support his staff on the 

issue, stating “he was inclined to feel that if we let the Bonin Islanders in, the result would 

be trouble for us,” and adding that “while the action might give Kishi some immediate 

prestige,” he thought “the matter could be left in abeyance until later in the conference.” 

Eisenhower, turning to Radford, asked for a memorandum concerning military requirements in the Bonins.

The president, however, continued to give thought to the issue during the meeting while 

other concerns were being discussed. At the end of the meeting, he asked the State Department to prepare for his consideration a formula to permit the repatriation of certain islanders.344 While a decision on whether or not they would be permitted to return was deferred, 

Eisenhower wanted to know what the options were.345 Later that day, Dulles forwarded to 

the president a memorandum on the repatriation formula devised by Green.346

The next day, Radford submitted the memorandum the president requested on military 

requirements to Brigadier General Andrew J. Goodpaster, the White House staff secretary.347 Radford’s memo was fairly brief, and he noted that it introduced only the “more 

important factors from a military point of view to be considered with retention” of the 

Bonin Islands.348 He explained that the JCS thinking on this matter was “related to the 

eventuality of [U.S.] forces withdrawing from Japan,”349 and thus the United States needed 

to preserve its strategic flexibility: “Our base system in the Pacific Ocean is a single strategic entity which comprises numerous island positions. While economy of forces will not 

permit maintenance of garrisons in all these positions, the maximum of U.S. control must 

be maintained in order to assure maximum of availability in time of war.”350 Related to this, 

Radford pointed out that the JCS “believe that repatriation of Japanese-oriented group[s] 

to any of these islands, regardless of whether or not there are at present any military installations, would largely negate their potential usefulness. Furthermore, the difficulties which 

would ensue as a consequence of such partial repatriation are clearly indicated by our experience in the Ryukyu Islands.”351 President Eisenhower read it, as his initials can be found 

at the top of the document, but it is unclear if he fully agreed with it.

It was relevant to note that the U.S. side placed much emphasis on discussing the issue as 

Ambassador Asakai Koichiro, who had succeeded Tani in May 1957, had informed Robertson on 8 June that Kishi planned to concentrate on territorial issues in addition to the security and defense relationship.352 As mentioned earlier, MacArthur also believed repatriation 

of the Bonin Islanders was an issue “which is important as a part of our over-all readjustment in our relations with Japan.”353 Both Dulles and Eisenhower, for whom MacArthur 

also had worked in Europe during World War II, respected the ambassador’s opinions.

Leaving Tokyo on 16 June, and arriving in Washington by way of Honolulu and San 

Francisco on the 19th, Kishi’s first meeting was held at 0900 on 20 June at the State De-
279

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

partment. After Dulles made some opening remarks and Kishi responded with some opening remarks, Radford was asked to address the group on the regional security situation. 

In his comments, he stressed the importance of “not altering the strategic status of the 

Bonins and Ryukyus.”354 Kishi then was given the chance to make some comments, during 

which he spent a lot of time discussing territorial issues and Japanese sentiments regarding 

them. Regarding the Bonins, in addition to the land being used by the U.S. military, the 

problem, he stated, was being compounded by the failure to allow the former residents to 

return. “This represented discrimination in Japanese eyes,” he said.355 After Kishi finished, 

Dulles spoke at length, first on the need for Japan to assume a larger security role and to 

devote more to its defense. He then spoke of Okinawa and the Bonins. With regard to the 

latter, which he saw as being of “considerable strategic value,” Dulles asked Kishi rhetorically whether the bilateral relationship would really benefit by having the former residents 

return—“people who would have a hard time earning a livelihood and whose presence 

would involve the same type of problems we now have in Okinawa.”356 Kishi did not have 

a chance to respond, as the scheduled time for the end of the meeting had arrived.

Several of the participants then moved to Secretary Dulles’ office for a smaller meeting. Although Dulles had said he was hesitant to support repatriation in meetings on 18 

June with the president, a view which he seemed to show in the morning meeting, Dulles 

informed Kishi that he was willing to study further whether a “very limited number,” such 

as 200 to 300, of the former residents could be permitted to return to the islands.357 He 

qualified it by saying that “as the islands were being used for military purposes more than 

is generally realized,” the actual number to be returned would depend on security requirements.358 Dulles cautioned Kishi that, even if some were to return, the problem might actually become worse—“if the objective of the prime minister was to get relations on a better 

long-term basis, in the secretary’s opinion the return of a few hundred persons to the Bonin 

Islands might give the prime minister the impression of an immediate accomplishment but 

the problems which might grow out of this in the future would be even more difficult.”359

Dulles also wanted Kishi to understand that, as the U.S. ability to use military areas in Japan decreased, the importance of the Bonin Islands would only increase. (Although he did 

not say it, this was true of Okinawa as well.) Finally, Dulles mentioned that he was unsure 

whether the president would approve the idea, even in principle.

Later that day at a follow-up meeting, Kishi said he “fully appreciated” the concerns 

raised by Dulles, but that he nevertheless felt that the repatriation of “those persons whose 

families had resided in the islands for generations” would be “beneficial” for the relations of 

both countries.360 Kishi mentioned that, if repatriation was found to be difficult, it would 

be necessary to compensate the islanders who were unable to return and were experiencing 

financial difficulties in Japan. Dulles, in reply, mistakenly stated that the records the United 

States had on land holdings in the Bonin Islands showed that “virtually all of the land” in 

the islands had been owned by the Japanese government and that former residents had “no 

property rights of their own.”361 Kishi immediately corrected Dulles, explaining that the 

inhabitants had in fact owned parcels of land on their own, and that they also possessed 

fishing rights, which were considered property. Dulles promised to study it more.

The following morning, 21 June, Kishi and Dulles met for two-and-one-half hours 

prior to Kishi’s call on the president at the White House to discuss the contents of the joint 
280

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

communiqué. Both men got into a long discussion about the Japanese desire to use the 

word “ultimate” when discussing the return of Okinawa and the Bonins.362 Kishi referred 

to Dulles’ use of the word at an 23 April press conference, but Dulles said he did not think 

the word necessary, nor did he feel it right to change the formula used at the peace conference. The matter was further discussed in the presence of the president, when Kishi called 

on him later that morning. The issue of repatriating a small number of islanders—this time 

the number used was “100 or 150”363—also came up, and Dulles stated that it might be better to indemnify the former inhabitants instead. Eisenhower promised to study the matter 

“sympathetically.”364

When Kishi and Dulles met again to further consider the joint communiqué, the two 

got into another negotiating session on the Bonin Islands. Kishi agreed to delete “ultimate” 

from the phrase on the status of the Ryukyus and Bonins, but requested that the sentence, 

“The President expressed his readiness to give further sympathetic study to the possibility of the return to the Bonin Islands of a limited number of those islanders who are now 

residing in the home islands of Japan,” be included in the communiqué.365 When Dulles 

demurred, Kishi asked if the U.S. side was in fact going to carry out the study promised the 

day before. Dulles reminded him that repatriation could not be done for “more than a very 

few people” and, as if he had already made up his mind, that it “would cause more trouble 

than would be worthwhile.”366 Dulles promised to explore compensation, as requested by 

the prime minister, and to communicate with him further on the possibilities.

Kishi then raised another matter, which had not come up before and would take almost 

a decade to resolve. He asked that the former inhabitants be allowed to travel to the islands 

to visit their family graves. Dulles agreed to include that question in the study.367 It was not, 

however, mentioned in the final communiqué, the paragraph of which read,

The Prime Minister emphasized the strong desire of the Japanese people for the 

return of administrative control over the Ryukyu and Bonin Islands to Japan. The 

President reaffirmed the United States position that Japan possesses residual sovereignty over these islands. He pointed out, however, that so long as the conditions 

of threat and tension exist in the Far East the United States will find it necessary 

to continue the present status. He stated the United States will continue its policy 

of improving the welfare and well-being of the inhabitants of the islands and of 

promoting their economic and cultural advancement.368

Following Kishi’s departure, the State Department requested assistance from the Defense Department to conduct studies on the feasibility of repatriating some of the islanders, 

ancestral grave visits, and compensation for those unable to return. In a 13 July letter from 

Robertson to his counterpart, Assistant Secretary Sprague, he pointed out that the repatriation issue had been “the subject of protracted discussion between our two Departments 

extending over a period of several years,” and noted that despite this, the U.S. government 

had never surveyed the islands to determine how may people could in fact be supported in 

areas not required for military facilities.369 In addition, he explained the view of the State 

Department that “it is most desirable to accede to the request” of the islanders to be allowed 

to visit the graves: “the attachment which Japanese feel to their family graves is emotional, 

sincere and deeply felt.”370 Robertson warned of the consequences of refusing to allow 
281

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

“some sort of organized visits . . . of properly cleared former residents,” as it “may produce 

an emotional upset in Japan out of all proportion to the number of people involved.”371

With regard to the issue of indemnification, Robertson informed Sprague that the State 

Department believed the United States had an obligation to “make just compensation to 

property owners for such expropriation or use,” and thus it was essential to determine if 

in fact the United States used private property since 28 April 1952, when the peace treaty 

went into effect.372 Naval authorities, Robertson observed, have continually said that because of World War II bombardments and the subsequent occupation by U.S. forces, there 

are no markers or other means to identify property lines. However, the Japanese government may have such records, he said, and if that is the case the United States could inform 

the Japanese side that it was prepared to compensate those former residents whose property 

had been used or appropriated, but that it was necessary for the Japanese to present evidence of private property holdings. With this, the United States could then determine how 

much of the private property had been used.

Sprague responded on 8 August with essentially a regurgitation of the JCS position 

on the issue, in which he argued against repatriation: “To appreciate fully the need for extensive control of the area, it must be realized that it is envisaged that the Bonin-Volcano 

positions will be utilized as missile bases, as advanced submarine bases, and as a supporting 

base for NSA and CIA operations. These sensitive uses demand a degree of security which 

would be largely negated by any repatriation.”373 Sprague warned that allowing some of the 

islanders to return would be opening a “Pandora’s box” in relations with Japan as the restrictions placed on the group for security reasons “would result in protests to the Japanese 

government, which in turn would find itself bound to champion the cause of the repatriates; eventually the Japanese Government would demand a voice in the Bonins administration . . . Instead of being relieved of the repatriation issue, the U.S. would be plagued 

with a ‘Cyprus’ type of problem of its own making.”374 Summarizing, Sprague argued that 

“continued and exclusive U.S. control” of the islands was “essential,” and that “until the 

door to the Bonins is firmly closed to the Japanese this issue w[ould] continue to threaten 

our strategic posture as well as our friendly relations with Japan.”375

For those reasons, Sprague wrote that compensation, while “difficult and complex,” 

seemed to offer “the most practical means” by which the United States could deal with 

Japanese sensitivities.376 Sprague qualified his support for it, however, urging the State Department to inform the Japanese government that it should also pay for half of the compensation, as it had evacuated the islanders initially. The U.S. payment should be made as a lump 

sum, which would be given to the Japanese government to distribute. Sprague also stated 

that the U.S. government should try to obtain the Japanese government’s agreement that the 

payment would represent “a final settlement of the compensation and repatriation issue.”377

On 9 August, Robertson met with Radford (then one week away from retirement) 

and Sprague.378 Sprague, as his letter implied, agreed with the general approach to the 

compensation and suggested that representatives of the two departments meet to seek an 

agreement on a course of action. Robertson wrote back on 16 August, concurring in this 

suggestion.379 The three representatives also agreed that the Defense Department would 

inform the State Department as to the results of the survey of the islands to see whether 

islanders could be repatriated and if any could visit ancestral graves.380
282

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Green, who was well known throughout the State Department for his humor, was quite 

serious here. He was very skeptical of the military’s ability to produce an objective survey. 

“I foresee an almost impossible task,” Green began.381 “The military will first of all,” he 

continued,

[v]aguely claim that they have all sorts of future requirements in the islands, some 

of the requirements arising out of planned or possible withdrawals from Japan. 

They will accordingly block off large chunks of territory (like all of Chichi Jima 

from those areas available for resettlement). They are then likely to claim that the 

resulting limited resettlement areas can support only one or two hundred persons, 

and that to resettle so few persons is to generate more ill will and difficulties with 

the Japanese than to maintain the present status (I am inclined to agree with this 

argument). They will also continue to argue that to resettle any number, however 

small, will create all sorts of administrative headaches for the U.S. Such an expected 

military reaction to our request for a survey of the islands is likely to postpone indefinitely or kill any chance of our government’s adopting a Bonin resettlement plan.

Even Green would have been surprised at what eventually happened. With two days 

remaining to Foreign Minister Fujiyama Aiichiro’s arrival in Washington, and three days 

before the first meeting between Dulles and the Japanese foreign minister, Sprague wrote 

to Robertson in response to the latter’s letter of 16 August. He informed him that he could 

not “determine” that the Defense Department actually agreed at the State-JCS meeting to 

conduct a survey to determine the number of repatriates that the Bonin Islands could support.382 Sprague admitted that the two departments had been obligated to “study whether 

a very limited number of former inhabitants of the Bonin Islands could be permitted to 

return there,” but he disagreed that the study “should take the form of a survey of only one 

of the several considerations which would affect the questions of repatriation.”383 Although 

not saying it in so many words, he appears to have been arguing that a study predicated on 

repatriating islanders could not be done when the Navy was against repatriation in the first 

place. The assistant secretary was willing to produce “a pro forma ‘study’ . . . using unclassified 

arguments directed toward convincing the Japanese of the futility of further agitation on the 

subject.”384 Sprague added, “in view of the language of the Eisenhower-Kishi communiqué 

in saying that ‘The United States will find it necessary to continue the present status’ of the 

Bonins, the Japanese must surely be expecting the results of our study to be negative.”385

Three months after the Eisenhower-Kishi meetings, two months after Robertson’s letter, 

and more than one month after the State-JCS meeting, the Defense Department began its 

study the same day that Chief of Naval Operations Burke ordered Stump to provide one.386

The “survey” was eventually submitted on 23 September but, as expected, was more editorial 

than data-based, arguing that “further repatriation would be an unacceptable security burden to the United States . . . As long as the requirement remains for any of these functions, 

the presence of any alien group owing allegiance to a foreign nation is not compatible with 

implementation of the [military] activities [described in the survey]. There is no middle 

ground allowing a few repatriates to enter. The current U.S. policy restricting repatriation 

to the Bonins should be continued unchanged.”387

In the meantime, the new foreign minister, Fujiyama, a businessman and close friend 

of Kishi who had assumed his position on 23 July, approached MacArthur on 6 September 
283

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

and shared with him a talking paper on the Bonins.388 His paper expressed Kishi’s appreciation for Dulles’ “thoughtfulness” and called for the early realization of the “long-cherished 

desire” of the Japanese people for the repatriation of the islanders.389 Fujiyama asked about 

the status of the study to be prepared by the U.S. government on repatriation and promised that, “judging from the statements and actions [of the league],” the islanders selected 

would “cause no trouble of any kind.”390 Fujiyama went further, explaining that the islanders would have no difficulty making a living either, citing prewar figures to support his 

claim. Related to this, Fujiyama said he did not think there would be any problems between 

the islanders to be repatriated and those already there, as the islands were rich in natural 

resources and employment opportunities and the Japanese government would be willing to 

help sustain them. In his conversation with MacArthur, Fujiyama stressed that the return of 

even a limited number of islanders would “remove a very sensitive and controversial issue” 

from the relationship.391 “A deep feeling,” Fujiyama pointed out, exists in Japan “that racial 

discrimination has been practiced thus far by permitting return of only former inhabitants 

of Western descent.”392 The new foreign minister went on to explain that he and the prime 

minister “earnestly hope” that “something constructive” would be announced before the 

Diet convened again in November “since it would greatly strengthen the government’s position and help them deal with the Socialists and leftists on other domestic matters of great 

common interest, including Japan’s defense effort and reduction of communist influence 

in trade union movement.”393 Like Yoshida and Hatoyama before him, Kishi shamelessly 

linked domestic politics and bilateral relations.

No sooner had this message been delivered than Otabe Kenichi, counselor of the embassy of Japan, called on Howard Parsons and William C. Ockey to coordinate the foreign 

minister’s visit. Otabe stressed in his afternoon meeting on 9 September that Kishi “attaches great importance” in the bilateral relationship to the repatriation of the islanders.394

Otabe also informed the two men that Ambassador Asakai would join with the foreign 

minister in San Francisco and fly back to New York for the United Nations General Assembly meeting. They would then go on to Washington to prepare the foreign minister for 

his meetings. Otabe reinforced his message with Parsons again in New York on 19 September of the importance Fujiyama and Kishi placed on the repatriation issue.395

Around the same time in Japan, Deputy Secretary of State Christian A. Herter was to 

meet with Kishi during his one-month trip throughout the region, primarily to attend the 

Malaysian independence celebrations. In their meeting on the morning of 18 September, 

Kishi emphasized his view that the repatriation issue was “a real impediment to long-term 

development of stronger Japanese-U.S. relations.”396 Herter told Kishi that Ambassador 

MacArthur was “doing everything possible to assist in solving the problem.”397

One day earlier, for example, just before the final position papers were to be completed, 

Ambassador MacArthur made a last-minute plea after reading in the newspaper that the 

United States had turned down Japan’s request for a limited number of islanders to return 

to the Bonins.398 MacArthur could not hide his disappointment, and wrote to Dulles to 

urge him to seek the return of at least 200–300 islanders. “I fully understand [the] difficult considerations involved in this problem,” he wrote, “[but] this issue is one of extreme 

sensitivity in Japan because its racial discrimination aspects stemming from [the] fact we 
284

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

have only permitted return of islanders of Caucasian origin. Over [the] long term, our 

present position can only play into hands of anti-American elements and also alienate 

friendly Japanese who liken our stand to the Asiatic Exclusion Laws.”399 If that was not 

clear enough, the ambassador ended the telegram to his long-time traveling companion 

and boss, Dulles, “[I]t is my considered judgment that we should do everything possible to 

find a solution which will eliminate [the] racial discrimination issue from our long-term 

relations with Japan.”400

MacArthur, in fact, placed the Bonins issue “at the top of the list of problems on which 

I think we are in a position to, and should, act on at once,” as he told Herter in a letter a 

couple of days later.401 MacArthur went on to explain,

We have many difficult issues with Japan. With respect to some of them, such as 

Okinawa, there is nothing we can do at this juncture to meet the Japanese view. 

However, with respect to the Bonin Islanders, I do feel strongly that we can, without jeopardizing our basic and fundamental interest or security, be forthcoming 

enough to find reasonable solutions. This is very important, because the Bonin 

Island problem is a very contentious issue which has deep psychological overtones 

which cannot but affect our long-term relations with Japan.402

Despite MacArthur’s efforts, Fujiyama and Kishi were to be disappointed. Because of 

the strong resistance (and stalling tactics) of the Defense Department, not only was repatriation not in the offing, but even permission for the islanders to visit ancestral graves was not 

forthcoming. Regarding the latter, permission was denied because there were no facilities 

to provide accommodations for the visitors, the islands were overgrown and the destruction 

from World War II bombings made locating grave sites difficult, and that there were “probably” no more grave markers. It is clear, however, that the decision had been already made, 

and that the reasons were simply excuses devised to justify the policy.403

Interestingly, according to Ockey, acting director of the Office of the Northeast Asian 

Affairs, the U.S. position “was not firm until a few hours before the discussion with [Foreign Minister Fujiyama].”404 Ockey continued in a secret letter to foreign service officer 

John M. Steeves, who was political advisor to CINCPAC, Admiral Felix Stump, “Up until 

the last minute . . . we had been discussing the possibility of agreeing to repatriation of 

a small number of Bonin Islanders as well as the questions of visits to family graves and 

compensation. We received on 23 September a letter from Defense which put the Defense 

position so forcefully that the Secretary and Mr. Robertson agreed that we should not press 

further for repatriation of any Bonin Islanders at this time.”405

As expected, Fujiyama raised the Bonins problem at his meeting with Dulles and others from the State Department on the afternoon of 23 September. Fujiyama was “deeply 

disappointed” that there had been no progress on the Bonins problem and stressed that 

“from the point of view of overall relations, a solution should be found.”406 He asked if there 

was no formula to satisfy Japan, such as restricting the area of admittance, minimizing the 

number of returnees, limiting the types of occupations of those to be returned, anything to 

give the islanders “some satisfaction.”407 They were “not Communists” but “hard-working 

men of integrity,” Fujiyama added. “It would be heartbreaking . . . to bring them disappoint-
285

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

ment.”408 It was not the number, he seemed to be saying, “but restriction against repatriation itself that was the major cause of agitation.”409

Dulles, who had received the Defense Department’s study only that morning but was 

familiar with its conclusions,410 told Fujiyama that there were security factors involved 

about which he was not at liberty to elaborate, but that these became even more important 

as U.S. forces were withdrawing from mainland Japan. “These factors require an exclusive 

military reserve,” Dulles emphasized.411 He had hoped to have met the “wishes of the Japanese government, but had been persuaded otherwise” by the military.412 When Fujiyama 

offered that he was not aware of the U.S. security requirements, but mentioned that the 

“fact that some islanders of part Caucasian blood had been allowed to return was embarrassing,” Dulles countered by saying that those islanders had been allowed to return because 

they had been discriminated against in Japan. “The discrimination did not start with us, 

but with the Japanese. If we had it to do over, we would not take them. They have only 

a meager existence and are an embarrassment to the security of the islands.”413 Fujiyama 

challenged Dulles’ explanation by questioning whether there in fact had been discrimination against the islanders of Western descent. Dulles weakly replied that neither he nor the 

foreign minister “had firsthand knowledge on that point.”414 In any case, the United States 

has “exhausted the means for consideration of this problem . . . We are dealing with bigger 

elements.”415 Fujiyama also asked about grave visits, which he described as a “general oriental trait not solely Japanese and was a religious impetus,” but Dulles said that they would 

not be permitted either as “military reports [said] graves [were] obliterated and covered by 

jungle.”416 Fujiyama mentioned that he did not want to “dash the hopes” of the islanders, to 

which Dulles said it was unfair to keep their hopes alive.417 He cautioned Fujiyama not to 

let “the question of a small number [of former inhabitants who wish to return] become a 

major [point of difference] between the two countries,” and not to “encourage them in the 

vain hope which would not be realized.”418 Dulles asked Fujiyama to consider indemnification, which he described as Kishi’s proposal, viewing this as the only alternative available.

The next day, Robertson and Martin met with Ambassador Asakai to elaborate on the 

repatriation issue. Robertson gave Asakai an overview of the security situation in the region 

and emphasized that the withdrawal of U.S. ground forces had made it necessary for the 

United States to maintain its strategic posture. “The position of the Bonins had changed,” 

he continued.419 “The U.S. had strategic uses for those islands which made them a defense 

for Japan as well as for the United States, adding that the Defense Department had plans 

for using all of Chichi Jima and Haha Jima, which necessitated ‘complete exclusion.’ ”420

The assistant secretary told Asakai he had “spent hours” talking with officials in the Defense 

Department, as had Dulles himself, on the question and that “no one this side of the President would be able to get the Defense Department to change its mind . . . We were sorry 

to have to say ‘no’ to Mr. Fujiyama.”421 Robertson asked Asakai to tell the foreign minister 

that the Bonin problem was the “toughest problem he could have possibly posed at this 

juncture.”422

Asakai listened carefully. He was more doubtful, however, about the denial of grave visits and said so after Robertson explained that the visits could not happen. “The statement 

that there were no tombs,” Asakai interrupted, “was ridiculous.”423 Interestingly, Robertson, 
286

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

shedding the State-Defense Departments united front approach momentarily, agreed. “If 

he had been born and raised in the Bonins, he would be able to find his own home and 

the graves of his ancestors even though he had not been there for over 10 years. This was 

only an excuse,” he continued. “The real reason was the desire for complete exclusion. If 

pilgrims came it would cause problems.”424 While Robertson’s honesty was appreciated, 

Asakai, who described the issue as a “hot ball,” was not satisfied, arguing that when Kishi 

had come, Japan “had received some wonderful news—a ray of hope when the secretary had 

agreed that possibly 200 or 300 Bonin Islanders might be repatriated.”425 Now it was time 

for Robertson to interrupt. Raising his hand as if to say “time out,” he stated that he knew 

of no such promise. He took out the minutes of the meeting from the Kishi visit and read 

them, emphasizing that “quite the contrary” Dulles had not created an expectation that 

repatriation was possible. In fact, he had been “very careful” not to raise hopes—indeed, the 

secretary had purposely deleted the sentence in the joint communiqué that dealt with the 

possibility that there might be limited repatriation.426

The press statement released at the end of Fujiyama’s stay was also anticlimatic. Perhaps 

the participants realized it, but with this meeting, all options and compromises regarding 

the repatriation of the islanders to the Bonins was essentially closed for the next decade, 

and bilateral discussions between the United States and Japan would focus on indemnification and later grave visits, before the final push for reversion of the islands themselves. 

Ironically, compensation would prove an equally difficult process within the U.S. government, Japanese government, and the League of Evacuees.

Notes

1

Fukuda, ed., Ogasawarashoto Gaishi, Sono I, 38.

2

Ibid., 38–39, and Kikuchi, “Nanpo no Mon,” 111. This is not the literal name of the association, 

but the official one. The literal name would be “League to Promote the Return to Our Hometowns, 

Ogasawara and Iwo Jima.” For more on the league, see its 15-page brochure, League of Bonin Evacuees for Hastening Repatriation, ed., History of the Problem of the Bonin Islands (Tokyo: Assistance 

Association for Okinawa and Ogasawara, August 1958).

3

Fukuda, ed., Sono I, 39.

4

Ibid., and Kikuchi, “Nanpo no Mon,” 112.

5

Kikuchi, “Nanpo no Mon,” 112.

6

“Telegram 33 from Embassy Japan to State Department, July 2, 1952,” Central Decimal Files 

794C.0221/7-252 (hereafter decimal number only), RG 59, and “Despatch 298 from Embassy Japan to State Department, June 26, 1952,” 794.022/6-2652. Many of the telegrams use abbreviated 

sentences and words. To make it easier to read, I have included the full wording in the quoted sections.

7

“Telegram No. 33.”

8

See appendix 4 for the petitions and a reference to them in Robert Murphy, Diplomat Among Warriors (New York: Doubleday and Co, 1964), 345.

9

“Telegram No. 33.”
287

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

10“Letter from Assistant Secretary Allison to Assistant Secretary Nash, July 15, 1952,” 794C.0221/7-

252. The letter is dated 15 July, but was given a 2 July marking for archival purposes, apparently because the discussion related to the issue raised on 2 July. This may explain why the editors of FRUS, 

1952–1954 were unable to locate the letter, as mentioned in 1316n1.

11Allison also met with Charles Sullivan of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, sometime around 

the time he sent his letter to Nash where the issue of repatriation came up. As no memorandum of 

conversation was located, the date and actual contents of the meeting are unknown. For a reference 

to the meeting, see “Letter from Assistant Secretary Nash to Assistant Secretary Allison, August 

26, 1952,” 794c.0221/8-2752. Assistant Secretary Allison wrote to Frank C. Nash, his counterpart 

as assistant secretary of defense for International Security Affairs, an office that has been called the 

Defense Department’s “State Department,” outlining the situation and explaining that DOD was 

forwarded copies of Murphy’s telegram. Murphy did not receive an immediate response, probably 

because the State and Defense Departments were in the middle of clarifying their respective views. 

Indeed, the State Department, summarizing the two departments’ stances and requesting detailed 

comment from the embassy, wrote to Murphy to get his staff ’s comments at the end of August. See 

the document at 794C.0221/8-2952, and “Mail Instruction No. 25, September 11, 1952,” FRUS, 

1952–1954, 1340.

12Stephen Jurika Jr., ed., From Pearl Harbor to Vietnam: The Memoirs of Admiral Arthur W. Radford

(Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 1980), 261.

13Fechteler succeeded Adm Forrest P. Sherman, who died in office in August 1951.

14“Communication No. 4274 from CINCPACFLT to CNO, July 12, 1952,” Records Regarding the 

Bonin-Volcano Islands.

15Radford, From Pearl Harbor to Vietnam, 261.

16Ibid., 258–59.

17“Communication No. 4274.”

18True combined basing with U.S. forces in Japan has for the most part yet to be realized in Japan, 

due less to the lack of U.S. willingness and more to a lack of interest on Japan’s part.

19“Memorandum for Files (Memorandum of Conversation with Admiral Fechteler), July 16, 1952,” 

sent as an attachment to “Letter from Ambassador Murphy to Assistant Secretary Allison, July 29, 

1952,” 794C.0221/7-2952.

20“Letter from Assistant Secretary Nash to Assistant Secretary Allison, August 26, 1952.” As will be 

discussed later, there was a difference of opinion between Nash’s office and the Navy on the question 

of the islands’ return.

21Ibid. Allison had been making plans to visit the Far East in his capacity as assistant secretary 

since May (which would be the first time that any assistant secretary had done so). Allison eventually was not able to make it to the Bonin Islands himself, although he had originally “hoped to be 

with you and Radford to discuss this problem and go” with Murphy there. See “Telegram 643, from 

Department of State to Ambassador Murphy, September 6, 1952,” 794C.022/9-652. Allison was in 

Japan the second week of November. Radford, by chance, was in Washington, DC, on 5 September 

probably because of the Bonins issue, among others, and met with Allison. The author was unable 

to find a memorandum of their conversation, but Allison discusses it in his 6 September telegram to 

Murphy (“Telegram 643”).
288

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

22“Telegram 643.”

23“Letter from Prime Minister Yoshida Shigeru to Admiral Radford, September 3, 1952.” This document was obtained by the author through the Japanese equivalent of the Freedom of Information 

Act in 2006 (hereafter, Eldridge, JFOIA, 2006). According to 1343n1 of FRUS, 1952–1954, the 

editors were unable to locate the letter (dated according to Murphy’s memo in the FRUS volume 

of 2 September) but that is because it was probably sent directly to Radford and not through State 

Department channels. 1343n3 states that the department was “unaware [of the] existence” of the 

Yoshida letter to Radford, but Murphy had made clear in a 30 August telegram that it was in 

preparation, as Foreign Minister Okazaki had showed him a draft of the letter on 30 August. See 

“Telegram 771 from Embassy to State Department, August 30, 1952,” 794c.0221/8-3052. It seems, 

in any case, the State Department had not received a copy, and it questioned the “desirability” of the 

Japanese government communicating directly with CINCPACFLT, and requested the embassy to 

raise the issue in an “appropriately discreet manner that normal dipl[omatic] channels sh[ou]ld be 

followed [in] matters [of ] this type.” As noted above, this author was able to have the letter declassified, and so now it is available to researchers.

24“Letter from Prime Minister Yoshida Shigeru to Admiral Radford.”

25For Radford’s hosting of Yoshida, see Radford, From Pearl Harbor to Vietnam, 262–64. For the 

meeting with Yoshida on 14 October 1952, in Tokyo, see “Telegram 1226 from Ambassador Murphy to Secretary of State, October 14, 1952,” 790.022/10-1452.

26“Letter from Prime Minister Yoshida Shigeru to Admiral Radford.”

27“Telegram 771.”

28“Memorandum for Files (Memorandum of Conversation with Admiral Fechteler), July 16, 

1952.”

29“Ogasawara Jumin no Kikan ni Kansuru Okazaki Daijin, Murphy Taishi Kaidan no Ken [Meeting 

between Minister Okazaki and Ambassador Murphy on Return of Ogasawara Islanders], September 9, 1952,” Eldridge, JFOIA, 2006.

30The request by the State Department was made to confirm statements made by the Defense Department in a 26 August letter to the State Department. See above, “Letter from Assistant Secretary 

Nash to Assistant Secretary Allison, August 26, 1952,” and “Telegram 644, from Secretary Acheson 

to Ambassador Murphy, September 3, 1952,” 794c.0221/8-3052.

31“Memorandum on the Repatriation Plan of the Japanese to the Bonin Islands,” Eldridge, JFOIA, 

2006.

32Ibid.

33Ibid. Prime Minister Yoshida seems to have made a direct appeal shortly before this on 3 September in a letter sent to Adm Radford. He asked for special consideration for the residents.

34“Letter from Foreign Minister Okazaki to Ambassador Murphy, June 23, 1952,” Eldridge, JFOIA, 

2006. The author was able to have the 5 March letter, drafted by Wajima Eiji, chief of the Asian 

Affairs Bureau, MOFA, to the Diplomatic Section of GHQ on the Question of Repatriation of 

Evacuees from the Bonin Islands, declassified.

35“Letter from Foreign Minister Okazaki to Ambassador Murphy.”

36Fukuda, ed., Sono I, 39. See, as well, Mainichi Shimbun story, 27 September 1952.
289

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

37Kikuchi, “Nanpo no Mon,” 113, and Fukuda, ed., Sono I, 40.

38“Telegram 1204 from Ambassador Murphy to U. Alexis Johnson, October 13, 1952,” 794C.022/10-

1352; and “Telegram No. 643.” Also see “Letter from William C. Foster to Secretary of State 

Acheson, October 1, 1952,” 794C.022/10-152, and “Telegram No. 1135 from Embassy to State 

Department, October 6, 1952,” 794C.022/10-652.

39“Telegram 1204.”

40Radford, From Pearl Harbor to Vietnam, 261.

41Murphy, Diplomat Among Warriors, 345.

42“Telegram 1204,” and Findley, Book II, 213.

43Findley, Book II, 213. A history of the Toledo, which spent much of this period involved in supporting the Korean War, notes that it narrowly missed being damaged only a few days before. It took up 

station on the bomb line a few days later after returning Radford and Murphy and its other passengers to Japan. For more, see the on-line history at http://www.usstoledoca133.com/.

44The Sperry, a submarine tender that serviced submarines activated in response to the Korean War, 

arrived in Futami on 2 October and stayed there for a full week before returning to the West Coast 

of the United States. The three-month cruise was the only time for it to go into the Western Pacific. 

While at Chichi Jima, the Sperry’s crew provided dental and other medical services to the islanders, 

and made repairs to naval facility equipment including its 50-foot patrol boat and the two diesel 

generators at the radio station on top of Yoake Yama. See Findley, Book II, 215–16.

45The Cabezon, which was based at Pearl Harbor, was approaching the end of the second of two 

cruises to the Far East when it stopped in Futami Harbor. Part of its mission during this cruise was 

to conduct reconnaissance between Hokkaido and Sakhalin Island.

46The Sea Devil had been decommissioned in September 1948 but was reactivated in March 1951 

after hostilities broke out on the Korean Peninsula, and operated primarily in Hawaiian waters. In 

1952, it underwent an overhaul at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and then in September was sent 

to Yokosuka to conduct antisubmarine warfare training exercises. The Sea Devil was on its way to 

Yokosuka when it stopped in Futami, its first deployment to the Western Pacific since it was recommissioned.

47Findley, Book II, 213.

48Ibid., 213–14, and “Telegram 1204.”

49See photograph “Admiral Radford’s inspection of the Bonins on 3–4 October 1952,” in Findley,

Book II, 284-a. Findley, incidentally, was a Navy commander and the island government officer at the 

time of the inspection, and became one of the Navy’s strongest advocates for retaining the islands. 

One of those in the photograph, retired VAdm H. E. Overich, was apparently working for the CIA 

at this time, as his identification says “CIA.” This may explain why his name does not appear in 

Murphy’s account of the trip in his telegram. It adds further credence to the Defense Department’s 

assertion that “covert operations” were based out of the Bonin Islands, as mentioned in the 22 September State-Defense working group meeting.

50“Telegram 1204,” 1341.

51Ibid.
290

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

52Ibid., 1342.

53Ibid., 1341.

54Ibid., 1342.

55Ibid., 1341–42.

56Ibid., 1342.

57Ibid., 1341.

58Ibid., 1342.

59“Memorandum on Informal Defense Comments on State Department Draft of NSC Policy Paper 

by the Director of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs Young to the Assistant Secretary Allison, 

June 10, 1952,” FRUS, 1952–1954, 1272.

60See editorial note, FRUS, 1952–1954, 1286.

61For NSC 125/2, see FRUS, 1952–1954, 1300–308.

62“Letter from Chairman Omar N. Bradley to Secretary of Defense, August 15, 1952,” enclosure to 

“Letter from Deputy Secretary of Defense William C. Foster to Secretary of State Acheson, August 

29, 1952,” 794c.0221/8-2952.

63“Letter from Foster to Acheson, August 29, 1952.”

64“Letter from Acheson to Foster, September 16, 1952,” Roll 7, Microfilm C0044, NEA Files, RG 

59. The actual date the letter was sent is unclear, although it is dated 16 September. By that point, 

the meetings had already started.

65“Memorandum on State-Defense Divergence on Disposition of the Ryukyus from Kenneth B. 

Young to Assistant Secretary Allison, September 11, 1952,” 794c.0221/9-1152.

66Ibid.

67Ibid.

68See Joseph F. Enright, Shinano! The Sinking of Japan’s Secret Supership (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 

1987). After the war, Enright was stationed in Japan and later served as the Navy adviser at the time 

of signing of the peace treaty. He was also involved in helping the postwar Japanese Maritime SelfDefense Force (then known as the Maritime Safety Force) acquire 16 landing craft as patrol vessels. 

(Ibid., 193).

69The author was unable to discover just exactly what “covert operations” were centered on the islands, although there were many rumors about activities and tangential evidence about different actions, including references to the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency. While 

it does not specifically mention the islands, a new book about the CIA discusses its some of its activities in Japan and Northeast Asia in the early 1950s. See Tim Werner, Legacy of Ashes: The History 

of the CIA (New York: Doubleday, 2007), 60.

70“Memorandum on State-Defense of Conversation by Deputy Director of Office of Northeast 

Asian Affairs McClurkin, September 22, 1952,” FRUS 1952–1954, 1334. There was no mention of 

the specific covert activities, but a 5 January 1953, memorandum from JCS chairman Gen Bradley 

to the Director, Central Intelligence Walter Bedell Smith, with the subject, Haha Jima, refers to an 

unattached memo. Smith, an Army general, wrote to Bradley that same day. Bradley, who apparently 
291

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

did not get along with Smith, told the director that the memorandum would be given “full consideration whenever this matter is again brought up before the Joint Chiefs of Staff.” (See “Memorandum 

on Haha Jima from Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Bradley to Director, Central Intelligence, 5 

January 1953,” Folder: CJCS 091 Japan 1953, Box 5, Chairman’s Files, General Bradley, 1949–1953, 

RG 218.) The author was unable to locate the memo from Smith to Bradley.

71It is unclear if the Defense Department representatives had in mind the issue of locating nuclear 

weapons and warheads when they made this statement, but the potential for Japan to limit their 

transit on mainland Japan likely was a reason.

72“Memorandum on the Status of Our Work on the Problem of the Ryukyus by Director Young to 

Assistant Secretary Allison, January 12, 1953,” FRUS, 1952–1954, 1376–77.

73Ibid., 1378.

74Dulles became secretary of State in January 1953 and served during most of the Eisenhower administration. He died from cancer in May 1959, having resigned the month before.

75“Memorandum by Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs Allison to Secretary of State 

Dulles on Future Disposition of the Ryukyu and Bonin Islands, March 18, 1953,” 794C.0221/3-

1853.

76Allison’s memo also took up the question of the Amami Islands and Okinawa. In the case of the 

former, Allison urged that the Amami group be returned to Japan “at an early date.” Based on this 

approach, the islands were in fact returned later that year. For more, see Eldridge, The Return of the 

Amami Islands, particularly chapter 4.

77“Letter from Director Young to Ambassador Murphy, April 8, 1953,” field correspondence from 

Japan, RG 59.

78Ibid.

79According to Findley, the conference had its origins from correspondence on 19 February initiated by Secretary of Defense Charles E. Wilson, who feared “increased Japanese efforts to [have us] 

return the islands.” Findley, Book II, 219.

80One example of their study included a meeting with Dr. Justin Williams, who had served on the 

J-5 staff at CINCFE and was responsible for helping to write the report of Gen Matthew B. Ridgway, which said that Okinawa could probably be returned. Williams still felt that Okinawa should 

be returned but, surprisingly, stated, in a question by Deputy Director of the Office of Northeast 

Asian Affairs Robert J. G. McClurkin, that he did not see any reason to return the Bonins to Japan 

at this point, although he did believe arrangements could be made by which the islanders could be 

allowed to return. See “Memorandum of Conversation on the Ryukyu and Bonin Islanders, April 

23, 1953,” 794c.0221/4-253. For more on the report by Williams, see Eldridge, The Origins of the 

Bilateral Okinawa Problem, 365–70.

81Findley, Book II, 219–23, and FRUS, 1952–1954, 1426–27n3. Radford, strongly opposed to the 

return of the Bonins, had no problem seeing the Amami group of islands returned, as they were not 

under his command.

82Findley, Book II, 220. In addition, representatives from the Trust Territory, Guam, and the Civil 

Aeronautics Administration were there.

83In addition to the above paper, which was Agreement Paper No. 5, the conferees agreed (in Agreement Paper No. 1) to establish the Pacific Islands Coordinating Group, or PICG. For a summary 
292

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

of the conference, see Findley, Book II, 219–23. Also see “Report of the Inter-U.S. Agency Pacific 

Security Conference, May 14, 1953,” Tokyo Post files, 320.1 Pacific Security Conference, RG 59.

84Allison, Ambassador from the Prairie, 223.

85“Memorandum on Discussion by NSC Planning Board of Ryukyu and Bonin Islands by Assistant 

Secretary Robertson to Secretary Dulles, June 2, 1953,” 794c.0221/5-2953, also cited in fn. 4, FRUS, 

1952–1954, 1435.

86Ibid.

87“Memorandum on Discussion by NSC Planning Board.”

88Fechteler was representing Bradley, chairman of the JCS. Both strongly opposed to changing the 

status quo on the Bonins.

89For more on the Amami decision, see Eldridge, The Return of the Amami Islands, chapter 4.

90Ross, Iwo Jima, 355.

91“Memorandum of Discussion at the 151st Meeting of the National Security Council, Washington, 

June 25, 1953,” FRUS, 1952–1954, 1442.

92“Memorandum on The Japanese Treaty Islands by the Executive Secretary (Lay) to the National 

Security Council, June 15, 1953,” FRUS, 1952–1954, 1433.

93Chapter 5 of Eldridge, The Return of the Amami Islands, explores the arrangements and negotiations 

in more detail.

94“U.S. Returns Islands to Japanese Control: Statement by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles,” 

Department of State Bulletin, vol. 30, no. 758 (4 January 1954), 17.

95“Telegram 1586 from Ambassador Allison to Secretary of State, December 26, 1953,” 

(794c.0221/12-2653), cited in FRUS, 1952–1954, 1571.

96“Telegram 1535 from Secretary Dulles to Ambassador Allison, December 28, 1953,” cited in 

FRUS, 1952–1954, 1572.

97“Author’s Interview with Kikuchi Tadahiko, August 3, 2000, Chichi Jima.” Also see Fukuda Tokuyasu, “ ‘Ogasawara’ Hakkan ni Yosete [On the Occasion of Publishing ‘Ogasawara’],” Ogasawara, 

no. 1 (November 1965), 1, published by the Ogasawara Kyokai. This was reprinted in Special Issue 

[Tokushu], no. 44 (December 1998) of Ogasawara, 1. Letter to author from Mrs. Fukuda Tokuyasu 

(Aya), 3 October 2007.

98Fukuda Tokuyasu, Chiseiten ni Tsuzu: Seikai 25 Nen no Ayumi [Toward the Sky: 25 Years in Politics] (Tokyo: Gaisei Kenkyukai, 1974), 129.

99Fukuda, “ ‘Ogasawara’ Hakkan.”

100“Petition for Permission to Return to the Bonin Islands, August 8, 1953,” in Fukuda, ed., Sono 1, 

128–29.

101Tsuji, Ogasawara Shoto Gaishi, 282. For the latter petition, see Fukuda, ed., Sono 1, 114–19.

102“Ogasawara Shoto yori Hikiagesaserareta Motojumin no Kikyo ni Kansuru Ketsugi [Resolution 

for Repatriation of Former Inhabitants Who Have been Evacuated from the Bonin Islands] August 

4, 1953,” in Ishii Michinori, Ogasawara Shoto Gaishi (Sono 2), 23–27. An English version of the 
293

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

resolution can be found in Fukuda, ed., Sono 1, 129–30. Utsunomiya’s connection to the resolution 

is unclear, but he was elected from Tokyo, where many inhabitants of the islands lived, in 1952 as a 

member of the Liberal Party, having been a member of the Communist Party as well as a businessman at one point. He was considered the furthest to the left among the conservatives.

103“Petition for Permission to Return to the Bonin Islands, August 8, 1953.”

104“Ryodo Mondai ni Kansuru Ketsugian [Resolution Concerning Territory], June 3, 1951,” in Ishii, 

ed., Sono 2, 2–6.

105“Heiwa Joyaku Hatudo ni Tomonau Ketsugi no Ken [Resolution on the Occasion of the Peace 

Treaty Going to Effect], April 28, 1952,” ibid., 6–7.

106“Ryodo ni Kansuru Ketsugian [Resolution Concerning Territory], July 31, 1952,” ibid., 8–14.

107“Letter from League of Bonin Evacuees to Admiral Felix B. Stump with Petition for Quick Return to the Bonin Islands, September 24, 1953,” in Fukuda, ed., Sono 1, 125–28. It was the second 

one to Stump, the first being sent on 21 July, 11 days after he assumed command. The first one can 

be found in ibid., 122–25. A couple weeks after receipt of the first one, Stump visited Chichi Jima on 

11 August where he met with local representatives. For more on his visit, see chapter 5 of this book. 

Also see Findley, Book II, 223–25, and 284.

108“Letter from League of Bonin Evacuees to Admiral Felix B. Stump with Petition for Quick Return to the Bonin Islands, September 24, 1953,” 126–27.

109Ibid., 123. Also see “Bokyo no Maru 9 Nen” [9 Full Years of Missing our Hometown], Yomiuri 

Shimbun, 17 May 1953.

110“Telegram 1425 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, December 8, 1953,” CDF, 1950–1954 

(794.0221/12-853), RG 59. Apparently the Associated Press had introduced a story on 7 December 

by The Nippon Times (formerly and later to be known as The Japan Times), which had misrepresented 

the letter from Berger, and caused a series of exchanges between the department and embassy. That 

same day (12 November), the league had submitted a petition entitled “Petition for Return of the 

Okinawan and Bonin Islands out of Respect for Decision by Japanese House of Representatives,” 

but the letter of 12 November does not appear to be in response to the petition. For the petition, see 

Fukuda, ed., Sono 1, 83–84. Reference to Dulles’ message was made in testimony by Fujita Hozen in 

Foreign Affairs Committee of the Lower House, on 10 February 1954, in Ishii, ed., Sono 2, 154, and 

by Fukuda Tokuyasu, in ibid., 162.

111The transcript of the meeting can be found in Ishii, ed., Sono 2, 129–211.

112“Officials Doubt New Bonin Move,” Pacific Stars and Stripes, 28 January 1954.

113The Tokyo Metropolitan Government, which had jurisdiction over the islands prior to the beginning of the U.S. Naval administration, conducted a subsequent survey in April 1954, and found that 

only 9 percent were living “above the average standard,” and 266 households within the Tokyo area, 

required support under the Livelihood Protection Law.

114Ishii, ed., Sono 2, 112. “U.S. Said Intending Ryukyu, Bonin Return,” Pacific Stars and Stripes, 23 

February 1954. Also see “Despatch no. 1217, Bi-Weekly Political Notes February 12, 1954–February 

26, 1954,” 794.00/2-2654. The group was also known as the Committee for Acceleration of Return 

of Okinawa to Japan, and the leader also went by the name of Nakayoshi Yoshimitsu, an alternative 

reading of his personal name.

115For Kodaki’s statement in the Foreign Affairs Committee, see Ishii, ed., Sono 2, 212.
294

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

116“Anderson Note Brings on Query,” Pacific Stars and Stripes, 25 February 1964. Allison was back in 

Washington, DC, at the time (FRUS, 1609). Okazaki wanted to sign the Mutual Defense Assistance 

Agreement on 2 March (see FRUS, 1611), but it was not signed until 8 March (FRUS, 1616). It is 

unclear when he returned. The Bikini Incident happened on 1 March 1954.

117“Letter from Acting Director McClurkin to Counselor of Embassy Parsons, March 16, 1954,” 

Roll 7, Microfilm C0044, NEA Files, RG 59.

118“Despatch no. 1217.”

119For more on Berger, see Graenum Berger, A Not So Silent Envoy: A Biography of Ambassador Samuel David Berger, 1992.

120“Memorandum of Conversation by Samuel D. Berger (March 5, 1954),” Roll 5, Microfilm C0044, 

NEA Files, RG 59.

121Ibid.

122The full title of the memo, attached to the memorandum of conversation, was “Four Points for 

Consideration Concerning the Repatriation from Japan of Former Residents of the Bonin Islands 

Which are Now Under the Control of U.S. Military Forces.” See “Memorandum of Conversation 

on Return of Bonin Islanders to Bonin Islands (March 5, 1954),” Roll 7, Microfilm C0044, NEA 

Files, RG 59.

123Ibid.

124“Four Points for Consideration,” in ibid.

125Ibid.

126Ibid.

127As mentioned in chapter 1, at the time of evacuation, Haha Jima had a population of approximately 1,900.

128“Memorandum from Frank Hawley to Kenneth Young on Return of Bonin Islanders to Bonin 

Islands, March 5, 1954,” Roll 7, Microfilm C0044, NEA Files, RG 59.

129“Memorandum by Robertson to Secretary Dulles on Bonin Islands and Trust Territory of the 

Pacific Islands, December 2, 1954,” Roll 5, ibid.

130“Memorandum by the Acting Secretary of State Murphy to the President, May 29, 1954,” in 

FRUS, 1952–1954, 1648.

131Yoshida had been petitioned at least twice in 1954 prior to his trip to the United States by the 

league to make sure he took up their issue, as was Okazaki. See Fukuda, ed., Sono 1, 51.

132Yoshida, The Yoshida Memoirs, 122. The papers related to Yoshida’s visit can be found in Briefing 

Books, Yoshida Visit, Roll 13, Microfilm C0044, Office of NEA Affairs, RG 59.

133“Memorandum from Mr. Finn to Mr. Snow on Bonin Islanders Claims, November 17, 1954,” 

Box 14, Lot Subject Files Relating to Ryukyus, 1952–1958, RG 59. For the Japanese version of the 

meeting, see “Okazaki-Robertson Kaidan ni Kansuru Ken [The Okazaki-Robertson Talks], October 

23, 1954,” Eleventh declassification (1981).

134“Memorandum of Conversation, Aichi Talks (October 28, 1954),” Briefing Books, Yoshida Visit, 

Roll 13, Microfilm C0044, Office of NEA Affairs, RG 59.
295

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

135Ibid.

136Ibid.

137“Untitled memo, received from Mr. Tanaka, October 25, 1954,” attachment to “Memorandum 

from Mr. Finn to Mr. Snow on Bonin Islanders Claim.”

138Ibid.

139See Miyazawa Kiichi, Tokyo-Washinton no Mitsudan (Tokyo: Chuko Bunko, 1999), 300. This book 

has been translated by the author. See Robert D. Eldridge, Secret Talks between Tokyo and Washington: 

The Memoirs of Miyazawa Kiichi, 1949–1954 (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2007). Also see Yoshida, 

The Yoshida Memoirs, 122. Dewey let Dulles know of the contents of Yoshida’s conversation with him, 

and mentions that Yoshida raised the Bonins issue with him as well. See “Memorandum of Telephone Conversation Prepared in the Department of State, November 10, 1954,” FRUS, 1952–1954, 

1785. For his own trip to Japan in 1952, see Thomas E. Dewey, Journey to the Far Pacific (Garden 

City: Doubleday and Co., 1952).

140Yoshida, The Yoshida Memoirs, 123.

141“Memorandum from Mr. Finn to Mr. Snow on Bonin Islanders Claims.”

142“Joint Statement following Discussions with Prime Minister Yoshida of Japan, November 10, 

1954,” Department of State Bulletin, 22 November 1954, 765. Kimberley J. Miller, “Battle for Iwo 

Jima: WWII Fact Sheet,” Navy and Marine Corps WWII Commemorative Committee, Navy Office of Information, The Pentagon, 1995.

143For more on this exchange, see Kamisaka, Iwo Jima Imada, 149–52. Eerily, Edson, a veteran of some 

of the hardest fighting in the Pacific, was found dead of carbon monoxide poisoning less than a year 

later on 14 August 1955, in his car in his garage; coroners ruled his death a suicide. Edson resigned 

from the Marines in 1947 fearing the excessive involvement of the military in policy matters: “I am a 

military man and proud of it. But when we reach the point where the military are directing, instead of 

supporting, our country’s policies, we were far along the road to losing what this country has always 

stood for.” See Jack Raymond, Power at the Pentagon (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), 81.

144Kikuchi, “Nanpo no Mon,” 114.

145“Petition to President Eisenhower, Request for Permission to Return to Bonin Islands, September 

24, 1954,” in Fukuda, ed., Sono 1, 133–35. The one to Dulles is essentially identical, and can be found 

in ibid., 135–37.

146“Memorandum of Telephone Conversation Prepared in Department of State.”

147“Memorandum by Robertson to Secretary Dulles, December 2, 1954.”

148Ibid.

149Ibid.

150“Telegram 1624 from Embassy to Department of State, January 7, 1955,” 794.5/1-755.

151“Telegram 1401 from Dulles to Allison on Bonin Islanders, January 12, 1955,” 794.5/1-755.

152Ibid.

153Ibid.
296

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

154Ibid. Also see, “Telegram 1605 from the Embassy to the Department of State, January 6, 1955,” 

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957 (hereafter, FRUS, 1955–1957), vol. 23, part 1 

(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1991), 3.

155“Telegram 1605.”

156“Memorandum from McClurkin to Sebald on Bonin Islanders, January 12, 1955,” 794.5/1-755.

157“Memorandum from Sebald to Scott on Compensation for Bonin Islanders, January 20, 1955,” 

794.5/1-755

158“Memorandum of Conversation on Bonins and Ryukyus (March 15, 1955),” Roll 5, Microfilm 

ƒC0044, NEA Files, RG 59.

159Fukuda, ed., Sono 1, 178.

160Ibid.

161“Telegram 409 from Allison to Dulles, August 12, 1955,” 033.9411/8-1155.

162“Telegram 394 from Allison to Dulles, August 11, 1955,” 033.9411/8-1155.

163“Summary of Positions, Foreign Minister Shigemitsu Visit, Washington, August 25–September 

1, 1955 (August 22, 1955),” Folder: Shigemitsu Visits, Box 7, Records of the Bureau of Far Eastern 

Affairs, 1955, RG 59; “Ryukyus and Bonins, Foreign Minister Shigemitsu Visit, Washington, August 25–September 1, 1955 (August 22, 1955),” ibid.

164“Memorandum of Conversation, First Meeting with Shigemitsu (August 29, 1955),” FRUS, 

1955–1957, 90–96. The general statement, as it concerned the Bonins, reads, “With respect to the 

Ryukyu and Bonin Islands, it is, as is well known, the fervent desire of us all that the administrative rights over them will be restored to Japan at an early date. Setting aside Iwo Jima, where an 

American air base is said to exist, the return of administrative rights over the Bonins, where there are 

practically no military establishments, will prove an effective gesture on the part of the United States 

in demonstrating its good will toward Japan. At least as an immediate initial step, we hope that the 

United States Government will permit the former inhabitants of the Bonins to return to their home 

islands in accordance with our long standing request.” The general statement is not included in the 

FRUS volume, but is attached to the memorandum of conversation in the Central Decimal Files 

(033.9411/8-2955). The author was unable to locate a similar version, English or Japanese, in the 

materials he had declassified as part of his FOIA request to the foreign ministry.

165“Memorandum of Conversation, Third Meeting with Shigemitsu, August 31, 1955,” FRUS, 

1955–1957, 111–16.

166The paper, in English and dated 29 August 1955, is not included in the FRUS volume, but is attached to the memorandum of conversation in the Central Decimal Files (033.9411/8-3155). Like 

the general statement above, the author was unable to locate a similar version, English or Japanese, 

in the materials he had declassified as part of his FOIA request to the foreign ministry.

167“The Ryukyu and Bonin Islands.”

168Ibid.

169“Memorandum of Conversation, Third Meeting with Shigemitsu.”

170Ibid. Dulles had been briefed earlier that day in a memo by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State 

for Far Eastern Affairs Sebald, which included the following: “Ryukyus and Bonins (Tab K). Regret 
297

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

that none of proposed actions feasible at this time (statement of intention restore Japanese administration, return of Bonins except Iwo Jima, repatriation to Bonins). We believe these problems should 

remain in present status, and any of proposed actions might increase rather than lessen the agitation 

within Japan for further steps which cannot be taken in the present international situation.” See 

“Memorandum from Sebald to Dulles on Meeting with Foreign Minister Shigemitsu Wednesday 

August 31, Room 5100, August 31, 1955,” 033.9411/8-3155.

171Regarding the Bonins, the draft statement had read, “The Foreign Minister asked that . . . the 

United States favorably considered Japan’s hopes for eventual return to Japanese administration of 

the Ryukyuan and Bonin Islands. United States officials described the complexity of these problems.”

172“Memorandum of Conversation on Bonin Repatriation, etc. (October 7, 1955),” Folder: Shigemitsu Visits, Box 10, Records of the Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs, 1955, RG 59.

173Ibid.

174Ibid.

175“Letter from Tokuyasu Fukuda to the Honorable John Foster Dulles, September 27, 1953,” 

033.9411/9-2755. In his response, Robertson told Fukuda he would be happy to meet with him, 

but that Secretary Dulles could not do so as the secretary would be preparing to leave for Geneva to 

attend the foreign ministers meeting.

176Fukuda, Chiseiten, 1–3.

177Ibid., 113.

178Fukuda Tokuyasu, “Ogasawara Tomin ni Kokyo o Ataeyo: 7700 no Higan o Beikoku ni Uttaeru” 

[Give the Ogasawara Islanders Their Hometown Back: Taking to the U.S. the Appeals of 7700 

(People)], Nippon Shuho, no. 348 (December 1955), 24–25.

179Findley, Book II, 231–34.

180Entitled “Petition to the Government of the United States of America for Permission to Return 

to the Bonin Islands,” it can be found as appendix XI, in ibid, 330–32.

181“Memorandum of Conversation on Repatriation of Bonin Islanders (October 20, 1955),” Folder: 

Memorandums of Conversation Japanese, Box 10, Records of the Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs, 

1955, RG 59.

182Ibid.

183“Shasetsu Ogasawara Tomin no Kito o Yobo Suru” [Editorial Demanding the Return of the Ogasawara Islanders], Mainichi Shimbun, 4 October 1955.

184Ibid.

185Ibid.

186Ibid.

187“Bonin Islanders to Ask U.S. for Ok on Return Home,” MOFA Information Bulletin, vol. II, no. 19 

(1 October 1955). This statement is reprinted in Fukuda, ed., Sono 1, 164–66.

188“Statement to Press by Mr. Tatsuo Yokota, President of the League of Bonin Evacuees for Hastening Repatriation,” in Fukuda, ed., Sono 1, 166–71.
298

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

189Fukuda, “Ogasawara Tomin ni Kokyo o Ataeyo,” 26.

190Ibid., 25.

191“Letter from Fukuda Tokuyasu to Vice Admiral Robert P. Briscoe, January 5, 1956,” Chairman’s 

Files, Admiral Radford, 1953–1957, RG 218. At the end of the letter, Fukuda, not-so-subtly mentioned that he served as chairman of the United States–Japan Cooperation Committee within the 

LDP, and was “making every effort for a settlement of the question of the Sumakawa [sic] military 

base which has come to the fore recently,” seemingly linking to a resolution of the base issue with 

that of the repatriation one. (Fukuda was referring to the Sunakawa, which was part of the expansion 

of the U.S. base at Tachikawa, outside of Tokyo.) Fukuda also included a letter he had sent to Roderick Webb and the other islanders of Western descent, introduced more fully in chapter 5, who had 

petitioned naval authorities not to let the evacuees return, arguing that they had not been discriminated against and had been aided by the league in the past. See “Letter from Yokota Tatsuo to Webb 

Roderick and other fellow islanders, the Bonin Islands, December 10, 1955,” attachment to ibid.

192“Memorandum of Conversation on Repatriation of Bonin Islanders and Other Matters, October 

25, 1955,” Folder: Memorandums of Conversation Japanese, Box 10, Records of the Bureau of Far 

Eastern Affairs, 1955, RG 59.

193Ibid.

194Ibid.

195Ibid.

196“Memorandum of Conversation on Bonin Islands Matters, October 26, 1955,” Folder: Memorandums of Conversation Japanese, Box 10, Records of the Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs, 1955, RG 

59.

197The issue of reestablishing a whaling station was taken up later that fall by the Office of the Chief 

of Naval Operations and was denied. The direct reason for the study seems to have been because of 

a letter from a Mr. Suzuki of Nippon Suisan Kaisha, Ltd., who had written to the secretary of state 

about establishing said station. See “Memorandum from Chief of Naval Operations to Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs on Request from the Japanese for Establishing a Whaling Land Station in the Bonin Islands; denial of, December 19, 1955,” Box 14, Chairman’s Files, Admiral Radford, 1953–1957, RG 218.

198Fukuda, “Ogasawara Tomin ni Kokyo o Ataeyo,” 26.

199Ibid.

200Ibid., 27.

201Ibid.

202Ibid.

203Ibid., 26.

204Ibid., 27.

205Fukuda, ed., Sono 1, 199. Fukuda’s account says the study was submitted to the Japanese government on 27 December, but a foreign ministry memo (below) suggests it was received before then.
299

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

206“Ogasawara Jumin no Kito Mondai ni Kansuru Keii [A Record of the Ogasawara Repatriation 

Problem], March 7, 1956,” Eldridge, FOIA, 2006.

207“Letter from Allison to Robertson, December 14, 1955,” FRUS, 1955–1957, 142.

208Ibid.

209Ibid.

210“Letter from Allison to Robertson, December 14, 1955,” 794C.0221/12-1455. The editors of 

FRUS record they were unable to locate this additional letter of the same date but the author did 

find it in the National Archives files (see FRUS, 1955–1957, 142n2).

211“Foreign Office Note on Repatriation of Bonin Islanders, December 20, 1955,” 794c.00/12-

2055.

212Ibid.

213“Ogasawara Jumin no Kito.”

214Ibid.

215“Letter from Tokuyasu Fukuda to Robertson, January 5, 1956,” 794.00/1-556. The Sunakawa issue was a reference to the attempts by the U.S. Air Force to expand its runway in Sunakawa Town, 

now part of Tachikawa City. Eventually, the case went to the Supreme Court as a lower court had 

ruled the existence of the base, in support of the U.S.-Japan alliance, was in violation of Article 9 of 

the Japanese constitution.

216“Letter from Tokuyasu Fukuda to Murphy, January 5, 1956,” 794c.022/1-556.

217“Letter from Robertson to Allison, January 9, 1956,” 794c.022/12–1455 (FRUS, 1955–1957, 

142n5).

218“Letter from Gordon Gray to Robertson, November 4, 1955,” Folder: Defense, Box 10, Records 

of the Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs, 1955, RG 59.

219Ibid.

220Documents in Adm Radford’s files include a position paper which says “Pacific Islands Coordinating Group Meeting 10 January 1956” but is not a memorandum of conversation. It is instead a 

position paper, probably prepared for a meeting scheduled for 10 January. It does not appear, however, that the meeting took place then, but instead on 2 February. Many of the points raised in the 

position paper for Radford were raised by him in the February meeting. See “Position Paper No. 1, 

Japanese Repatriation to the Bonin Islands, Pacific Islands Coordinating Group Meeting ( January 

10, 1956),” Chairman’s Files, Admiral Radford, 1953–1957, Box 14, RG 218.

221Findley, Book II, 247.

222Ibid.

223Ibid.

224Ibid., 248.

225Ibid. Technically, this is not true, as Haha Jima has at least two places of entry by sea, and its main 

harbor being Oki.
300

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

226Ibid., 248.

227Ibid., 249.

228“Ogasawara Jumin no Kito.”

229“Memorandum of a Conversation on Invitation to the Secretary to Visit Japan, January 13, 1956,” 

FRUS, 1955–1957, 150–51.

230“Ogasawara Jumin no Kito.”

231Ibid. Also see “Weekly Notes to Tokyo for Week Ending 2-25-56,” Weekly Notes, Box 52, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84, and “Memorandum from Dulles to Robertson, February 10, 1956,” John 

Foster Dulles Chronological File, February 1956 (3), Box 13, JFD Chronological Series, John Foster 

Dulles Papers, 1951–1959, Eisenhower Library.

232“Ogasawara Jumin no Kito,” and “Weekly Notes to Tokyo for Week Ending 2-25-56.”

233“Weekly Notes to Tokyo for Week Ending 2-25-56,” and “Memorandum from Dulles to Robertson, February 10, 1956.” Dulles also noted that “perhaps prompt action [was] appropriate in view of 

the agitation in the National Diet.”

234“Weekly Notes to Tokyo for Week Ending 2-25-56.”

235“Ogasawara Jumin no Kito.”

236“Weekly Notes to Tokyo for Week Ending 2-25-56.” For more on the Amami announcement, see 

Eldridge, The Return of the Amami Islands, 104–10.

237“Memorandum from Sebald to Dulles on Repatriation of Bonin Islanders (February 24, 1956),” 

Box 1, Japan Jan–July 1956, Records of the Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs Subject Files, 1956, RG 

59.

238Ibid.

239Ibid. Tani, according to Fn 3 of FRUS, 1955–1957, 171, officially presented his credentials on 2 

March. In a letter to Noel Hemmendinger, the acting director of Northeast Asian Affairs, DCM 

Parsons noted that a couple of representatives of the league attended Tani’s send-off party, which 

overall was a “rather sad affair” due to the lack of attendance. See “Letter from Parsons to Hemmendinger, February 24, 1956,” 601.9411/2-2456, and author’s interview with Noel Hemmendinger 

on 7 June 2001, Washington, DC.

240“Letter from Noel Hemmendinger to John Allison Regarding the Secretary’s Briefing Papers, 

March 5, 1956,” Folder 322.3 Jan–April 1956, Box 47, Japan, Tokyo Embassy, RG 84.

241Ibid.

242“Telegram No. 1999 from Embassy to State, February 27, 1956,” ibid.

243Ibid.

244Ibid.

245“Biko Ogasawara Jumin no Sonshitsu Hosho Mondai [Note the Problem of Compensation for 

the Ogasawara Islanders on their Losses], undated,” attached to ibid.

246“Memorandum on Current Problems, March 18, 1956,” enclosure to “Memo from Roger Kirk to 

Mr. Wadell, 22 March 1956,” 611.94/3-2256.
301

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

247“Memo from Herbert Hoover, Jr., to Murphy and Sebald, March 3, 1956,” 794c.022/3-356, and 

“Letter from Noel Hemmendinger to John Allison regarding the Secretary’s Briefing Papers”; “Letter from Noel Hemmendinger to Jeff Graham Parsons, March 9, 1956,” Folder 322.3 Jan–April 

1956, Box 47, Japan, Tokyo Embassy, RG 84.

248“Letter from Noel Hemmendinger to John Allison regarding the Secretary’s Briefing Papers.”

249The week before Dulles arrived in Tokyo, a story appeared in The New York Times by Robert Trumbull about long-range plans by the U.S. Navy for an important submarine base and thus desires to 

have no Japanese repatriated to the island. It is unclear if the story was leaked by the Navy to set the 

tone of the visit, but it portrayed the State Department as unsympathetic to the Navy’s position. See 

“Telegram 1974 from Hoover to U.S. Embassy, Tokyo, March 12, 1956,” 794c.022/3-1256.

250“Notes from Cabinet Meeting, March 23, 1956,” Folder: C 31 (1), March 23, 1956, Box 4, Cabinet Series, White House Office, Office of the Staff Secretary Records, 1952–1961, Eisenhower 

Library.

251“Memorandum of Conversation, General Discussion, March 19, 1956,” FRUS, 1955–1957, 166.

252The LDP was established in November 1955 through a merger of the conservative parties.

253“Memorandum of Conversation, General Discussion, March 19, 1956.”

254Ibid.

255Ibid.

256“Memorandum for Admiral Radford on Dispersal of Atomic Weapons in the Bonin and Volcano 

Islands ( June 4, 1957),” Box 44, Chairman’s Files, Admiral Radford, 1953–1957, RG 218, JCS Records.

257Ibid.

258“Memorandum from Hemmendinger to Robertson on Repatriation of Bonin Islanders, March 

27, 1956,” 794.5/3-2756.

259Author’s interview with Hemmendinger.

260“Memorandum from Hemmendinger to Robertson.”

261Ibid.

262Ibid.

263Ibid. Hemmendinger is alluding to the 1924 Immigration Act and previous understandings that 

limited Japanese immigration to the United States. A further image was that of placing Americans 

of Japanese descent into camps.

264“Telegram 2333.” The Ackerman family is introduced in Shepardson, The Bonin Islands, 144.

265When embassy official Richard M. Lamb visited the islands on 18 January 1956, he apparently 

was told of Ackerman’s desire to return and noted that the islanders spoke highly of him.

266“Telegram 2333.”

267FRUS, 1955–1957, 172n4.

268“Draft letter from Parsons to Hemmendinger, April 9, 1956,” Folder 322.3 Jan–April 1956, Box 

47, Japan, Tokyo Embassy, RG 84.
302

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

269“Telegram No. 2333, Telegram from Allison to Department of State, April 3, 1956,” FRUS, 1955–

1957, 171. See Iguchi Sadao, “For Enduring Japanese-American Friendship,” Bulletin: The AmericaJapan Society, Tokyo, vol. 4, no. 6 (March–April 1956), 74. Iguchi would continue to remain engaged 

in this issue. For example, in early August, when Chairman of the JCS Adm Radford visited Japan, 

Ambassador Iguchi called on the Radford at the embassy to discuss the Bonins issue. See “Memorandum of Conversation of Ambassador Iguchi’s Call on Admiral Radford, August 4, 1956,” Folder 

322.3 Ryukyus July–August 1956, Box 47, Japan, Tokyo Embassy, RG 84.

270“Memorandum of Conversation of Ambassador Tani’s Call on Mr. Robertson, April 11, 1956,” 

611.94/4-1156.

271Ibid.

272Ibid.

273Ibid.

274Ibid.

275“Memorandum of Conversation on the Ryukyus and Bonins, April 17, 1956,” 794.5/4-1756. Author’s interview with Martin on 30 January 1999 in Washington, DC. While in Fukuoka, Martin 

represented the United States at the Amami Reversion Ceremony in Naze City on 25 December 

1953. See Eldridge, The Return of the Amami Islands, 140–42.

276“Memorandum of Conversation on the Ryukyus and Bonins, April 17, 1956.”

277Ibid.

278Ibid.

279“Memorandum from Hemmendinger to Sebald on Repatriation of Bonin Islanders, April 24, 

1956,” 794.5/4-2456, RG 59; “Letter from Allison to Dulles, April 5, 1956,” Folder: 322.3 Ryukyus 

Jan–April 1956, Box 47, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84.

280“Letter from Allison to Dulles, April 5, 1956.”

281“Memoirs (unpublished manuscript),” Folders 16–17, Box 13, Jeff Graham Parsons Papers, Special Collections Division, Georgetown University Library, Washington, DC.

282“Letter from Allison to Dulles, April 5, 1956.”

283Ibid.

284Ibid.

285Ibid.

286Ibid.

287Ibid.

288“Memorandum from Hemmendinger to Sebald on Repatriation of Bonin Islanders, April 24, 

1956.”

289“Nanpo Shoto Jumin no Songai Hosho Mondai ni Kansuru Ken [Issue Relating to the Problem 

on Compensation for the Losses of the Ogasawara Islanders], May 25, 1956,” Eldridge, JFOIA, 

2006.
303

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

290“Memo from Robertson to Dulles on Repatriation of Former Inhabitants of Bonin Islands, July 

26, 1956,” Folder: Japan 1956, July–September, Box 1, Records of the Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs 

Subject Files, 1956, RG 59.

291Ibid.

292Ibid. Also see “Weekly Notes to Tokyo for Week Ending July 14, 1956,” Folder: Weekly Notes 

from Department, July–December 1956, Box 52, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84.

293“Memorandum from Sebald to Dulles on Repatriation of Bonin Islanders (February 24, 1956).”

294“Weekly Notes to Tokyo for Week Ending July 14, 1956.” Robertson, for example, wrote to Assistant Secretary Gray on 14 September about the property claimed by the former residents, but did 

not receive a response until 8 January 1957. See “Letter from Gray to Robertson, January 8, 1957,” 

Folder: Kishi, Nobusuke (Prime Minister of Japan) Visit June 1957, Box 3, Records of the Bureau of 

Far Eastern Affairs Subject Files, 1956, RG 59.

295“Weekly Notes to Tokyo for Week Ending August 10, 1956,” Folder: Weekly Notes from Department, July–December 1956, Box 52, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84.

296Ibid.

297Ibid.

298“Dispatch 276, A Fresh Start with Japan, September 21, 1956,” 611.94/9-2156.

299Ibid.

300“Letter from Tokuyasu Fukuda to Robertson, September 4, 1956,” 794c.00/9-456.

301“Letter from Robertson to Fukuda, September 20, 1956,” 794c.00/9-456. In a note attached to 

the letter for internal purposes, Fukuda was described as someone who “has long championed the 

cause of the Bonin Islanders in the Diet” and someone whom Ambassador Allison “considers a good 

friend of the United States.”

302Ibid.

303“Letter from Gray to Robertson, October 19, 1956,” 794c.00/10-1956.

304“Letter from Kern to Riley, October 26, 1956,” as attachment to “Letter from Kern to Robertson, October 27, 1956,” 794c.022/10-2756. Riley was then serving as the head of the International 

Affairs Division of OpNav, and would subsequently serve as chief of staff at the Pacific Command 

under Adm Felix B. Stump and Harry D. Felt, both of whom were convinced of the need to retain 

exclusive use of the Bonin Islands.

304“Letter from Kern to Riley.”

306“Memorandum from Robertson to Dulles on Our Japan Policy: Need for a Reappraisal and Certain Immediate Actions, January 4, 1957,” FRUS, 1955–1957, 240–44.

307Ibid., 243n6. The editors of FRUS note that they were unable to locate the attachment, which had 

an explanation of the repatriation issue and the recommendation for the return of the 2,639 islanders, but this author found a similar paper completed just before the 7 January memo. See “Memorandum from Robertson to Dulles on Repatriation of Bonin Islanders, January 4, 1957,” in Folder: 

Japan 1957, Box 1, Records of the Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs Subject Files, 1956, RG 59.

308“Memorandum from Robertson to Dulles on Our Japan Policy,” 243.
304

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

309See FRUS, 1955–1957, 244n8.

310“Minutes of the Cabinet Meeting, White House, Washington, January 8, 1957, 9–10:50 a.m.,” 

FRUS, 1955–1957, 247–49.

311Symbolic of this, Roger N. Baldwin of the American Civil Liberties Union, wrote to Noel Hemmendinger on the Japan Desk of the State Department to inquire about the status of the petition the league had submitted. (See “Letter from Baldwin to Hemmendinger, February 21, 1957,” 

794c.022/2-2157.) Hemmendinger’s successor, Howard L. Parsons, wrote back a couple of weeks 

later, apologizing for not having followed up on Baldwin’s request and stating that the situation was 

still the same—a decision had been reached that it would not be possible to allow them return at the 

present time. (See “Letter from Parsons to Baldwin, March 8, 1957,” 794c.022/2-2157.)

312“Telegram 1758 from Horsey to Dulles, February 13, 1957,” Folder: 322.3 Ryukyus, January–May 

1957, Box 47, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84.

313Ibid.

314Ibid.

315“Telegram 2255 from MacArthur to Dulles, April 10, 1957,” 611.94/4-1057, and “Telegram 2258 

from MacArthur to Dulles, April 10, 1957,” 611.94/4-1057.

316“Telegram 2306 from MacArthur to Dulles, April 13, 1957,” 611.94/4-1357.

317Ibid.

318“Telegram 2336 from MacArthur to Dulles, April 17, 1957,” 611.94/4-1757.

319Author’s interview with Mimi MacArthur, January 2003, Brussels, Belgium.

320“Telegram 2336.” The United States had originally planned to invite Kishi’s predecessor, Ishibashi, to Washington, but he had to resign due to health reasons prior to the invitation being given. 

Instead, Kishi was invited, originally for May, but he eventually was able to go from 19 June to 21 

June. For more, see FRUS, 1955–1957, 259n3, “Telegram 1848 from MacArthur to Dulles, February 

25, 1957,” ibid., 270–71, and “Telegram 2010 from MacArthur to Dulles, March 14, 1957,” ibid., 

272–74.

321“Telegram 2455 from MacArthur to Secretary of State, May 1, 1957,” 033.9411/5-157.

322“Telegram from Dulles to MacArthur, May 8, 1957,” 611.94/5-857.

323“Telegram 2493 from CINCPAC to CNO, May 20, 1957,” CCS 092 Japan (12-20-50) Sec 23d, 

Box 11, Geographic File 1957, RG 218.

324Ibid.

325“Telegram 2526 from MacArthur to Robertson, May 1, 1957,” 611.94/5-157, cited in “Memorandum from Robertson to Dulles, May 22, 1957,” Folder: Japan 1957, Box 1, Records of the Bureau 

of Far Eastern Affairs 1957, RG 59.

326“Letter from Howard L. Parsons to Outerbridge Horsey, May 10, 1957,” Folder: Agenda for Kishi 

Talks, Box 3, Subject Files Relating to Japan, 1954–1959, RG 59.

327“Memorandum from Robertson to Dulles, May 22, 1957.” Dulles gave his permission on 5 June. 

See FRUS, 1955–1957, 311n4.
305

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

328“Memorandum from Robertson to Dulles on Official Visit of the Prime Minister of Japan, June 

12, 1957,” 033.9411/6-1257.

329“Memorandum of Conversation of Meeting with Secretary Dulles Monday, 17 June 1957 in 

Connection with Kishi Visit,” Geographic File 1957, Box 11, CCS 092 Japan (12-12-50), RG 218.

330Findley, Book II, 256. For the discussion, see “Memorandum of Conversation of Defense–State 

Meeting in Connection with the Visit of Prime Minister Kishi on 17 June 1958 [sic],” in ibid.

331Ibid., 253.

332Ibid., 253–56.

333Ibid.

334Ibid.

335Ibid. Dulles’ less-than-strong stance that day may have been due to the opinion of the president’s 

special consultant, Frank Nash, who had recently visited Iwo Jima and flown over the Bonins. Nash 

felt the issue of the return of the islanders could “be worked out, given a little time, but it would not 

be desirable (as I saw it) to push this issue in terms of the Kishi visit.” See “Memorandum for the 

Record of a Meeting between the Secretary of State and the President’s Special Consultant (Nash), 

June 5, 1957,” in FRUS, 1955–1957, 342. The result of Nash’s study was United States Overseas Military Bases: Report to the President by Frank C. Nash, December 1957. Page 31 of the study discusses 

the Bonin Islands: “Japanese fear of a second atomic devastation, and the consequent ban on our 

introduction of these weapons into Japan, severely limits the retaliatory potential of our bases there. 

Furthermore, Japan’s profound fear of nuclear war raises the question of what her attitude would 

be in the event the United States desired to use bases in Japan to prosecute a war in which Japan 

desired to remain neutral. Since it seems highly likely that Japan would refuse her cooperation and 

would render use of our Japanese bases impossible, it is obvious we must adjust our base program 

and force deployments so as to have alternatives at hand should the Japanese bases be unavailable. 

A possible alternative lies in the Bonin Islands, and we should make clear to the Japanese that as we 

withdraw forces from Japan the Bonins become more important and necessary to us from the point 

of view of military facilities. For this reason we cannot permit repatriation of the islanders as long 

as the islands are under our control. Temporizing measures along this line, such as permitting visits 

to the graveyards of relatives, can only build up cumulatively into a situation such as the one now 

confronting us in Okinawa.”

336“Memorandum of Conversation of Meeting with Secretary Dulles Monday, 17 June 1957.”

337“Memorandum from Marshall Green to Ambassador MacArthur on Bonin Islands: Analysis of 

Admiral Radford’s Suggestions, June 17, 1957,” I-5.1, Box 14, Subject Files Relating to Ryukyus, 

1952–1958, RG 59.

338Ibid.

339Ibid.

340Ibid.

341“Memorandum of a Conference with the President, White House, Washington, June 18, 1957, 

2:30 p.m.,” in FRUS, 1955–1957, 357–60.

342Ibid., 359.
306

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

343Ibid.

344Ibid.

345“Memorandum by the Ambassador to Japan, June 18, 1957,” in FRUS, 1955–1957, 361.

346“Memorandum from the Secretary of State to the President, June 18, 1957,” in FRUS, 1955–

1957, 361–62.

347“Memorandum from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to General Goodpaster on the Bonin Islands, June 

19, 1957,” FRUS, 1955–1957, 376, which includes an abbreviated version of it, much of which was 

still classified at the time of its publication in 1991. The entire memo has since been declassified.

348“Memorandum from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to General Goodpaster.” Also see “Author’s interview with Goodpaster, January 30, 2000, Washington, DC.”

349The United States was planning to reduce its force levels by at least 50 percent, including all 

ground combat forces.

350“Memorandum from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to General Goodpaster.”

351Ibid.

352“Memorandum from Robertson to Dulles on Official Visit of the Prime Minister of Japan, June 

12, 1957.”

353Ibid.

354“Memorandum of a Conversation between Secretary of State Dulles and Prime Minister Kishi, 

Department of State, Washington, June 20, 1957, 9 a.m.,” FRUS, 1955–1957, 380. A Defense Department version of the meeting was also made. See “Memorandum of Conversation of Meeting 

at State, Thursday, 20 June 1957 on Discussion of Over-all U.S.-Japanese Political, Military, and 

Economic Relations, June 21, 1957,” Geographic File 1957, Box 11, CCS 092 Japan (12-12-50) Sec. 

24, RG 218. Radford’s presentation was based on “Memorandum for the Chairman, Joint Chiefs 

of Staff, Talking Paper for Kishi’s Visit,” Chairman’s Files, Admiral Radford, 1953–1957, Box 12, 

CJCS-091 Japan (21 June 1957), RG 218.

355“Memorandum of a Conversation between Secretary of State Dulles and Prime Minister Kishi, 

Department of State, Washington, June 20, 1957, 9 a.m.,” FRUS, 1955–1957, 384.

356Ibid., 386.

357“Memorandum from Robertson to Dulles on Bonin Islands, September 23, 1957,” Folder: Japan 

1957, Box 1, Records of the Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs 1957, RG 59.

358Ibid.

359Ibid.

360“Memorandum of Conversation, Secretary Dulles’ Office, Department of State, Washington, June 

20, 1957, 3 p.m.,” FRUS, 1955–1957, 394.

361Ibid., 395.

362“Memorandum of a Conversation, Secretary Dulles’ Office, Department of State, Washington, 

June 21, 1957, 9 a.m.,” FRUS, 1955–1957, 408–10.
307

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

363Dulles stated that this figure was “as big a permanent population as the islands had ever had . . . 

since the former inhabitants had been brought to the islands before the war for military purposes.” 

This was clearly incorrect. See “Memorandum of a Conversation, White House, Washington, June 

21, 1957, 11:35 a.m.,” FRUS, 1955–1957, 412.

364Ibid.

365“Memorandum of a Conversation, Secretary Dulles’ Office, Department of State, Washington, 

June 21, 1957, 2:15 p.m.,” FRUS, 1955–1957, 413–14.

366Ibid., 414.

367Ibid.

368“Joint Communiqué of Japanese Prime Minister Kishi and U.S. President Eisenhower issued on 

June 21, 1957,” Department of State Bulletin, 8 July 1957, 51.

369“Letter from Robertson to Sprague, July 13, 1957,” Folder: Miscellaneous Japanese Jan–June 

1957, Box 2, Records of the Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs, 1957, RG 59.

370Ibid.

371Ibid.

372Ibid.

373Findley, Book II, 264.

374Ibid., 264–65.

375Ibid., 266.

376Ibid., 265.

377Ibid.

378“Report on Follow-up Actions on Kishi Visit,” attachment to “Memorandum from the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs to the Secretary of State, August 16, 1957,” FRUS, 

1955–1957, 445.

379“Letter from Robertson to Sprague, August 16, 1957,” 794c.0221/8-1657.

380“Memorandum from William C. Ockey to Robertson on Bonin Islands, September 16, 1957,” 

Folder: Japan 1957, Box 1, Records of the Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs, 1957, RG 59.

381“Memorandum from Green to Ockey, August 26, 1957,”

382“Letter from Sprague to Robertson, September 20, 1957,” Folder: MC Japanese, January–June 

1957, Box 2, Records of the Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs, 1957, RG 59.

383Ibid.

384Ibid.

385Ibid.

386See “Naval Message 21984 from CNO to CINCPACFLT, September 20, 1957,” Geographic 

Files 1957, Box 11, 092 Japan (12-12-50) Section 24, RG 218.
308

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

387Findley, Book II, 360.

388“Telegram No. 705 from MacArthur to Dulles, September 7, 1957,” 033.9411/9-757. Also see 

Findley, Book II, 266.

389“Memorandum from MacArthur to Dulles, September 7, 1957.”

390Ibid.

391Ibid.

392Ibid.

393“Telegram 708 from MacArthur to Dulles, September 7, 1957,” 033.9411/9-757.

394“Memorandum of Conversation on Fujiyama Visit, September 9, 1957,” 033.9411/9-957.

395“Telegram 412 from Henry Cabot Lodge to Dulles, September 19, 1957,” 033.9411/9-1957.

396“Telegram 862 from Christian A. Herter to Dulles, September 20, 1957,” FRUS, 1955–1957, 

482.

397Ibid.

398“Telegram 819 from MacArthur to Dulles, September 17, 1957,” 033.9411/9-1757.

399“Outgoing Telegram from Embassy Tokyo to State, September 17, 1957,” Folder: 322.3 Bonin 

Islands 1958, Box 46, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84.

400“Telegram from Embassy to State Department, September 17, 1957.”

401“Letter from MacArthur to Herter, September 20, 1957,” Folder: MacArthur, Douglas II, Box 2, 

Records of the Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs, 1957, RG 59.

402Ibid.

403“Letter from Sprague to Robertson, September 20, 1957.” Also see “Fujiyama Visit, September 

1957, Bonin Islands,” I-5.1, Box 14, Subject Files Relating to the Ryukyus, 1952–1958, RG 59.

404“Letter from William C. Ockey, Acting Director, Office of Northeast Asian Affairs, to John M. 

Steeves, Political Advisor to Commander in Chief, Pacific, October 26, 1957,” Folder: I-5.1, Box 14, 

Subject File Relating to the Ryukyus, 1952–1958, RG 59.

405“Letter from Ockey to Steeves.”

406“Memorandum of Conversation on General Discussion of American-Japanese Relations by the 

Secretary of State and the Japanese Foreign Minister, September 23, 1957, 3:00 to 5:30 p.m., Secretary’s Office,” Folder: I-5.1, Box 14, Subject File Relating to the Ryukyus, 1952–1958, RG 59. 

There are several versions of the memorandum of conversations. All three will be used to recreate 

the meeting.

407Ibid.

408Ibid.

409“Telegram 11718 from Dulles to MacArthur, September 23, 1957,” 033.9411/9-2357.

410“Memorandum from Robertson to Dulles on Bonin Islands, September 23, 1957,” Folder: I-5.1, 

Box 14, Subject Files Relating to the Ryukyus, 1952–1958, RG 59. Also see “Letter from Robertson 
309

Bilateral Problem: Reversion and Repatriation, 1952–57

to John N. Irwin, II, November 4, 1957,” Folder: Irwin, John N., II, Box 1, Records of the Bureau of 

Far Eastern Affairs, RG 59.

411“Memorandum of Conversation on General Discussion of American-Japanese Relations by the 

Secretary of State and the Japanese Foreign Minister, September 23, 1957.”

412Ibid.

413Ibid.

414Ibid.

415Ibid.

416Ibid.

417Ibid.

418Ibid.

419“Memorandum of Conversation on Repatriation of Bonin Islanders, September 24, 1957,” Folder: 

Miscellaneous Japanese, July–December 1957, Box 2, Records of the Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs, 

RG 59.

420Ibid.

421Ibid.

422Ibid.

423Ibid.

424Ibid.

425Ibid.

426Ibid.
310

Chapter 7

Bilateral Problem: Compensation,

Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

The Ogasawara Problem is a problem for the people of the Ogasawara Islands, 

but it also a problem for every person in our country.

—Fukuda Tokuyasu, Liberal Democratic Party Diet Member and then-chairman of the 

Ogasawara Association, in the inaugural issue of the newsletter Ogasawara

On 25 September 1957, Suganuma Kiyoshi, Northeast Asian Section chief of the Asian 

Affairs Bureau of the Foreign Ministry, met with Richard L. Sneider, first secretary of the 

U.S. embassy in Tokyo, to express his “disappointment” in the talks between Foreign Minister Fujiyama Aiichiro and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, which seemed to end 

hopes for repatriation. The day before, Suganuma said he had received “hourly” phone calls 

from a “very excited” League for the Repatriation of the Bonin Islanders inquiring about 

the status of the talks.1

 The league had been “to a certain extent optimistic of achieving 

at least a mildly favorable solution” about repatriation and Suganuma admitted that the 

Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) was in “a difficult position” as it had given the league 

“some encouragement that a favorable solution might be possible” after the talks between 

Prime Minister Kishi Nobusuke and President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Suganuma was 

uncertain now how to break the news to the league.

The Foreign Ministry would often be caught in this position, giving hope—sometimes 

too much—to the league that a solution to their problems, whether it be repatriation, compensation, or grave visits, was at hand. The American embassy was usually understanding 

and often sympathetic, but the U.S. government’s position on this matter—that there be no 

repatriation at this time—was clear. This position was explained in an October 1957 letter 

from an official in the Department of State to his counterpart at the headquarters of the 

Commander in Chief, Pacific (CINCPAC):

Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Japan has caused a reassessment of our security 

needs in the Pacific and as a result of this reappraisal we find that no repatriation 

is possible for the foreseeable future. However, we will study the question of compensation and discuss this further with the Japanese. We do not consider that visits 

to the ancestral graves are feasible due to the destruction of graves and markers 

during the war as well as to the fact there are no facilities for visitors on the islands. 

We agreed, however, to explore the feasibility of sending a Japanese government 

representative to the Islands to verify the situation.2

This approach was echoed early the following month in the report, United States Overseas 

Military Bases: Report to the President, written by Frank C. Nash, who had served as assistant 
311

secretary of defense for international security affairs from August 1951 to February 1954, 

and had subsequently traveled to several countries, including Japan, to draft the report:

The recent decision to withdraw large numbers of United States troops and facilities from Japan makes our position on nonrepatriation a good deal more tenable. 

The Marianas-Bonins offer the most logical area for redeploying certain facilities 

to be withdrawn from Japan, and the Japanese should be so informed. Obviously 

almost all the limited space on these small islands is likely to be needed in the 

future for military facilities, and even if there were limited space left over for, say, 

one or two hundred Bonin Islanders to return, it is doubtful if such a limited repatriation would serve the interests of either Japan or the United States. It would 

be more likely to increase Japanese demands and involve us in a situation similar 

to the “reversion” conditions on Okinawa. It seems only fair to make it clear to the 

Japanese and Bonin Islanders that repatriation is out of the question, at least at this 

time. In taking this position, it is important that we move ahead in indemnifying 

the Bonin Islanders for use of their land, perhaps making compensation on the 

same basis that we are paying for the use of private lands in the Ryukyus.3

Following the talks, a dissatisfied Japan continued to press the issue of repatriation from 

many angles. On 2 October 1957, for example, a Socialist Party delegation led by Kawakami Jotaro of the House of Representatives and including Sone Eki, a member of the upper house (House of Councillors), and Morishima Morito, of the lower house (House of 

Representatives), called on Dulles, followed by a visit with Robertson, where they requested 

among other things, the return of Okinawa and the Bonins.4 Viewing it as an “excellent 

chance to correct some of the misconceptions that the Socialists in Japan seem to have 

about our policies and an opportunity to encourage moderatism,”5 Robertson explained 

that the United States was not in the islands “because it wished to be there, but because of 

military necessity. As soon as the military threat was gone, our Congress would be glad to 

be rid of the costly burden, but the threat continued to remain and we could not make ourselves helpless before it. We had no designs upon one square inch of Japanese land or that of 

any other country.”6 When Sone asked if there was a possibility of “sharing part of the powers of administration,” Robertson responded that it was a subject of discussion between the 

two governments and that the delegation members should ask their own government.7

Moreover, on 21 October, Kono Ichiro, state minister of the Economic Planning Agency, 

who was visiting Washington, raised the Bonins problem with Dulles during a discussion 

on U.S.-Japan relations. When Kono described the negotiations on repatriation as “deadlocked,” Dulles snapped back that the discussions “were not deadlocked, but finished.”8

The secretary went on to say that he “had studied every square mile on maps of the islands, 

searching for possible areas of repatriation. United States security requirements are such 

that we cannot bring anyone back. We would be better off now if those that were allowed 

to return had not been repatriated.”9

It was some time before the Japanese government raised the problem again. On the 

morning of 10 December, Fujiyama asked to meet Ambassador Douglas MacArthur II 

privately. Prefacing his remarks by mentioning that Kishi was probably going to dissolve 

the Diet sometime in 1958 and that, “in order to win as many votes as possible,” the Kishi 

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67
312

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

government was hoping to “settle as many outstanding problems as possible,” Fujiyama 

urged that several specific problems, including that of compensation for the islanders, be 

settled “as quickly as possible.”10 Fujiyama told MacArthur that although he and Kishi 

realized that the United States could not accept all of Japan’s requests with regard to the 

Bonin Islands, the Japanese government did hope for the “eventual return” of the islanders.11 Fujiyama said he explained the situation to the league, and the islanders now desire 

for the Japanese government to take up the matter of compensation with the United States 

and submit a proposal “hop[ing] it will be accepted.”12 Fujiyama informed MacArthur that 

the proposal would be based on the previously introduced letter then-Foreign Minister 

Shigemitsu gave to Ambassador Allison in 1955, but with new compensation figures.

MacArthur, after promising to relay the Japanese government’s proposal to Washington 

when it was ready, decided to state his “personal observations” before the Japanese position 

had become final and “expectations . . . which subsequently could not be realized” built up.13

Namely, MacArthur said “his strong impression” was that the U.S. government was leaning toward one lump sum payment, rather than annual rentals, and if this were the case, he 

hoped that the Japanese government and league would not be “disappointed.”14 Fujiyama 

responded that he would do his best to avoid building up expectations, and that he would 

take MacArthur’s comments into consideration when developing the proposal, but that he 

nevertheless “strongly hope[d] that a satisfactory solution could be reached.”15 Fujiyama 

mentioned that the league’s members “are very moderate in political beliefs and place great 

confidence in the Foreign Office. The former residents are mostly farmers who are very 

much attached to their land . . . It would be very difficult for them to accept a lump sum 

settlement since it might foster the impression they are giving up land permanently.” Fujiyama instead suggested that the Foreign Ministry was thinking of a two-part formula—a 

lump sum payment for use of the land up to the present time, with the understanding that 

additional payments would be made at appropriate intervals for future use of land. MacArthur did not indicate any reaction to this idea, but he had been aware for several days that 

the ministry was probably going to make an “early approach” on the issue, and that it was 

important for the embassy to be in a position to respond quickly.16

By chance, the U.S. government was finalizing its position in Washington, and the day 

after MacArthur’s meeting with Fujiyama, the Department of Defense (DOD) wrote to 

the State Department saying that it would follow in principle the State Department’s lead 

on the compensation issue. The decision took more than two months to reach. Following 

the Dulles-Fujiyama meeting, the record of conversation was shared with the Defense Department, and a working group was established between the two departments to consider 

the question of indemnification of the displaced islanders in September.17 While it agreed 

that an “equitable method of compensation should be developed,” the Defense Department 

argued that the Japanese government should “share the cost of compensation” as the islanders were originally evicted by the Japanese government.18 The State Department disagreed 

with that position, pointing out that such an approach would “nullify the major political 

objective we are seeking to obtain through compensation, which is to eliminate or at least to 

greatly diminish the pressure for repatriation.”19 Moreover, the State Department felt that 

the Kishi government would be unable to derive any political capital from such a method.
313

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

With no progress having been made by early November, Robertson wrote to Deputy 

Assistant Secretary of Defense John N. Irwin II to ask him to concur in the development 

of a compensation method that did not involve a cost-sharing feature. Irwin’s superior, Assistant Secretary of Defense Mansfield D. Sprague, responded the following month on 11 

December, reiterating his department’s concerns and pointing out three advantages that 

had not been raised in Robertson’s letter. By chance, this was the day after MacArthur 

had met with Fujiyama to discuss the compensation issue. One advantage mentioned by 

Sprague was that by sharing the cost, both Japan and the United States would “maintain 

an interest in keeping the amount of compensation to a minimum,” which the DOD felt 

was an “important factor to be considered in justifying any appropriation request before 

Congress.”20 The second advantage is that sharing would avoid the connotation that the 

United States is solely responsible for the situation facing the islanders, and the third, is 

that charges by the opposition in Japan that the United States was buying the islands would 

be averted. Nevertheless, Sprague informed Robertson that the Defense Department would 

“defer to the judgment” of the State Department in “developing the best means of attaining 

a desirable political arrangement in this matter.”21 Deftly, Sprague also noted that “since 

political considerations”—a phrase he borrowed from Robertson’s own letter—“have overriding priority, it is assumed the Department of State will take the lead in sponsoring and 

justifying the necessary Congressional appropriation.”22 Irwin proposed that if the value of 

the land could not be determined by a search of the records of land transfers on the islands, 

then the value of comparable land in the Ryukyus, as suggested in the Nash Report, or in 

mainland Japan, could be used for computation purposes. If the land value in Okinawa were 

used ($1,060 per acre) as a reference point, Irwin notes, then the Bonins’ settlement would 

amount to $3,837,200.

As a result of this letter, the State Department was successful in securing DOD’s commitment to U.S. compensation of the displaced islanders, but many details needed to be 

worked out. Over the following month, discussions continued between the two department’s representatives and, on 22 January 1958, Dulles wrote to MacArthur to update him 

on the meetings in Washington. Dulles said he “anticipates” agreement with the Defense 

Department on the “principle” of compensation for property “used or taken,” but that it 

had not yet agreed to the details of what was to be compensated.23 According to Dulles, “in 

exchange for compensation, the United States would obtain unlimited use of property for 

[an] indefinite period.”24 Dulles said that the payments would not be considered ex gratia, 

and instead “would be within the framework of our legal liabilities.”25 He added that “we 

hope to arrive at a sum large enough and sufficiently widely distributed to quiet ex-Bonin 

Islanders.”26 Dulles urged MacArthur not to inform the Japanese side at this point, as it was 

still being discussed with the Defense Department.

The following week, on 28 January, a State-Defense Department working-level meeting 

reached agreement on the principle of compensation of Bonin Islanders for all private land 

holdings, based on the reasoning that their exclusion after the peace treaty was “tantamount 

to taking of all private property in the islands.”27 The DOD representatives were initially 

worried that a precedent would be set for unsettled Japanese claims in the Trust Territory 

of the Pacific Islands.28 Ely Maurer, the legal advisor in the State Department’s Bureau of 

Far Eastern Affairs, explained that the Bonins situation was different, noting that they were 
314

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

covered in a different section of the peace treaty and that in the Trust Territories, Japanese 

property had been confiscated while in the Bonins the former islanders were being deprived 

of their property rights.

Both State and Defense Department representatives agreed that a “hand-out” or ex 

gratia approach needed to be avoided and that compensation should be “carefully tied to 

a legal cause” or else a “precedent” might be established in Japanese eyes. However, Captain Berton Robbins of the Office of International Security Affairs argued that it would 

be difficult for Congress to understand why the United States should have a legal liability 

to compensate the islanders when it did not remove the islanders from their homes and 

“only took over military base property in the islands from the Japanese military forces.”29

Captain E. F. Baldridge of the Office of Naval Operations suggested that it might be useful when requesting Congress for the compensation appropriation to point out that Japan 

would share the burden. The State Department representatives balked at this suggestion, 

noting that such an arrangement would “nullify the very political gain which we are trying 

to achieve,” but Baldridge pointed out that the Japanese have already paid a considerable 

amount to the islanders “in the nature of relief ” and thus this could be considered “the 

Japanese share in compensation.”30

Baldridge went on to explain that the Navy felt the islanders should be compensated 

for private land holdings at approximately the same rate as compensation in the Ryukyu 

Islands. As the total area of privately held lands was 3,260 acres in the Bonins, this would 

amount to $4 million. Baldridge added the Navy would add that 5 percent per annum 

interest to it from the time of the peace treaty, raising the total compensation to approximately $5 million. As it would be difficult to raise this any higher and still be within the 

legal liability framework, this lump sum would be turned over to the Japanese government, 

which would be responsible for distributing it to the islanders and deciding if part of the 

money would be used to compensate for fishing rights, as suggested by Kishi during his 

visit to Washington in June 1957.

The State Department realized that the formula would only reach 503 landholding 

families and not the entire 7,000 former residents, unless the Japanese government “on 

[its] own responsibility spreads it wider.”31 The families to be compensated were, in the 

State Department’s opinion, the “most influential ex-Islanders and the backbone of the 

League.”32 Acting Secretary of State Christian A. Herter pointed out that it would be 

impossible to compensate the remaining former islanders in a way other than by ex gratia

payments, but that such a method should be “avoided” in that it “only opens the door for 

future claims of same nature.”33

The representatives agreed to draw up a draft telegram and request the views of the 

embassy and the military authorities involved in Bonin matters. After studying the joint 

State-Defense Departments’ understanding, CINCPAC immediately concurred but 

doubted that it would “lay all Bonin problems to permanent rest.”34 The Hawaii-based 

command did hope, however, that the U.S. payment of compensation and the Japanese acceptance of the lump sum payment “will quiet the repatriation clamor which has long been 

a disproportionate irritant to both governments.”35 While agreeing to the compensation, 

CINCPAC noted that “no exact evaluation of Bonin land can be made . . . [as] there just 
315

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

is no comparable area.”36 Namely, the value of the islands in the prewar era was the fishing 

industry, not agriculture. Moreover, while the land in the Bonin Islands was more valuable 

than the sugar tracts on Saipan, which had been appraised at $40 per acre, it was not as 

valuable as the average Ryukyu land, which was calculated at $1,060 per acre. Nevertheless, 

CINCPAC agreed that it was better to use the Ryukyuan figure than to select an arbitrary 

value: “the comparison is admittedly imperfect, but it is perhaps the best under the circumstances. Certainly it is generous.”37 As a result, CINCPAC felt it was unnecessary to send a 

survey team to conduct a land appraisal. Doing so would “serve only to delay solution of a 

problem which already has plagued us too long,” the telegram argued, and noted that “further prompt decision on basis suggested above might be used to our political advantage in 

support of conservative party in Japan in light of the forthcoming elections there.”38

The embassy added its views to the discussion by stating that there was a “fair chance” 

that the islanders would accept the lump sum payment, but pointed out that there would 

be problems “since some circles will interpret compensation on this basis as a ‘perpetual 

lease’ ” of the islands.39 However, in the same telegram, the embassy drew a distinction 

between the Bonins and the “bitter, grassroots dispute” in Okinawa: “the Bonin Islanders 

are far separated, in space and time, hence psychology, from their islands. The Bonins are 

virtually unpopulated with no prospect of population or other pressures raising land values. 

Also the Bonins problem is uncomplicated by vexations of Okinawan political situation.”40

However, the embassy anticipated objections over the scope and amount of the compensation. It recommended that the government pay compensation for not only land rights, but 

for other proprietary rights, such as fishing, that have equal legal force in Japan. Doing so 

“would have the advantage of spreading the benefits wider and providing a larger total sum 

that would have a better chance of quieting the issue permanently.”41 The embassy did not 

think it necessary to send a survey team to the islands.

The State Department’s Office of Northeast Asian Affairs gathered these comments 

and, in early March, began studying ways to seek funding, including from the Mutual 

Security Act funds, the president’s emergency fund, and P. L. 480 counterpart funds.42

However, attempts to secure this funding were unsuccessful. Moreover, during the next 

several months, the State Department believed the need for compensation arose from the 

fact that the Bonin Islands had become a military reservation, and argued it was better for 

the Defense Department to seek an appropriation request, believing that Congress would 

respond more favorably to a DOD request.43 In late June, Robertson wrote to his Defense 

Department counterpart, Assistant Secretary Sprague, to review the interdepartmental 

consultations and to point out that while the framework for compensation and general 

amount had been agreed upon, the source of the funds remained unresolved.44 Robertson 

noted that the failure to find funds within the executive branch meant that it was necessary 

to seek congressional appropriation. Robertson pointed out that

Since the need for compensation arises from the fact of having made the Bonin 

Islands a military reservation Congress will undoubtedly respond more favorably 

to a presentation including the necessary appropriation in the Defense budget than 

it would to any other type of presentation. In our view the United States has an obligation to the displaced Bonin Islanders because it is preventing them from using 
316

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

their property. This obligation arises from the fact that the Bonin Islands in their 

entirety have, for reasons of strategy, been reserved for military purposes. Finally, 

since the Department of Defense is primarily responsible for this reservation the 

appropriation to pay compensation should properly in our judgment be included 

in its appropriation bill.45

It was several weeks before Sprague responded. The Defense Department disagreed with 

Robertson’s characterization of the Bonin Islands as a military reservation, and thus did not 

believe it had primary responsibility for raising compensation funds. Instead, Sprague suggested that “special legislation” in the form of a “relief bill” be prepared that would “meet 

the objective but not disturb the appropriation request of our respective Departments.”46

Sprague offered to support the State Department in preparing and sponsoring such legislation if Robertson agreed.47

Robertson’s staff did not find Sprague’s response problematic and suggested that he agree. 

They mentioned that time was of the essence, as a year had passed since Foreign Minister 

Fujiyama’s visit and he would probably “expect [the United States] to have reached some 

sort of definite conclusion.”48 David M. Bane, acting director of the Division of Northeast 

Asian Affairs, who had just finished a year of study at the National War College, pointed 

out that the “chances for obtaining a favorable settlement on the basis of a moderate ‘onetime’ payment [as expected to be proposed by the Japanese government] are better now 

than they will be in the future when the pressure may develop for our paying annual rents 

in the Bonins.”49

During the spring and early summer, the Japanese government refrained from raising 

the compensation issue, due in part to the Japanese government’s decision to defer action 

until the land compensation question in the Ryukyus had been resolved, but the issue 

arose again at a meeting in late July between the embassy and Foreign Ministry officials. 

The meeting was prompted by stories that appeared the same day (24 1958) in the Tokyo 

Shimbun and other newspapers, which included comments by Matsuno Raizo, director of 

the general administrative affairs section of the prime minister’s office, to the effect that 

the Japanese government would ask the United States to expedite the return of the former 

islanders to the Bonins. At the embassy, First Secretary of the Embassy Harlan B. Clark 

told his Foreign Ministry counterparts, Miyake Kijiro, counselor of foreign affairs, Asian 

Affairs Bureau, and Suganuma of the same bureau, that Ambassador MacArthur felt the 

article’s appearance was “most unhelpful,” and that the issue had been thoroughly discussed 

between President Eisenhower and Prime Minister Kishi and between Secretary of State 

John Foster Dulles and Foreign Minister Fujiyama Aiichiro. The MOFA representatives 

explained that they had not been consulted about Matsuno’s comments, which had been 

made “in response to inquiries from the press and continued pressure on the part of the 

Bonin Islanders who are urging that action be taken on their claims,” but agreed the story 

was “unfortunate.”50 Miyake added that “it did not represent present Japanese government 

intentions as he knew them.”51

The conversation then turned to the compensation issue, which Clark reported in his dispatch would likely be taken up in Washington by Ambassador Asakai and Foreign Minister 

Fujiyama. Miyake stated that the Japanese government believed the United States would 
317

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

make compensation in the Bonin Islands in a lump sum basis, rather than on an annual rental basis, and felt it was logical to divide the payments into two categories: (1) lump sum payment for the period from the peace treaty up until the present, and (2) lump sum payment 

or payments, once every three to five years for the period from the present until the islanders 

are returned to the Bonins. Miyake said the Japanese government was interested in knowing 

if the United States was in a position “politically and legally” to make compensation and if it 

would do so in the manner he had suggested.52 Clark responded that he “believed something 

might be worked out for the islanders on the basis of compensation” but he did not know yet, 

“as many factors would have to be considered” by the State Department and other agencies 

in the U.S. government.53 Clark found it “of interest” that working-level officials in MOFA 

were thinking of different types of payments, and noted their position appeared “flexible.”54

He asked the department to provide the embassy with any available information that could 

be shared with the Foreign Ministry on U.S. thinking with regard to the compensation issue 

and followed up with a telegram at the end of the week.55

It was late August before the State Department responded in a telegram that essentially 

summarized the agreement reached with the Defense Department in late February and 

early March, and explained that the question before the two departments was how and 

where to obtain the $5 million.56 The Defense Department did not wish to include it in 

its regular budget framework, and the State Department was unsuccessful in exploring 

funds available to the executive branch. It agreed to the suggestion by the Defense Department to seek congressional appropriation through legislation outside the normal budget 

framework, however, it was unsure of the chances of success. Dulles told the embassy that 

it was difficult to commit to any specific payment because of the uncertainty of the source 

of the funds, but recommended that it at least explore with the Japanese the type and size 

of payment without guaranteeing that such a payment be made, and indicate the United 

States would prefer a plan that did not require it to make an indefinite number of future 

payments.57 He also wanted to assure the Japanese government that the United States had 

no intention of taking permanent title to any land in the Bonins or preventing the islanders from returning at such an undetermined time as the United States may relinquish the 

islands, and continues to recognize Japan’s residual sovereignty over the islands.

MacArthur met with Fujiyama on the afternoon of 29 August for their final meeting 

before the latter departed for Washington. Fujiyama presented an aide memoire, the gist of 

which stated,

While the GOJ [government of Japan] as well as [the 7,434] islanders continue 

hope for their early return, [the absence] of any prospects for such an early return 

and pressing economic necessity have combined to make islanders ask for compensation. The GOJ accordingly requests the USG [United States government] meet 

this desire by a lump sum payment to relieve their difficulties and help them stabilize their future living and would like to propose the amount of 4,500 million yen 

($12.5 million) which is deemed reasonable after due consultation with League 

for Repatriation of Bonin Islanders. Payment should not prejudice their exercise of 

property rights at such time as they may be able to return to the islands.58
318

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Although MacArthur had met several times with the league’s representatives, including once earlier that day, he was “surprised at the magnitude of the figure.”59 Fujiyama 

explained that it was “not arbitrary” but based on “careful calculation of property rights,” 

the details of which could be provided the next day. He stated that the islanders are “living 

in great poverty in Japan but had withstood efforts of radicals to enlist them, and deserved 

compensation for material losses and long period of hardship they have suffered for so 

many years. They fully realize the return to the islands [is] not possible in [the] foreseeable 

future [so] compensation would enable them to establish themselves more or less permanently in Japan until they can return.”60

MacArthur said he would “be less than candid” if he did not tell Fujiyama that he 

thought the figure cited “seemed . . . unrealistic,” but he would nevertheless forward the 

proposal to the State Department.61 He agreed that the islanders are “good people and 

long-suffering and deserved compensation” but it was not fair for them to expect a settlement that was unobtainable.62 As a result, MacArthur told Fujiyama he had cautioned the 

islanders against expecting too much from Washington, as Congress might not appropriate 

funds for fishing and tenancy rights, which did not constitute property rights in the United 

States. He suggested that speculation about amounts should be kept out of the press until 

it was known if an agreement was possible on a figure. He then mentioned that informal 

soundings in Washington indicated that $3.5 million might be obtainable, and that it could 

be as much as $5 million. It was impossible, however, to promise funds when they had not 

even been appropriated by Congress. Fujiyama agreed that it was not desirable to talk publicly about specific amounts or discuss individual components, but wanted the Americans 

to understand that the Japanese proposal is “based on a legal calculation of losses to islanders in accordance with Japanese property law.”63 The ambassador particularly emphasized 

the points in Dulles’ instructions. He also mention that the United States preferred the 

Japanese government to distribute any agreed sum as it saw fit, to which Fujiyama concurred. In summarizing the exchange, MacArthur told Dulles in a later telegram that

Fujiyama obviously has in mind something like ex gratia formula relieving us of 

any further obligation to islanders until time when Bonin Islands may be restored 

to Japanese control. While Fujiyama’s figure seems substantially too high, I think if 

we can increase the amount of compensation which we are prepared to offer from 

$5 million to about $8 million we have basis for lasting solution to this problem 

which will otherwise continue to cause difficulties in our relations with Japan. In 

my opinion $8 million would do the trick.64

A few days later, MacArthur followed this telegram with the details of the Japanese proposal. The embassy found the calculations in the proposal “accurate, fair, and not inflated for 

bargaining purposes. They concern loss of income only for persons engaged in agriculture 

and fisheries and for owners of building lots and miscellaneous land and exclude shopkeepers, artisans and others.”65 MacArthur went on to explain that the calculations were based 

on the standards used by the Japanese government when compensating persons in Japan 

whose land and property, including fishing rights, had been taken over by U.S. forces.66

This method, according to the Japanese proposal, was incorporated in Japanese legislation 

approved by the Supreme Commander for Allied Powers during the occupation, and as 
319

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

a result, the Japanese government felt the United States should accept these standards in 

paying compensation for the islanders. (It was later learned that Supreme Commander of 

the Allied Powers [SCAP] had not approved the legislation because it was created after the 

end of the occupation.68)

Regarding the distribution of the funds, the Foreign Ministry desired to distribute the 

money in accordance with the guidelines set by the Japanese government to ensure that 

compensation is “spread” to all former islanders.69 MOFA officials stated they understood 

that the final figure would reflect both “political realities as well as legal justifications.” They 

hoped, however, that if the figure was smaller than their request that the detailed compensation breakdown not be made public since the government would “experience serious 

difficulties in the Diet” if it had to admit that it had agreed to the elimination of claims 

recognized in Japanese law, such as those for fishing rights.70

The same day, the Foreign Ministry suggested the agenda topics for the talks between Fujiyama and Dulles.71 Of course, the Bonins problem was high on the list.The following day, 

Martin F. Herz, a first secretary of the embassy, held a working-level meeting with Miyake 

and Suganuma of the ministry to discuss the methods of reaching a bilateral agreement—

talks between the foreign minister and the secretary of state on the amount only, in the interest of a quick understanding, or the establishment of committees to examine the Japanese 

evidence and consider each point in detail. Fujiyama, according to Miyake, preferred the 

former. However, the ministry wished to know if the United States would be in a position 

to make payment within a reasonable time following an agreement or would the appropriations have to go through Congress, with payment being delayed as much as a year.

Miyake had “serious misgivings” on the problem, and asked about the possibility of 

shifting funds already appropriated or “resorting to some subterfuge whereby earlier payment might be affected.”72 Herz offered “sympathy, but no encouragement.”73 Miyake then 

explained if the figure reached between Fujiyama and Dulles “is not too far” from that 

proposed by Japan, then Fujiyama would have the “authority to sign on the dotted line.” 

If the figure was quite different, then the matter would have to be referred back to the 

cabinet and further discussions would have to take place through diplomatic channels.74

In what was probably an attempt to add a little pressure on raising the figure, Suganuma 

joined in and said if the figure is arrived at quickly, then it might be a little lower than 

what the Japanese side expected and, in that case, Japanese negotiators would have to “hold 

out” and wait for follow-up negotiations.75 After some “sparring” about the figures, Miyake 

Figure 11. Japanese compensation request by category67

Recreated by author based on State Despatch no. 266
320

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

stated his “personal opinion” that Fujiyama might be willing to conclude an agreement on 

the basis of an $8 million settlement. After stating this, both men watched carefully for 

Herz’s reaction while “preserving impassive Oriental countenances.”76 Herz humorously 

concludes his memorandum of conversation that he, too, “preserved an impassive Occidental countenance.”77

Herz followed this summary with another memo to the ambassador providing additional arguments to be used internally within the State Department and eventually within 

the U.S. government for accepting the larger $8 million figure. Herz argued that it would 

be “politically impossible” for the Japanese government to accept a solution based on the 

“discredited Ryukyuan formula,” which had been strongly opposed by the local population 

in Okinawa leading to island-wide protests with nearly 100,000 participants.78 He warned 

that, while the Japanese side still did not know that the calculations were based on such a 

formula, “as soon as they do some calculating they are bound to find out.”79 Moreover, Herz 

also noted that the Japanese government would not be able to accept a situation in which 

they “clearly have surrendered their entire claim to property rights other than land.”80 If a 

higher figure is not proposed, Herz suggested the Japanese side will then marshal numerous 

documents and justifications in support of their proposal, which would commit the U.S. 

government to an even higher figure. The United States, Herz wrote, has “every interest to 

try and prevent a long drawn-out negotiating exercise which could involve us in interminable arguments about individual items,” and as such, if the United States wants an early 

settlement, it was important to “move fast.”81 Herz proposed that the secretary, on a “highly 

confidential and tentative basis,” mention his intention to Fujiyama82 to seek agreement on 

the basis of $8 million.

It is unclear what MacArthur thought of Herz’s arguments, but that same day he sent 

the department a suggestion that his economic staff had considered—the use of P. L. 480 

(Government and Relief in Occupied Areas [GARIOA] Funds) repayments in place of 

compensation. The first payment of $1.2 million is due in December 1958, he noted, followed by $3.2 million in 1959, and another $4.1 million in 1960. While MacArthur said he 

was not sure what sort of congressional action would be required to use those funds nor of 

Japanese reaction to such an idea, he noted that Congress “might find it easier to sanction 

adequate compensation if related to P. L. 480 repayments.”83

As the talks remained general, the suggestions did not make their way into the position 

paper on the Bonin Islands the State Department had prepared, assuming Japan raised the 

issue in the upcoming talks between Fujiyama and Dulles. After explaining what it anticipated the Japanese requests to be, the paper then laid out the U.S. position:

The United States position on resettlement remains unchanged: the security requirements of the United States make further resettlement inadvisable. The United 

States has given careful thought and consideration to the problem of compensation. The United States has tentatively decided that the former Bonin Islanders 

residing in Japan should be compensated in respect to their private land holdings 

on the islands, but that no compensation should be paid for loss of livelihood or 

for preventing the islanders from returning to the islands. The United States has 

no intention of taking permanent title to any land in the Bonins or preventing the 
321

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

Islanders from returning at such undetermined time as the United States may relinquish the Islands. The United States continues to recognize Japan’s residual sovereignty over the Bonins. As the land has been out of civilian use since the end of 

World War II and much of it is overgrown, it has been decided that the practicable 

method of obtaining a value figure for the land is to take an average value figure 

for land on other islands in the area and multiply that by the amount of land in the 

Bonins that was privately owned. The United States would add to this five percent 

of the amount per annum since the effective date of the Japanese Peace Treaty 

(April 18, 1952) as interest. The Japanese Government might wish to contribute 

by compensating the Islanders for the period 1946–1952. The United States believes that it would be desirable to pay compensation in one sum equivalent to the 

value of the land and in full settlement of all claims against the United States by 

the Bonin Islanders. This sum would be turned over to the Japanese Government 

for disbursement to the claimants. The United States would appreciate having the 

Japanese views on this approach to compensation and will give careful study to any 

compensation plan which the Japanese have to offer. However, in view of the fact 

that we anticipate having to go to the Congress for funds, the United States cannot 

commit itself that any payment will be made.84

One department official was not satisfied with an early draft of the position paper that 

had been circulated for comment. Richard H. Lamb, who was one of the few Foreign Service Officers to have actually visited the islands (in early 1956), blasted the paper. He wrote 

that not only did it oversimplify the problem, leaving out a number of key issues that would 

have to be settled, and did not give a clear picture of the Japanese government’s view of 

the issue, but was also “overoptimistic” by “assum[ing] that the compensation plan we have 

worked out—unilaterally, without discussing it with the Japanese—will settle the problem 

once and for all.”85 Lamb added, “money is never going to settle this problem . . . any more 

than giving $3,000–$5,000 per family would settle the problem of the Arab refugees from 

Palestine.”86

Lamb’s comments highlighted an important concern that was shared by others in the 

department. In late March, the State Department assessed U.S. policies toward Japan and, 

as part of this reevaluation, suggested that the Bonins policy be reexamined to determine 

what steps could be taken to limit repatriation, in addition to compensation.87 Specifically, Robertson recommended that, “As with Okinawa,” the department reexamine Bonin 

policy,

At the highest levels, with a view to determining: (1) whether our present or projected military installations there are essential to the security of the United States; 

(2) whether our ability to carry out our military mission in the Bonins would be 

critically impaired if a limited number of former Japanese residents were permitted to return; (3) whether (if the answer to the above questions is affirmative), 

the military advantages outweigh the grave political (and even military) liabilities 

which our present position involves. As a minimum step, the former Bonin residents should be promptly and fully compensated for the use of their property from 

1952 to the present. Though paid in a lump sum, the recipients preferably should 
322

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

not be required to consider this as compensation for “permanent use” of their land 

in the future.88

In making this recommendation, Robertson argued that the Bonins issue would continue “for an indefinite future to be a source of nationwide resentment” in Japan and “a 

major irritant” in bilateral relations.89 “In the Japanese view,” he noted,

United States actions in the Bonins run contrary to international standards of morality, and cannot be justified on security or any other grounds. The Japanese point 

out that we have not only seized territory which we have long recognized to be 

legitimately acquired Japanese territory, but, while repatriating a handful of “proAmerican” Caucasians, have refused—apparently forever—to permit bona fide 

Japanese residents to return to their native land. If Japan ever chose to take the 

Bonins issues to the United Nations (as Japanese leftists have urged), she could 

make a strong case, and would almost certainly be able to rally support from most 

of Afro-Asia.90

Robertson’s concerns were confirmed a few weeks later when a report of a conversation 

with Minister Shimoda Takezo was shared with him. The conversation took place at a luncheon on 9 April, when Howard L. Parsons asked Shimoda what he considered to be the 

most important problem in the U.S.-Japan relationship. Shimoda’s “immediate response” 

was the continued U.S. administration of Okinawa and the Bonins.91 He said that the 

government might request the immediate return of administrative rights over the Ryukyus 

and the Bonin Islands shortly after the general election to be held in May, and explained 

that there were two schools of thought on the question of reversion. One would call for the 

immediate reversion of rights in the Ryukyus and Bonins to Japan. The second called for 

gradual reversion so that eventually administrative rights would have been turned over to 

Japan on a de facto basis. Parsons, it seems, felt it necessary to comment, explaining that 

calls for immediate reversion would have the “distinct disadvantage” of inviting the Japanese to “whittle away at the freedom of use” by the United States of bases, and that would 

be “detrimental” not only for the United States but also for the “defense posture which is so 

important to Japan.”92 Expressing a view he would continue to hold over the next decade 

or more, Shimoda responded that the “Japanese people would understand that to obtain 

the return of the territory they would have to pay a price for it, and the price they would 

have to pay would be completely unfettered utilization by the Americans of the bases in the 

islands.”93 Shimoda added that the “Japanese people would understand [the need tostation 

atomic weapons on these bases and in and around the islands] and the Japanese Government would be under obligation to guarantee that this understanding continued.”94

Ironically, Shimoda’s view would be the formula adopted almost exactly 10 years later, 

but it was premature to adopt this idea in 1958 particularly as the security treaty revision 

discussions and the question of including the Ryukyus and Bonins in the treaty area were 

still undeveloped.95 In the meantime, the Bonins problem continued to grow. The seriousness of the issue was reinforced during a meeting at the State Department with Liberal 

Democratic Party (LDP) Diet member Fukuda Tokuyasu, a strong supporter of the league, 

on the eve of Fujiyama’s arrival in Washington. Sharing with his State Department interlocutors a copy of the English-language pamphlet, History of the Problem of the Bonin 
323

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

Islands, Fukuda told them that the “problem of the Bonin Islands was similar to the land 

problem in Okinawa. The main difference was that the land problem in Okinawa had been 

exploited by the Reds.”96 Fukuda, who was serving as vice chairman of the LDP’s Foreign 

Policy Committee, added that he was not negotiating, “just explaining,” but that he wanted 

to emphasize the fact that “haste was urgent because the Bonin Islanders were becoming 

impatient and the problem could become political.”97 Fukuda stated that it “was time to 

settle the problem” and with repatriation being laid aside for the time being, it was necessary to settle the problem through compensation.98 The Foreign Ministry had explained 

that Fukuda was representing only himself, but it is clear that the timing of his visit and 

LDP affiliation was meant as an additional voice of pressure. Indeed, as Fukuda mentioned, 

he met with both Kishi and the secretary general of the LDP, Kawashima Shojiro, just 

before he departed Japan.

The next day, Fujiyama arrived on schedule in Washington from Canada, and met with 

Dulles and Robertson on 11 September. The foreign minister said that the U.S. position 

that the islanders could not be repatriated had been explained to the League of Bonin Islanders and that they “accept the fact that circumstances at present prevent their return.”99

Instead, they would like to be compensated, the minister said, and he would like to have 

Ambassador Asakai undertake discussions with the State Department on this question. 

Dulles responded that the United States appreciated the Japanese government’s efforts to 

help the islanders to understand the American decision, which it took “reluctantly but for 

compelling reasons.”100 While noting that some of the figures mentioned were “somewhat 

beyond the value of anything he thought had existed in the Bonins,” Dulles was prepared 

to begin discussions with the Japanese government on this matter.

Fujiyama was aware of the different figures for compensation, but the question was 

“one of the mental anguish of the Bonin Islanders, who hope that some settlement can 

be made.” He hoped Dulles understood that the league was well meaning and “constantly 

making anti-Communist efforts.” Any compensation granted “would be appreciated by 

them and by the people of Japan in a manner which would increase good will toward the 

United States.”101 Dulles and Fujiyama agreed to continue the discussion of the issue in 

Washington and Tokyo “on a parallel basis.”102

A month after these talks, the Foreign Ministry approached the embassy to ask when 

the United States would be prepared to discuss the compensation issue and expressed the 

“strong hope” they could begin in October.103 The embassy, in its telegram, wrote that it 

believed the Japanese side would meet the United States halfway on the figure.

The following week, on 17 October, Counsellor of Embassy Yasukawa Takeshi, who 

would later become Japanese ambassador to the United States, called on the State Department to ask if the U.S. government wished to have the talks on compensation in Washington, as indicated by the U.S. embassy in Tokyo, so that the Defense Department could 

participate.104 James V. Martin Jr., the officer in charge of Japanese affairs, replied that the 

government had not yet decided and wished to consult further with the Japanese side. The 

two then discussed the different views of compensation held by both nations. The Japanese 

side was calling for compensation that included the loss of income or livelihood and fishing rights, while the Americans viewed compensation as “merely the value of the property 
324

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

lost by the individual,” or more specifically, the land.105 Nevertheless, according to Martin, 

the land values had been calculated “on a very liberal basis with the knowledge that the 

Japanese Government would wish to have the Bonin Islanders compensated for the loss 

of what they regarded as their fishing rights or property.”106 Martin went on to add, “Although it would not relieve them of the necessity to gain a livelihood for themselves, they 

would be no worse off in this respect, and probably better off than many of their Japanese 

countrymen who had suffered more seriously in the war and who had without complaint 

reestablished themselves and rebuilt their lives.”107

About three weeks later, on 12 November, Asakai called on Robertson to tell him that 

the Japanese government would like the United States to consider a figure of $9 million, 

rather than the earlier $12.5 million, for compensation.108 He explained that the Japanese 

government was hoping to pay each of the 1,370 households about $6,500. Robertson 

responded that he thought the figure was much too high and noted that, while the government had not arrived at a final figure, it was thinking in terms of $5 million. Robertson 

explained that this was based on the value of private land taken for military use. Asakai reiterated that it was the Japanese position that fishing rights would also have to be compensated. Robertson replied that there was no American precedent for that, and this approach 

might hurt the chances for getting a congressional appropriation. Asakai rebutted that if 

such was the case, then a higher land valuation than the one used in the Ryukyus should be 

considered, particularly as the “Bonin Islanders had no hope of returning to their homeland 

within the foreseeable future . . . unlike the Ryukyuans [who] still had access to other land 

in the Islands.”109 Asakai went on to stress that the Bonin Islanders “had been most patient 

and had refrained from political agitation,” and requested the United States give consideration to this aspect.110 He ended his plea by saying that he did not think the $9 million 

was an unreasonable figure. Robertson explained that his bureau had “long advocated payment of compensation to the Bonin Islanders” and that “they would like to see these people 

receive some compensation,” but it would be “embarrassing as well as counterproductive” if 

the State Department’s request to Congress failed because it did not appear to be “reasonable or justifiable.”111 Noting that the United States was facing a $12 billion budget deficit, 

Robertson said he wanted “to go to Congress with as strong as a case as possible.”112 It was 

necessary, therefore, he observed, to reconcile the American and Japanese figures to arrive 

at a “fair and justifiable basis of compensation” if the State Department were toobtain congressional authorization.113

Around the same time in Tokyo, Minister Outerbridge Horsey met with Itagaki Osamu, director, Asian Affairs Bureau of the Foreign Ministry, and Counsellor Miyake, about 

the compensation issue. Itagaki, who understood the principles of compensation as laid out 

by Horsey, disagreed with the amount. He stated that, while the ministry had not spoken 

directly with the islanders about it, he felt the minimum acceptable was about $9 million, 

as Asakai had mentioned. Itagaki emphasized that the islanders “had so far shown great 

restraint and had resisted attempts of the Communists to exploit their situation, but if offered such a low settlement he ‘feared what the results might be.’ ”114 After Itagaki explained 

that the government had paid compensation for the loss of fishing income to fishermen 

affected by U.S. forces off the Japanese coast in the past, Horsey replied that the United 

States could not compensate for the loss of income and fishing rights, but had no objection 
325

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

to the Japanese government distributing the funds as it wished. Horsey explained the rough 

calculations involved, which Itagaki described as a “political” figure.115 Horsey noted that it 

would be very difficult to establish a value for the land: “detailed negotiations over the value 

of every piece of land would last forever and would not solve the political problems between 

our two governments. On the contrary, such a procedure would inevitably lead to compounding our present difficulties.”116 Continuing, Horsey told Itagaki that it was “useless” 

to return with an appeal for a larger amount of money. Itagaki responded that the figure 

was “inadequate.”117 Horsey’s next comment reflected his and other Americans’ frustration 

with the overall bilateral relationship:

In response to repeated indications that our proposed figure was inadequate, I said 

I would like to give him another aspect of the case on a purely personal basis. I 

said that there are some people in Washington who felt that no compensation 

whatsoever should be made by the U.S. and that the Japanese Government should 

do whatever needed to be done, as a contribution to mutual defense. I said that we 

were spending $40 billion a year for the defense of ourselves and the free world and 

that Japan was a direct beneficiary. I said it was a mistake to think that, because we 

seemed to have so much money, we could pay any given amount of claims. We had 

the same difficulties as any other government and we were, as I noted, spending an 

enormous amount of money for what is in effect the common defense.118

In a letter to Howard Parsons in the State Department about 10 days later, Horsey said 

informal soundings of the Japanese on the U.S. figure were “not encouraging.”119 However, he mentioned that Itagaki’s “ranking subordinate” (likely Miyake) had expressed his 

“personal opinion” that a figure of $8 million might be acceptable.120 Horsey informed 

Parsons that the embassy had discovered a “disturbing misconception” in the Foreign Ministry about the “firmness of our $5 million figure.”121 Apparently, the ministry had been 

told by Yasukawa that the Americans were willing to compensate the islanders in amounts 

between $3,000 and $5,000 each, and taking the higher figure and multiplying it by 1,357 

(the number of families), had arrived at the conclusion that the State Department was willing to settle for somewhere between $6.5 million and $7 million. “We have spared no effort 

to disabuse them of this misconception,” Horsey added.122 Summarizing the two countries’ 

positions, he explained that the Japanese side,

has always felt that a settlement, in order to be lastingly acceptable to the Bonin 

islanders, would have to be “generous.” Our position has been that it is not so much 

a question of generosity or tightfistedness as one of what we can honestly justify to 

the Congress. The Japanese, consequently, seem to be considering a solution patterned after the land settlement in Okinawa. It seems to us that this would have 

many disadvantages both for us and the Japanese, one of them being that it would 

rule out compensation for a sizeable portion of the Bonin islanders.123

According to Horsey, Ambassador MacArthur still did not think $5 million was going 

to be enough to end the problem and that, if the United States could offer $6.5 to $7 million, “we might have a very reasonable prospect of reaching an acceptable agreement on a 

problem which can still cause serious difficulties in Japanese-American relations if it once 

really gets off the rails. For a difference of from $1.5 to $2 million, which is what would 
326

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

seem to be involved, it just doesn’t seem worthwhile to have the whole territorial question 

opened up again with the Japanese.”124

MacArthur followed up with a telegram in early December, urging that the United 

States agree to a $6 million figure, one that Fujiyama had proposed the day before when the 

two met.125 Justifying this, MacArthur explained that it seemed to him to be,

not only a reasonable price to pay to ensure our indefinite occupation and use of 

these very important islands without further pressures for return of islanders, but 

particularly because by paying six million we will engage responsibility of leaders of 

Bonin islanders and GOJ to defend solution not only to former islanders but also 

to Japanese public at large. Since our purpose is not only to satisfy Bonin islanders but also, and principally, to remove an important long-festering issue between 

Japan and U.S., public posture of GOJ and Bonin Islanders League is vital element 

in any solution. It would seem to me well worth expenditure of additional one million to arrive at settlement that accomplishes political purpose of settling this issue 

once and for all.126

In the meeting between MacArthur and Fujiyama, the foreign minister had emphasized 

that, while it wished to “remove this troublesome issue once and for all, [it] could not endorse settlement,” it is not acceptable to the league, and called for an increase of compensation as much as possible.127

Dulles accepted MacArthur’s arguments, and decided to raise the request to Congress 

by $1 million to $6 million, doing so in a letter to Maurice H. Stans, director of the Bureau 

of the Budget.128 Stans had written to Dulles the week before and explained that it would 

be “inappropriate” to request an appropriation in the amount of $5 million to compensate 

the displaced islanders when the United States had a large claim of $640 million—which 

represented only two-thirds of the original U.S. claim—against Japan.129 Stans, who took 

over as director in March 1958 as a recession started to hit and felt he “had [been] handed 

a real hot potato” with the budget,130 recommended to Dulles that “unless it is your personal 

judgment . . . that the political difficulties are insurmountable, it would be appear to me that 

an attempt should be made to resolve the problem of compensation of the Bonin Islanders 

by means of a deduction from the United States GARIOA claim.”131 Dulles responded 

that it would be “inadvisable” to attempt deducting the claim from the GARIOA funds.132

He did not deny that it was important to seek a resolution of the GARIOA claim, but 

thought it would take too much time to resolve. “I do not believe that a settlement of the 

claim of the Bonin Islanders should be deferred until this uncertain future date,” Dulles 

wrote, and “from the political point of view, a settlement of the Bonin Islands compensation question should be obtained as soon as possible.”133 Eventually, the State Department 

was permitted to seek this appropriation.

In the meantime, Director Parsons wrote to Horsey, responding to the latter’s 25 

November letter, about the exchange between Dulles and Stans, as well as that between 

the State and Defense Departments, particularly the Navy. The Navy had informed the 

State Department that a figure approximating $6 million could be justified on the basis 

of Ryukyuan land values at the time of the effective date of the peace treaty (as adjusted in 
327

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

1956), plus 6 percent per annum since that date, and that there was a good precedent for 

using the 6 percent as this was accepted by the Price Committee for Okinawa.134 Parsons 

mentioned that the department was, however, having difficulty getting the Navy to accept 

a straight $6 million figure. Instead, the service preferred to pay $5.75 million and ask the 

Japanese government to make up the remaining $250,000. Parsons told MacArthur that 

“we do not think that such haggling is a good idea and are holding out for $6 million.”135

As neither the Defense Department nor the Bureau of the Budget had approved the $6 

million figure, however, Parsons instructed that the embassy should not inform the Foreign 

Ministry that the State Department was seeking this amount.

In mid-January, MacArthur received word that the compensation question was still being considered in Washington, but funds that could be used to cover the $6 million were 

included as a State Department item in the overall government contingency fund.136 As 

the budget contained no specific reference to compensation or anything identifiable by the 

press as related to the Bonins, the department did not think it advisable to discuss it with 

the Japanese government at this time, even though it had inquired about the compensation 

on numerous occasions.

In early February, embassy officials met with their Foreign Ministry counterparts who 

pointed out that Fujiyama was certain to be questioned about the status of the compensation negotiations in the Diet and that it would be necessary for the foreign minister to explain whether the delay in reaching a settlement was due to a deadlock.137 They decided that 

if he was questioned, Fujiyama would take the following line: negotiations with the United 

States are proceeding and the Japanese government is hopeful of achieving a satisfactory 

compromise; nothing further can be said since negotiations are not yet concluded; and in 

any event, the U.S. government could not conclude an agreement until it is known that 

Congress is willing to appropriate the necessary funds. Following up on this, Ambassador 

Asakai asked Robertson in Washington if there was any progress, but Robertson simply 

responded that he would have to let him know later.138

In late February, the department once again informed MacArthur that $6 million had 

been included in the overall government contingency fund in the 1960 fiscal year (FY) 

budget for possible Bonin compensation if it is decided to seek authorizing and appropriating legislation from Congress for that purpose.139 Reviving an old discussion, however, 

the communiqué pointed out that Acting Secretary Herter, Under Secretary Robert D. 

Murphy, and the Bureau of the Budget questioned the appropriation of new money for the 

Bonins compensation while Japan had a large outstanding GARIOA debt. As an alternative, it suggested that the settlement of the compensation claim could be achieved by asking the Japanese government to pay the Bonin Islanders and to subtract payment from the 

amount the Japanese government was expected to pay to settle GARIOA.

The embassy immediately reviewed the compensation issue and wrote back challenging 

the suggestion (even though, as we saw earlier, it had at one point proposed precisely this 

solution):

We strongly believe that GOJ should make acceptable GARIOA settlement but 

for us now to renege on unqualified Bonin compensation formula advanced to Ki-
328

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

shi and reiterated to Fujiyama and try to link compensation with GARIOA claims 

would, we believe, be considered by Japanese as grave breach of faith. . . . Linking 

[it] will only delay Bonin compensation and permit that problem to fester again. If 

this issue again becomes inflamed we are in for serious trouble.140

Noting that we “now have an acceptable solution to which both [the Japanese government] and League of Bonin Islanders are committed,” the embassy urged that the department seek congressional appropriation in the 1960 FY budget as it would “eliminate this 

aspect of the territorial problem as a major irritant in U.S.-Japan relations.”141 This argument seems to have worked as nothing further was heard about it.

Shortly after this, Counselor of Embassy Clark wrote to Parsons to tell him of a conversation with Suganuma regarding the Japanese government’s concerns if “anything got 

into the press about the actual justification for the money sought,” i.e., the calculations and 

rationale.142 According to Suganuma, “If, for instance, it were to become known that the 

settlement was calculated only on the basis of land values in the Bonins, this would gravely 

weaken the position of the leaders of the Bonin Islanders who have succeeded in getting 

the land holders among them to accept the proposition that the settlement will be used to 

satisfy all of the Bonin Islanders, including the owners of fishing rights.”143 Clark pointed 

out that the Japanese government would also be in a “very difficult position” with the islanders if anything about the rationale of U.S. calculations became known “since, in effect, 

we have rejected their rationale and substituted our own.”144 Clark admitted, however, that 

all the Japanese government (and islanders) “have to do is accept the settlement—they 

don’t have to (and can’t) accept the calculations by which we arrived at an agreed figure.”145

Clark warned that the fact that “the lump sum idea has been discredited and abandoned” in 

the Ryukyus represented an additional danger of the calculations’ rationale becoming public 

knowledge.146 “The Japanese government,” he wrote, “would come in for criticism in the 

Diet that it had accepted for the Bonins a formula that had been found to be inequitable in 

the Ryukyus.”147 Clark closed by adding that “in a nutshell, while we hope that we will soon 

have good news from Washington permitting us to conclude a settlement of the Bonin 

claims in the amount of $6 million, we hope the news will be brief and that it will not be 

publicly explained how we arrived at the final figure.”148

Parsons wrote back immediately to say that the concerns of the embassy were “understood and appreciated” in the department, and that it had been exploring ways to “softpedal the publicity as much as possible.”149 However, he explained, as the department would 

have to justify the request before Congress, there was the risk of publicity. To justify the 

compensation, it was likely that reference would be made to the similar obligation to pay 

in the Ryukyus, as well as the fact that the land valuations there served as a justification 

for that of land values in the Bonins plus the 6 percent interest being added to the value 

sum. Parsons promised that the department would “try, wherever possible, to refer to the 

compensation as being for the taking and use of private property in the Bonins, rather than 

for private land holdings. However, of course, we cannot guarantee that, some place along 

the line, public attention will not be drawn to the fact that we are only compensating for 

private land holdings.”150
329

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

Responding to Parsons, Clark encouraged the department to try to limit any explanations to an “executive session” of Congress, and that if the calculations rationale became 

public knowledge, that the embassy be given as much advance notice as possible in order 

to discuss it with the Japanese side and draw up on an informal basis the necessary agreement.151 Clark told Parsons that the ability of the Japanese government to conclude any 

agreement is dependent on the acceptance of the Bonin Islanders. “This assurance exists 

at present,” Clark wrote, “but it can disappear if the landholders among the claimants get 

the impression that our Congress was legislating for their exclusive benefit.”152 Clark asked 

that if any speculative stories came out of Washington about the basis of U.S. calculations, 

the United States should try to allow the Japanese government to get its side of the story 

into the press.

Clark followed up on this letter with another in May to pass on the “strong hope” of the 

Japanese Foreign Ministry that, if Congress took favorable action on the appropriation bill, 

it could be informed as soon as possible in order to work out an agreement, “which could 

be announced in time to benefit the Japanese government in the forthcoming Upper House 

elections [on 2 June].”153

A week later, the embassy reported that the Foreign Ministry had requested information on an Associated Press story datelined “Washington, June 1” that the U.S. government 

would ask Congress for the $6 million authorization for compensation. In reply to inquiries 

from the league and media, the ministry had been stating it had no official information, but 

that the report might be correct. The embassy requested guidance from the department on 

what it and the Foreign Office can say to further questions.154

The AP story was essentially accurate, as acknowledged by the department spokesman 

on 3 June.155 A few days prior, on 29 May, Acting Secretary of State Herter had submitted 

the request to the Senate, and on 2 June, to the House.156 Subsequently, on 8 June, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee J. William Fulbright (D-AR), submitted 

“A Bill to Authorize a Payment to the Government of Japan,” to the Senate, and it was 

immediately referred to the Foreign Relations Committee for study.157

In mid-July, the Foreign Ministry informed the embassy that the league was “increasingly anxious” about the fate of the legislation and asked for any information and about 

the likelihood that it would pass during the current session of Congress.158 The department 

responded that, although Senator Fulbright had introduced the bill on 8 June, hearings had 

not yet been scheduled. Nevertheless, it felt congressional action during the session was still 

considered possible.159 Subsequently, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported 

favorably on the bill on 27 July, at which the new assistant secretary of state, Jeff Graham 

Parsons, testified. In reporting on the vote by telegram that day, the department told the 

embassy that the House committee had not yet scheduled its hearings.160

The State Department had no further word on the issue when Asakai called on Assistant Secretary Parsons to inquire about it. Parsons explained that the authorization bill was 

expected to pass the Senate soon, and there was “no difficulty anticipated in the House if 

there is sufficient time.”161 However, the crowded legislative calendar presented a problem 

and the appropriation bill would likely move to January. Asakai was “disappointed but understanding.”162
330

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

After receiving this report from Asakai, the Foreign Ministry immediately called on 

the embassy to say that it was “very deeply disturbed” that, if the appropriation bill was 

introduced in next session of Congress, the settlement might be delayed almost an entire 

year, and in the meantime, the islanders, “who up to now have been quiet and sensible, may 

become restive.”163 The Foreign Ministry representatives added, “Many of [the islanders] 

have taken out short-term bank loans in the hope of early compensation settlement and 

if delay becomes known those destitute people may become ready prey of leftist agitators.”164 Embassy officials correctly explained that the U.S. government could not hurry 

Congress, which alone determined the precedence of its business, and that the House could 

not take up the appropriation bill until the authorization bill had been passed. The ministry 

representatives understood the difficulty of attempting to push this legislation through 

Congress, but nevertheless expressed the “urgent hope” that some way might be found to 

explain the urgency of settlement “privately” to congressional leadership so that “if at all 

possible both bills might yet pass [the] present session,” and warned of a “growing anxiety 

that if settlement is not reached till next year, leftists and pro-Communist elements may 

work on islanders with view to persuading them to reject agreement which has been so 

painstakingly achieved.”165

By chance, the Senate passed the authorization legislation that same day, 24 August, 

and the department told the embassy it would “seek [to] expedite House action” on it.166

Unfortunately, the first half of the 86th session ended on 15 September (1959), and the 

second half would not start again until 6 January 1960.

Passage of the Compensation Bills: The Second Chance

Yokota Tatsuo of the league and two others called on MacArthur to express their gratitude 

for the embassy’s efforts to seek appropriations to compensate the islanders. MacArthur 

said it was unfortunate that time had run out, but that the embassy would renew its efforts in the future, including briefing congressional members who would be visiting Tokyo 

in the coming months. Yokota explained to MacArthur and First Secretary Herz that the 

islanders “are staking their entire fortune” on the early passage of the legislation and that 

many had gone into debt.167 After mentioning his concern about the potential of “Red” 

infiltration and exploitation of the movement, Yokota added melancholically that “many of 

the Bonin Islanders were getting on in years and felt, as he did personally, that they would 

not live to see the Bonin Islands again. Their hopes . . . were now focused entirely on the 

compensation settlement.”168

As promised, in order to push the legislation along, Ambassador MacArthur would 

regularly brief visiting U.S. legislators, such as Senator John C. Stennis (D-MS) and Representatives Phil Weaver (R-NE) and Daniel John Flood (D-PA) of the Senate and House 

Appropriations Committees.169 MacArthur also followed up his briefings with letters that, 

while not for publication, were meant to be shared with committee colleagues.

While there was no movement on the bill during the fall, Assistant Secretary Parsons 

was able to inform Prime Minister Kishi, who was visiting Washington in mid-January 

1960 for the signing of the revised security treaty, that the chairman of the House Foreign 
331

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

Affairs Committee, Thomas Ellsworth Morgan (D-PA), had told him during the White 

House luncheon on 19 January that the committee would take up the matter the following day.170 Parsons told Kishi and the Japanese delegation that it was most “unusual” that 

the committee would act “at such an early stage in the Congressional session,” but that it 

“reflects the interest of the Committee in the Bonin’s compensation as a result of the State 

Department’s initiative” and wanted Kishi to know that the United States “had not forgotten the Bonin Islands compensation problem and was attempting to move ahead on this 

problem.”171 Kishi responded that he was most appreciative of the information because 

there was continued interest in this problem in Japan.

The legislation safely passed the Foreign Affairs Committee that week172 and went to 

the Appropriations Committee after that. This was followed “with close attention” in Japan, 

especially the testimony of Assistant Vice Chief of Naval Operations/Director of Naval 

Administration Rear Admiral Glynn R. Donaho.173 MacArthur’s letter to Representative 

Flood was also referred to in the session. Nevertheless, due to the consideration of more 

pressing legislation in the House, the Bonins bill did not move as quickly as the department 

and embassy hoped. Secretary of State Christian Herter told MacArthur the department 

would continue to seek the “earliest possible House action.”174

In mid-May, the Bonins compensation bill (along with one for the Ryukyus) was cleared 

by the House Rules Committee.175 All that remained was for the House to act on it and the 

president to sign the bill.176 The Foreign Ministry immediately expressed its appreciation 

for this “constructive development,” the news of which had been “warmly endorsed” in the 

Japanese press.177 The ministry hoped that the authorization and appropriation bills would 

be passed by Congress before adjournment, and it pointed out that “as the Embassy was 

well aware, the Bonin Islanders have for the past two years been bitterly disappointed at 

the lack of action regarding compensation despite [the] position of [the] U.S. government 

favoring such legislation.”178

The authorization bill was successfully voted on in the House on 23 May,179 and one 

week later on 1 June, President Eisenhower signed the compensation bill into law (Public 

Law 86-486).180 MacArthur was immediately visited again by league Chairman Yokota 

who expressed his “deep appreciation” to the ambassador for the enactment of the compensation.181 MacArthur explained that while the first stage, the passage of an authorization bill, was completed, the second stage, that of an appropriation bill, remained. As 

such, he “could not promise of course that the latter and very important stage would be 

completed this year, but that it was his hope that Congress would pass an appropriation bill 

adjournment.”182 The ambassador reminisced about having first met the representatives of 

the league at his residence in May 1957, a few months after he arrived in Japan, mentioning 

that “he had said to them then that he would report their problems to his government, and 

he had sought an equitable solution ever since. Authorization now had been provided for 

the compensation that they well deserved, pending the establishment of conditions of real 

peace in the Far East that would permit their eventual return to the islands.”183

In this process and in years afterward, the efforts of Japanese-American lobbyist Mike 

Masaoka were crucial.184 Masaoka wrote that the league had “raised some money and hired 

a Washington law firm to plead their case,” but “the attorneys had used up the money with 
332

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

little to show for it when Fukuda came to me.”185 Masaoka said he “became interested in 

the matter . . . because of the vague resemblance to the plight of Japanese Americans who 

had to bow to military necessity.”186 Masaoka stuck with the group until the islands were finally reverted: “The Bonin Islanders were delighted and grateful, but they also were almost 

destitute. My reward for helping them to regain their homes was a handsome silver model 

of a boat, a beautifully carved piece of rare coral, and a very nice letter.”187

After the bill was signed, it was sent on 13 June 1960, to both houses of Congress 

for consideration in the respective appropriations committees, which would discuss the 

bill along with the regular department appropriations bill.188 However, the department’s 

supplementary budget bill, of which the Bonins appropriations was part, failed to reach 

the conference stage before Congress’s summer adjournment and was deferred until the 

August session. The department reported to the embassy that, fortunately, the Bonin item 

was not a subject of controversy between the House and Senate.189 Eventually, both houses 

of Congress approved the Bonin Compensation Bill on 24 August and the bill was signed 

by the president into law (Public Law 86-678) on 31 August.190

Negotiating the Exchange of Notes

on Bonin Islands Compensation

The passage of the bill was carried prominently in the Japanese press.191 Representatives of 

both the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Bonin Islanders called the U.S. embassy to 

express their appreciation.192 It was unclear, however, when the funds would be transferred. 

Indeed, the two governments had to complete draftingthe exchange of notes before the 

funds could be exchanged. It would take some 10 months before the $6 million was transferred to Japan (in June 1961).

An Asahi Shimbun (Morning Sun) story of 10 October 1960, hinted at some of the problems expected with negotiating the exchange of notes, specifically on the Japanese side.193

First was the fear among the islanders that they would be forfeiting repatriation possibilities by accepting compensation, and thus the ministry was expected to conduct negotiations 

in a way that guaranteed property rights while assuring the chance for repatriation. Second 

was the disagreement among the islanders as to whether the money should be divided 

among all the islanders or just the landowners, which had prevented the ministry from 

starting negotiations with the United States.

Counselor of the Asian Affairs Bureau Uyama Atsushi informed the embassy that the 

article had not been inspired by the ministry, but that it did reflect access to inside information, which he added was not entirely accurate. The embassy, however, viewed the article as 

painting a “quite accurate picture of the problems faced by [the Japanese government] in 

working out best means of effecting the transfer of funds.”194 In any case, Uyama said the 

Foreign Ministry expected to have a draft note ready for presentation to the embassy in a 

few days.195

Regardless of whether all the details in the Asahi story were correct or not, it did correctly point out that the distribution of compensation payments had become a point of 

disagreement within the league, symbolized by the fact that several special interest groups 
333

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

emerged starting in August 1960, just after Eisenhower had signed the bill into law. In addition to the league, now chaired by Yokota Tatsuo, the first breakaway group formed was 

the Ogasawara Tochi Shoyusha Iinkai (Committee of Ogasawara Landowners), headed by 

Moriizumi Hirasuke. The second was the Ogasawara Tochi Nogyo Doshikai (Association of 

Agricultural Landowners), chaired by Koiwai Koichi. The last was the Ogasawara Tomin 

Taikai Kyogikai (Council for Ogasawara Islanders), led by Tsuboi Ben, which was formed 

immediately before the compensation was about to be turned over to the other three organizations.196 Quite often, historically speaking, movements would break up over ideological 

reasons or leadership problems, but this time the splintering appears to be related to financial reasons—who should get compensation priority and how much. This division cost the 

movement much lost time in pressing the other outstanding issues of ancestral grave visits 

and repatriation, not to mention reversion.

In the meantime, the embassy gave the Foreign Ministry a copy of the U.S. draft exchange of notes on 13 October 1960, and the ministry took it up with the prime minister’s 

office, Ministry of Finance, and Cabinet Legislative Bureau. Over the next six months, 

the Japanese government prepared its own draft, and eventually submitted it to the U.S. 

embassy in March 1961.197 During that time, the Foreign Ministry coordinated with the 

various Bonin organizations that had sprung up as well as with the embassy. Although 

there was no time limit on transferring funds to the Japanese side, the State Department 

asked the embassy in late October the status of the talks and if it should schedule payment 

for the current fiscal quarter ending on 31 December.198 Responding in early December, 

embassy First Secretary James S. Sutterlin told Richard L. Sneider, who had succeeded 

Martin as officer in charge, Japanese Affairs, Office of Northeast Asian Affairs, that the 

embassy, despite numerous inquiries, had received no word from the Foreign Ministry on 

this matter since submitting the department’s draft on 13 October. Sutterlin explained 

that the primary cause for the delay was related to the problem the Japanese government 

was experiencing in devising a satisfactory method of distributing the funds, something 

widely reported in the press and confirmed by a representative of the ministry. Namely, the 

disagreement was between the landowners, who believed that the payments should go to 

them, and the others, who felt they should also receive payment because of the losses of 

fishing and farming rights and other means of livelihood due to their inability to return to 

the islands. Sutterlin told the department that the same Foreign Ministry official had told 

him the prime minister’s office planned to form a committee in the next few days comprising representatives of the factions to negotiate an equitable means of settlement. An advisory committee of experts in claims settlement would also be formed to assist in resolving 

the dispute. Once it was resolved, the Japanese government would be in a position to start 

negotiations. Sutterlin also informed the State Department that the embassy had learned 

the Foreign Ministry would likely propose extensive revisions in the draft exchange of letters prepared by the department.

A month later, on 5 January, Counselor Uyama informed the U.S. embassy that the 

Japanese side was still not ready to negotiate, but that it had some questions regarding 

wording of the U.S. draft, including if “interests” included both tangible and intangible, and 

whether “all claims of Japanese nationals, etc.” should be construed as restricting compensation to landowners or any bona fide claimant as determined by the Japanese government.199
334

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

The embassy responded that the U.S. government was “bound by the legislative language 

and record,” but would ask the department about legal interpretations.200 In asking about 

the interpretation, the embassy strongly recommended to the department that the embassy 

be authorized to tell the Japanese government that “interests” included both tangible and 

intangible elements as determined by the Japanese government, and that “all claims of 

Japanese nationals etc.” is not restricted to compensation to landowners and includes any 

bona fide claimants as determined by the Japanese government.201 MacArthur wrote that, 

by taking this position, the United States would “place responsibility on [the Japanese government], where it properly belongs, to satisfy all bona fide claimants in terms of Japanese 

custom and law.”202 Importantly, the Foreign Ministry supported this view “believ[ing] 

such an interpretation by us will enable it to work out acceptable agreement with all claimants whereas [a] more narrow interpretation limiting claimants to landowners, etc., would 

leave unsatisfied [the] group of Bonin Islanders who under Japanese custom and law would 

have claims which would be considered valid by Japanese opinion.”203

The department immediately responded, authorizing the embassy to inform the Foreign 

Ministry of the recommendations it had made, and the embassy did so on 7 January.204

While this information helped, the Foreign Ministry and the prime minister’s office were 

still having difficulty getting the claimants to agree to the method of distribution, despite 

meeting with them on a regular basis. The large landowners, those who were financially able 

to hire legal counsel and hold out for a more satisfactory settlement, comprised the group 

that “caused the most difficulty,” Uyama told embassy Counselor Coburn Kidd in February.205 While there were still some holdouts, Kidd sensed that the ministry had just about 

gotten the matter under control.

Around this time, Deputy Chief of Mission William C. Leonhart met with Deputy 

Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Shima Shigenobu on 6 February and informed him that 

the compensation appropriation would lapse on 30 June that year, and after that date, a 

new appropriation would have to be sought. Shima was informed that the prospects for 

a second appropriation would be slim because Washington would inevitably interpret the 

failure to reach a settlement for distribution as a lack of interest in Japan. Leonhart urged 

the Japanese government to expedite its consideration of the problem. Shima contacted 

him the following day to say that the Foreign Ministry understood the deadline of the appropriation bill and the need to hurry. Shima said he was “quite certain” that a settlement 

would be worked out well before then, and that the American side would probably be given 

a proposal by March.206 Shima’s estimate was correct. On 1 March, Uyama asked Sutterlin 

of the embassy to come to the Foreign Ministry, where he gave him an advance copy of the 

Japanese counter draft and a pro memoria explaining the differences in the text.207 The draft 

had been approved the day before by Vice Minister Takeuchi Ryuji but, before getting the 

minister’s approval it was necessary to sound out MacArthur.208

At a meeting on 3 March held at the Foreign Ministry, ministry and embassy officials 

discussed the draft and decided to get it closer in line to the U.S. draft from mid-October 

before sending it on to Washington in an attempt “to bring the whole matter to a successful 

close as quickly as possible.”209 Kidd raised several points, primarily in terminology, regarding the draft that he felt was problematic, particularly as they went against the understand-
335

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

ing of the congressional report. A long discussion was held on the “hold harmless” clause, 

and Kidd pointed out that there would be little chance of agreement in Washington if it 

was not satisfactorily handled.210 The two sides agreed to meet again soon to reconcile the 

drafts, with Kidd mentioning that Ambassador MacArthur had a “deep personal interest 

in this question since he has worked on it for years now and had hoped to see it finished 

prior to his departure [later in March].”211 Uyama, somewhat realistically, responded that 

despite everyone’s efforts, it might not be possible to reach a final agreement on the matter 

by that time. MacArthur, upon learning of the ministry draft, was concerned enough to call 

Vice Minister Takeuchi directly and tell him that it would “present serious problems since 

it departed from the principle of complete compensation, on which we had had thought we 

were in agreement, and from the wording of the congressional report and the act itself.”212

Uyama’s earlier caution was based on his realization that the Foreign Ministry “expect[ed 

to] have a difficult time [clearing it with other ministries concerned], particularly since we 

have told them some of revisions they had been considering (on basis of strong views of 

other ministries) were completely out of question.”213 On 8 March, he had submitted the 

ministry’s new draft exchange of notes requesting comments “urgently . . . to assist them 

in clearing it with other ministries.”214 The Foreign Ministry felt that if it could indicate 

to others in the government that the draft had Ambassador MacArthur’s approval and 

is “generally acceptable to Washington,” it could get the other ministries to accept the 

exchange.215 Uyama told the embassy they had attempted to meet its concerns and retain 

the U.S. wording to the greatest extent, but hoped the United States would understand the 

political problems that had motivated the changes they made in the text. “They have a host 

of claimants to deal with,” the embassy pointed out, “representing all variety of claims, and 

wish at all costs to avoid the necessity of submitting exchange to [the] Diet, where disappointed claimants might instigate Socialist members to undertake wearisome debate on legal points and U.S. policies in retention of islands.”216 After going through the major points 

of the Japanese draft, the embassy recommended that Washington generally accept it, noting that even on the “hold harmless” clause, the Japanese draft’s inclusion of the phrase “full 

settlement” effectively relieves the United States of “any possible future liability,” and that 

the “hold harmless” phrase only “bolt[s the] door twice.”217

Earlier that day, MacArthur made his final call on Prime Minister Ikeda Hayato. It is 

unclear if the Bonins issue came up, but considering the ambassador’s personal interest in 

the issue, that he had been briefed in great detail on the status of the talks the week before, 

and that in his record of accomplishments in Japan he referred to the obtainment of congressional authorization for compensating the dispossessed Bonin Islanders as one of his 

biggest achievements,218 it can be assumed that the issue did in fact arise. It also may have 

prompted the submission sometime that day of the revised Japanese draft.

Kidd and Sutterlin met again with Uyama and the others from the Foreign Ministry 

on 10 March to discuss the wording and other points.219 These “small changes and minor 

editorial revisions” were forwarded to the department that same day.220 Over the next two 

weeks, the department worked on a revised draft, which it completed on 25 March. On the 

27th, Kidd and Sutterlin met for the fifth time with their Foreign Ministry counterparts to 

discuss the latest U.S. version.221 They met again the following week, on 4 April, and once 
336

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

more on 10 April to finalize the draft.222 By this point, the two sides had essentially agreed 

to the text.

Unfortunately, the Japanese government was still having difficulties with the islanders 

who continued to fight among themselves over the payments. In early May, Uyama, meeting 

with Kidd on another matter, told the latter that the prime minister’s office had informed 

him that the islanders remained “badly divided” on how the money should be distributed 

and that the government thought the exchange of notes should be delayed “in order to 

maintain pressure on the opposing groups to reach agreement among themselves.”223 Kidd 

mentioned that the new ambassador, Edwin O. Reischauer, would be going to Washington 

in early June to prepare for the prime minister’s visit to the United States (from 20 to 23 

June) and it was probably best to have the signing done before then. Moreover, Kidd reminded Uyama the compensation authorization would expire on 30 June, and it would be 

necessary to conduct the transaction before then or reapply.

Eventually, the sides exchanged notes on 8 June 1961, without the islanders having 

come to an agreement among themselves.224 With the exchange of notes, the compensation issue was essentially resolved at the bilateral level. The U.S. government would remain 

interested in the issue to see if the funds were properly distributed, but the work was essentially done. As a result, the Bonins issue did not receive much attention in the talks 

between Prime Minister Ikeda and President John F. Kennedy later that month. Instead, 

discussions focused primarily on the Ryukyus, as the joint communiqué released after their 

talks, suggests:

The President and the Prime Minister exchanged views on matters relating to the 

Ryukyu and Bonin Islands, which are under United States administration but in 

which Japan retains residual sovereignty. The President affirmed that the United 

States would make further efforts to enhance the welfare and well-being of the inhabitants of the Ryukyus and welcomed Japanese cooperation in these efforts; the 

Prime Minister affirmed that Japan would continue to cooperate with the United 

States to this end.225

One of the reasons why there was little else addressed with regard to the Bonins had 

to do with the fact that the National Security Council, in deliberations the year before, 

had essentially reaffirmed that there would be no substantial changes in U.S. policy on the 

question of the islands under Article 3 of the Peace Treaty. The NSC’s 446th meeting on 

31 May 1960, for example, discussed updates to its policy toward Japan. And President 

Eisenhower approved the NSC Report known as 6008/1, “United States Policy toward Japan,” on 11 June, which stated “Taking into account the Communist threat in the Far East 

and the new security arrangements with Japan signed on January 19, 1960, [the United 

States should] maintain the degree of control over the islands enumerated in Article 3 of 

the Peace Treaty deemed by the President to be essential to our vital security interests.”226

Moreover, as mentioned above, the payment of compensation further meant the closure of 

the Bonin problem for the time being.

But this did not mean, however, that there were not issues remaining such as ancestral 

grave visits.
337

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

Distributing the Funds and the Creation

of the Ogasawara Association

Immediately after the notes were signed and the funds transferred, the vice ministers of the 

respective ministries gathered at a June 15 meeting called by director general of the prime 

minister’s office, Fujieda Sensuke, to develop a plan for the distribution of the funds, as the 

islanders had yet to devise a unified plan on their own.227 Over the next year and a half, 

the committee would meet more than a dozen times before the plan (Ogasawara Guntoto 

no Kyutominto no Tame no Juryokin no Haibun ni Tsuite) was finalized and approved by the 

cabinet on 9 November 1962. During this time, the $6 million remained in commercial 

banks in the name of the four organizations representing islanders, but under the continuing control of the Special Areas Liaison Bureau of the prime minister’s office.228

Even that process had not been easy. By May 1962, the committee had developed a draft 

plan in coordination with three Diet members who acted as representatives of three of the 

groups: Fukuda represented the league, Narahashi Wataru, also of the LDP, represented 

the landholders, and Kato Kanju, a Socialist Party member and husband of the famous 

women’s rights activist and Diet member Kato Shizue, represented the Council for Ogasawara Islanders.229 (It is unclear if the other group, the agricultural land owners association, had a sponsor.) But that spring, problems emerged. Mochimaru Matsuo, a member 

of the standing committee of the landowners group, was arrested in April for allegations of 

embezzlement of some 3.6 million yen (about $10,000) from funds on deposit in Tokyo. 

The embassy worried if the embezzled funds had come from the money transferred by the 

United States, but that was not the case. In any case, the embassy expressed its concern that 

“because the organization in which the accused served was one of the three to which U.S.-

supplied funds had been turned over . . . unless the U.S. funds were promptly distributed 

they might be subject to misuse to the serious detriment of the objective for which they 

were intended.”230 Nevertheless, the embassy learned of a new problem—the arrest in early 

June of the vice chairman of the Council for Ogasawara Islanders, Ueno Haruo, for alleged 

blackmail.231 The council had been formed immediately prior to the transfer of the $6 million to Japan, and Ueno told Mochimaru that he would reveal irregularities in the accounts 

of the league unless “adequately compensated” as well as oppose the transfer of the funds to 

commercial banks unless given some of the funds.

Because of this “new development,” the embassy approached the American Bureau Director Ando Yoshimitsu on this issue and also spoke with Furuya Toru, a senior official in the 

bureau of the prime minister’s office that deals with the Bonins question, to reemphasize its 

“serious concern over the long delay in distributing the funds and the possibility that they 

might be subject to misuse and scandal before they reach their intended recipients.”232 Ambassador Reischauer’s staff also told the Japanese representatives that the United States had 

“expected the funds would bring prompt assistance to former Bonin residents in establishing themselves in Japan and pointed out that there could be an adverse reaction in Congress 

if Congressmen became aware that the money, which had been urgently requested by the 

Department, had not yet reached the claimants. The result could be a reluctance to accept 

recommendations for comparable payments elsewhere.”233 Furuya told the embassy that 

the prime minister’s office had developed a new formula and outlined it to the representa-
338

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

tives of the islanders and to members of the LDP and opposition Socialist Party. While 

the islanders had not indicated their reaction, the Socialists said the Japanese government 

should also contribute to the compensation of the islanders. Furuya felt the chances were 

good for an early settlement, which he recognized was urgently needed. Agreement was 

eventually reached and the cabinet gave its approval in November. Payments began to be 

made at the end of the Japanese fiscal year (March 1963) and continued into the middle of 

the 1963 fiscal year.234

Because of the fractious infighting and bad blood that had developed, the league’s general meeting in March 1964 passed a resolution to dissolve itself and create a new organization called the Ogasawara Kyokai (Ogasawara Association), which would include outside 

experts.235 The Nanpo Doho Engokai, or the Assistance Association for Okinawa and Ogasawara and Northern Islands, was instrumental in helping to create the new association; 

its experience in dealing with the Okinawa problem would be particularly helpful to the 

association.236 On 24 December 1964, leaders of the islanders met to officially name the 

new organization and begin the application process for incorporation with the government. 

Six weeks later, on 3 February 1965, the application was submitted to the prime minister’s 

office, and after three months, the Ogasawara Association’s incorporation was officially 

approved on 8 May. It had a start-up fiscal base of seven million yen, using some of the 

compensation funds received for its activities.237 Fukuda became chairman.238 Later in the 

year, the Ogasawara Association set up local chapters in Tokyo, Shizuoka, Hachijo Jima, 

and Izu Oshima, where many of the resettled islanders were living.239 The association began 

regularly cosponsoring meetings with the Nanpo Doho Engokai.

240

A renewed interest had been developing regarding the Bonins problem during this time. 

The new prime minister, Sato Eisaku, would raise the issue of ancestral grave site visits in 

his first meeting with President Lyndon B. Johnson in Washington in early January 1965. 

Moreover, the Diet was increasingly taking an interest in the problem. For example, on 6 

April 1965, the lower house passed a resolution on the return of administrative rights over 

Okinawa and the Bonins, stating that “it is regretful that administrative rights of the two 

island groups have not been returned to Japan yet” and calling for “the government to take 

appropriate measures for the return of administrative rights over Okinawa and the Bonins.”241 It was the seventh resolution to date on Bonin Islands–related territorial issues.242

After the vote, Sato, who attended the session, made a statement stressing that the “government intends to make positive efforts also in the future, along the purport of this resolution, 

for early realization of reversion of the administration.”243

Ancestral Grave Visits

Although the question of compensation was resolved, the larger question of the islands’ reversion remained. Only time and changed international and bilateral circumstances would allow 

a fundamental reexamination of this question. In the meantime, a smaller, but psychologically and symbolically important issue—that of ancestral grave visits—increasingly needed 

to be addressed. It would be somewhat difficult organizationally to address the issue with the 

league divided on the question of compensation, but the question of grave visits allowed the 

league and its successor, the Ogasawara Association, to rally around a common issue.
339

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

The desire to visit ancestral graves on the islands had been a long-standing one, but 

rather than raising only this desire, the islanders had focused their efforts on returning to 

the islands.244 As noted above, the league requested that Foreign Minister Fujiyama raise 

the issue of ancestral grave visits during his September 1957 visit to the United States, 

which he did.245 Dulles, however, was not forthcoming on the matter. Over the next couple 

of years, the compensation issue took priority and the grave visits issue was moved to the 

back burner. Nevertheless, with the 17th anniversary since their evacuation coming up the 

following year, the league began to press the Japanese government to negotiate with the 

United States to allow the temporary return of the islanders.

On 24 July 1959, the league presented the Japanese government with a petition to allow ancestral grave visitation and bury the cremated remains of those who had died in the 

meantime.246 The petition included a specific plan of the numbers of those who were to 

participate, how they would accomplish it, and what they needed. Unfortunately, they were 

unsuccessful at this point.

The league presented the same petition and plan the following year on 26 July 1960 but 

again, it was not successful. According to Foreign Ministry sources, the reason it was not 

discussed at the bilateral level had to do with “timing”—the ministry probably thought it 

was inappropriate to raise it while the compensation issue was still being worked out.247 The 

league accepted this view and did not appeal directly to the U.S. government, but once the 

compensation issue was resolved in 1961, it raised the issue with the U.S. embassy on 30 

August 1961 by submitting a petition and copy of the plan to Ambassador Reischauer.248

After expressing gratitude to the U.S. government for the $6 million compensation payment, the petition requested permission to send 50 people to Chichi Jima, Haha Jima, Kita 

Iwo Jima, and Iwo Jima to observe memorial services for the ancestors of the islanders. It 

emphasized that their plan “does not involve any political intentions.”249 Yokota, chairman 

of the league, told Reischauer that he and his colleagues had already raised it with the 

Foreign Ministry and expected them to formally request the plan with the embassy. Yokota 

mentioned that the islanders had asked the Japanese government to pay the $5,861,000 

expected cost for the 32-day trip. Yokota said that, while he was aware the issue would 

have to be dealt with between the ministry and the embassy, he was giving the ambassador 

a copy of the petition so that the U.S. government could be aware of the islanders’ desires 

and be prepared for an approach by the ministry. Counselor Kidd told the department that 

he accepted the petition, but did not give Yokota any encouragement. He surmised that the 

Foreign Ministry had not yet approached the embassy because it was probably “deterred 

by the islanders’ request that all expenses of the projected trip be borne by the Japanese 

government.”250

Kidd also mentioned that, when Yokota raised the issue with the Foreign Ministry, 

he referred to the permission given in August 1961 by the Soviet Union for a group of 

Japanese nationals to visit the graves of relatives who died while prisoners of war in the 

Soviet Union and were buried in eastern Siberia. The visit took place that month, when 

30 relatives, 10 members of the press, and 3 Japanese government officials visited cemeteries in Chita and Khabarovsk.251 In late January 1962, the Soviet government notified the 

Japanese embassy in Moscow that bereaved family members would be allowed to visit again 
340

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

that coming summer. While the situations were far from similar, as Assistant Secretary 

of State W. Averell Harriman would point out later in conversations with Ambassador 

Asakai, the implications were clear—the Soviets were allowing grave visits, so why not the 

United States?

A couple weeks after the embassy informed the department of the league’s petition, 

Asian Bureau Counselor Uyama made an official request on 2 October that a delegation of 

50 islanders be allowed to visit the graves, along the lines of the petition. He said that, while 

the government had not yet allocated the funds, he was sure financing could be arranged if 

the United States authorized the visit.252 Uyama explained the timing of the request, pointing out that “this is the 17th year since the departure of the islanders from the Bonins and 

that under Buddhist ritual, the 3rd, 7th, 13th, 17th, 33rd, 55th, and 100th years are of particular significance and usually marked by special observances.”253 He went on to note “The 

islanders are deeply concerned by their inability to care for ancestral graves and are most 

anxious that [the] representative delegation have [the] opportunity during this 17th year to 

perform appropriate rites at [the] sites of [their family] graves. Some have kept remains of 

relatives who have died in Japan in hope that they may be buried with ancestors in Bonin 

Island cemeteries.”254 Despite this request, at the end of the meeting, Uyama said that the 

Foreign Ministry did “not wish to exert pressure” on the United States, but that the issue 

would probably come up in Diet interpellations and thus desired the American government give the matter “sympathetic consideration” and reply in the “near future.”255

Reischauer forwarded the request to the State Department noting that while permission 

would “tend to heighten the interest and hopes of the islanders in an eventual return to the 

Bonins and could lead to an increase in pressure for repatriation, at least of a small group,” 

while any “refusal to permit the islanders to tend their ancestral graves would contrast 

unfavorably” with the recent trip by 30 Japanese to visit the graves in Siberia and “could 

give rise to criticism of the United States.”256 In light of this, the embassy passed along the 

following judgment: “on balance, permission to visit the graves would be [a] desirable thing 

from the point of view of U.S. relations with Japan,” but noted that it realized “there are 

other considerations which must be kept in mind.”257

Reischauer’s request was taken up by officials in Washington and Hawaii, and in early 

November, the State Department was informed by the Defense Department’s Office of 

International Security Affairs that CINCPAC Admiral Harry D. Felt did not agree to the 

visit, and that Secretary of Navy John B. Connally Jr. was certain to support Felt’s position.258 The opposition by Felt, who was said to be extremely difficult to work for as well as 

“definitely hostile to Japan because of lingering feelings”259 about World War II, was based 

on the following arguments:

On the basis of past experience and military consideration, I cannot support the 

proposed visit. A similar visit to honor the dead in the Pacific Islands and return 

token remains to Japan was authorized in 1953 with the understanding that this 

was to be the only such visit. This trip was successful from both the Japanese and 

U.S. standpoint and is considered comparable to [the] more recent visit to the 

USSR. On the other hand, two other Japanese visits to Iwo Jima, in 1952 and 1954, 

resulted in publicity detrimental to the U.S. based on emotional articles and faked 
341

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

pictures. Physical conditions on the islands, the lack of accommodations, the isolation and undoubtedly deteriorated condition of the cemeteries, all militate against 

developments favorable to the U.S. from such a visit. The limited area actively used 

by the U.S. would give incentive for more agitation for return of former residents, a 

development definitely not desirable from a military point of view.260

As a result of these views, the State Department told Reischauer, who had received a 

briefing at the Pentagon on the uses of the Bonin Islands prior to departing Washington in 

March 1961, that unless the embassy believed political considerations to be so important 

that the issue should be pursued further, he should inform the Foreign Ministry that “military considerations and the U.S. understanding that the 1953 visit was to be the only such 

a visit.”261 It also suggested that the embassy could “contain . . . any unfavorable publicity” 

about the U.S. refusal to permit entry by pointing out the visit to Pacific Islands.262

The embassy did as instructed and subsequently informed the Foreign Ministry that the 

United States would be unable to authorize the visit for the above reasons. The ministry officials did not seem willing to take “no” for an answer, as they responded with questions and 

comments, as well as further requests. They asked that the United States be more forthcoming in clarifying the nature of the 1953 understanding and of the military considerations.263

The Foreign Ministry also pointed out that the visit would be related to ancestral grave 

visits, and thus quite different from the 1953 visit, which related to war dead. In relaying 

the results of the meeting, Reischauer noted that CINCPAC’s statement on the visits had 

noted the cemeteries were in a “deteriorated condition,” and he believed it would be “helpful in replying to future requests from islanders and in countering eventual public pressure” 

if the United States could give assurances to the Foreign Ministry and to islanders that the 

graves were being maintained by U.S. authorities. “The Embassy is not able judge extent 

of task involved,” Reischauer continued, “but it feels [the] emotional appeal in Japan of 

question[s] pertaining to ancestral graves should not be underestimated” and believes “we 

should do as much as possible to prevent this matter of cemetery neglect from becoming 

[a] public issue.”264 Reischauer felt it would be useful to provide a high level, confidential 

briefing to Foreign Ministry officials on the strategic utilization of the Bonin Islands, including the military considerations that preclude visiting the islands for grave visits. He 

also reminded the State Department that the Japanese government had made a similar 

request prior to Ikeda’s Washington visit.265 Reischauer also requested information on the 

1953 understanding about no more further visits, as the embassy files from that time had 

been returned to Washington, and the Foreign Ministry representative had said he was 

unaware of such an understanding.

A few weeks later, the State Department responded to Reischauer’s airgram with one 

of its own. Regarding the condition of the graves, the Navy and Defense Department 

“assured” the State Department that the civilian cemetery on Chichi Jima and military 

cemetery on Iwo Jima “are being maintained in good condition.”266 However, it noted, 

“individual graves in many parts of widely scattered islands have unavoidably fallen into 

disrepair as a result of World War II bombing and shelling, unrestrained jungle growth in 

some areas, and lack of interested inhabitants to perform maintenance tasks. U.S. administering authorities regret that it simply is not practicable to restore and maintain in good 
342

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

condition these widely dispersed and in some cases unlocatable individual graves.”267 Regarding the military considerations, the State Department told Reischauer that “security 

considerations preclude disclosure of these uses to GOJ even on highly confidential basis,” 

and thus said it would be unable to authorize the embassy sharing any detailed information 

to the Japanese government.268 Finally, on the question of the understanding regarding the 

1953 visit, the department quoted a 7 July 1952 (see previous chapter) airgram that the 

U.S. government was “prepared to permit the Japanese mission to conduct appropriate religious services on the site of the graves and to erect suitable markers with the understanding 

that there would be no further requests by the Japanese for permission to visit the graves 

in the Nanpo Shoto,” and said it assumes the U.S. understanding was conveyed to the 

Foreign Ministry in 1952, as well as referenced in 1957, when the ministry made a similar 

request.269 In addition to relaying the U.S. government’s regrets, the department suggested 

that the embassy, at its discretion, might point out that the Bonins “can be expected to 

remain [a] closed military area for some time to come, and the U.S. had thought this had 

been made clear during discussions and negotiations which culminated in [the] $6 million 

settlement in June . . . [the] U.S. government would hope [the] Foreign [Ministry] will be 

prepared to remind representatives of former residents of this understanding.”270

It is unclear whether the embassy relayed the message and how the Foreign Ministry 

took it, but the exchange caused some concern within the Defense Department. Rear Admiral L. C. Heinz, the regional director, Far East, within the Office of International Security Affairs, noted that “our position is weak in the Bonins but could be strengthened if the 

three principal islands in the Bonin-Volcano group . . . were all occupied by U.S. forces or 

an agency of the U.S. government.”271 Eventually, CINCPAC chimed in to write that the 

“attempt to ‘justify’ U.S. policy in regard to administration of territory under U.S. authority 

as a matter of right is bound to fail,” and that “an attempt at ‘rejustification’ would be tacit 

acceptance of Japanese right to interfere in U.S. military matters.”272 Instead, it argued that 

the “best position” for the United States to take at this point was “a positive one, reaffirming 

that the islands were essential to the U.S. and free world.”273 Unless that were done, “limited 

access, even for visits, would only emphasize the fact that the islands are not being fully 

utilized and increase the demands for resettlement or ‘justification of refusal.’ ”274

Nevertheless, the islanders still desired to visit the ancestral graves according to Ambassador Asakai. In a call on Assistant Secretary Harriman on 23 February 1962, Asakai raised 

this request.275 He pointed out their demands continued, despite previous opposition by U.S. 

authorities, and noted that the recent Soviet permission for Japanese to visit graves in Siberia in 1961 had “further stimulated their desires.”276 The assistant secretary pointed out that 

a Japanese mission had visited the Bonins (actually, Iwo Jima) in 1953 to conduct religious 

ceremonies at grave sites and erect markers with the explicit understanding that only one such 

visit would take place. Harriman, at one point one of America’s leading experts on the Soviet 

Union, strongly dismissed the reference to the Soviet’s permission “as not at all comparable” as 

Japanese were allowed to visit the United States under normal visa procedures after the Peace 

Treaty.277 Moreover, he noted that the federal government had allowed the visit more than 

eight years previously while the Japanese had not yet been permitted to visit graves on any of 

the Northern Territories occupied by the Soviets. (These visits began in September 1964 when 

51 people visited the islands of Suisho Jima in the Habomai group and Shikotan Island.278)
343

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

While this exchange was the last for a couple of years on this issue, the reality was that 

the United States government was very much concerned about the parallels drawn to the 

Soviet Union. The league, however, never received a concrete response from the embassy 

and, in the meantime, infighting among the islanders’ representatives over the distribution 

of the funds made it impossible to focus the efforts of the movement on the grave visits. 

This internal conflict and lack of positive responses from the U.S. and Japanese governments did not prevent the league from continuing its petitions to the Japanese government. 

On 30 July 1962 and 15 July 1963, it called on Foreign Minister Ohira Masayoshi and 

others in the government to help realize the grave visits.279 Nevertheless, it was not until 

the league dissolved itself and was on the way to creating the Ogasawara Association that 

it could realistically focus its efforts on realizing the grave visits.

The first of these new efforts was seen when its advisor, Fukuda, visited the United States. 

On 30 June 1964, Fukuda, who had become director general of the Japan Defense Agency 

in July 1963 and reappointed in December, met with Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara to discuss relations with Southeast Asia and China, the defense budget, and other 

matters, including the Ogasawara Islands, which Fukuda said he had been asked to raise by 

the prime minister.280 He mentioned the permission of the Soviets to visit gravesites in the 

Kuriles, and similar actions by the People’s Republic of China, and asked if the United States 

would consider grave visits to the Bonins. While McNamara did not specifically agree to it, 

he did say that it could be considered through the U.S. embassy in Tokyo.

A second effort was made by Fukuda later that year, when he stopped in Hawaii in early 

December to meet with Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, commander, Pacific Fleet, while on 

his way back from Mexico where he attended the presidential inauguration of Gustavo 

Diaz Ordaz on behalf of the Japanese government.281 Moorer, who had previously served 

as the commander of the Seventh Fleet based in Japan and would go on to become the 

chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,282 asked several questions. He inquired about the 

timing of the visit, the places to be visited, the number of people in the party, and the 

method of travel. Overall, however, the impression Fukuda got was that Moorer was favorably inclined. Upon returning to Tokyo, he immediately met with officials from the Foreign 

Ministry and prime minister’s office.

Shortly thereafter, on 5 December, Foreign Minister Shiina Etsusaburo, who was visiting New York for the UN General Assembly, met with Secretary of State David Dean 

Rusk. During the late afternoon meeting, Shiina requested the United States allow former 

residents of the Bonins be allowed to visit gravesites, noting that the Soviets were granting 

visits to Habomai and Shikotan.283 Rusk, who expected the issue might be raised in light of 

an earlier meeting on 25 November with Ambassador Takeuchi,284 promised to explore the 

matter with Secretary McNamara. Later that month, Rusk wrote to McNamara and recommended that the question be reviewed as Prime Minister Sato would probably raise it with 

the president in their upcoming meeting. Rusk also stated that he believed “a reasonable 

number of visits might be possible” as long as U.S. security interests were protected.285 The 

impetus for Rusk’s letter, drafted on 18 December, may have been the cable that Ambassador Reischauer sent to the State Department that same day. In it, Reischauer explained that 

the issue had been regularly raised over the years and reemphasized that Sato was likely to 
344

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

raise it during his visit. Explaining the cultural and diplomatic aspects involved, he argued 

that the grave visits should be agreed to by the United States as a “gesture of understanding 

and friendship,” and observed that it was on “weak ground [if the United States] continued 

to refuse permission for grave visits to [the] Bonin Islands unless there are specific sensitive 

security considerations which are not known to us.”286 The ambassador recommended that 

the matter receive urgent study in order to give an affirmative response to Sato. Based on 

this cable, and information his staff received from the Defense Department that the Navy 

might be willing to consider such visits, Assistant Secretary William P. Bundy suggested 

to Rusk in a memo that the secretary or president give Prime Minister Sato a favorable 

response during the latter’s visit to Washington.287

Rusk’s letter to McNamara went out that weekend, and a week later on 28 December, 

the Navy provided State Department officials with a briefing on the Bonin Islands, which 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs Marshall Green found to be 

“extremely valuable.”288 Green also expressed interest in the suggestion by Admiral Waldemar F. A. Wendt, who was serving as the director of the Strategic Plans Division in the 

Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, that representatives from the State Department 

visit the islands to gain a clearer understanding of the local factors relating to temporary 

visits to the islands by outsiders. Prior to his Washington assignment, Wendt had served as 

deputy military governor of the Bonin-Volcano Islands based out of Guam and was thus 

quite familiar with them. His suggestion was eventually implemented with the visit of J. 

Owen Zurhellen Jr. in early February 1965, making him only the third State Department 

officer to have officially visited the islands, after Ambassador Robert Murphy in 1952 and 

Richard Lamb in 1956.

In Japan, officials of the Foreign Ministry, prime minister’s office, and Tokyo Metropolitan Government met with representatives of the Nanpo Doho Engokai (acting on behalf of 

the as of yet official Ogasawara Association) on 23 December to discuss the grave visits issue. They agreed that the Foreign Ministry would take the lead in raising the issue with the 

U.S. government.289 Subsequently, on 28 December, the Foreign Ministry made the formal 

request for permission to undertake grave visits.290 This request was among a set of talking 

papers given to the Tokyo embassy that day, but somehow were not included in a similar 

batch shared with the State Department in Washington, DC, by the Japanese embassy 

there.291 The details of the Bonins paper included a request for a visit to Chichi Jima, Haha 

Jima, and Iwo Jima for 10 days beginning on 21 March 1965 by approximately 30 people, 

including bereaved families, government officials, and Buddhist priests.

With these in hand, Ambassador Reischauer met twice with Sato the next day at the 

prime minister’s office in formal and private sessions to review the issues to be raised and 

Sato’s views on bilateral and international affairs not reflected in the memos.292 He also 

spoke with Sato in detail on the talking papers on both the Ryukyus and Bonins. Reischauer seemed to praise the detail of the papers and proposals, but tried to discourage the 

prime minister from getting his hopes up: “I doubt conclusions or even meaningful discussions could be obtained during [this] short Washington visit.”293 Sato’s reaction is unclear 

but, according to Reischauer’s telegram, the prime minister referred specifically to the grave 

visits and said he “hoped we could at least agree to that.”294
345

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

In Washington, Secretary Rusk met with Ambassador Takeuchi Ryuji on 30 December, 

a week after a previous meeting on the evening of the 23d, to discuss a U.S. aide memoire

on topics to be raised and asked about a similar Japanese memorandum. Takeuchi said he 

hoped to give it to him on 7 or 8 January, after he returned to Washington following a trip 

to Japan to consult with Sato. (Sato met with Takeuchi on 3 January and again on 7 January.)295 Thus in this manner, the Bonins issue became one of the topics raised by Sato during 

his visit to Washington in January 1965.

The United States, of course, had been aware that the issue was going to arise, too, as seen 

from the above exchanges, but also for some time before. For example, after a visit to Japan 

by Assistant Secretary Bundy at the end of September during which the Bonins issue had 

been raised by Takeuchi, who was then still director of the American Affairs Bureau, Bundy 

met with Navy Secretary Paul H. Nitze and Navy leaders to discuss the issue and probably 

to suggest that changes in the status quo were necessary.296 More dramatically, in response 

to a department request in October, as 1964 drew to a close, Reischauer and the embassy 

prepared an assessment of Japan, which noted in regard to Okinawa and the Bonin Islands: 

“we must recognize that over the long run, and possibly sooner than is generally realized, 

Japan will press for reversion of administrative rights over the Ryukyus and the Bonins.”297

In early 1965, while the reversion of administrative rights was not seriously being considered, Secretary Rusk informed President Johnson in an undated memorandum ahead 

of Sato’s visit that the State Department “accept[s] in principle a Bonins graves visit” and 

Ambassador Reischauer would work out the details in Tokyo if the president approved.298

On the eve of the visit, James C. Thomson Jr., who was the de facto director for East Asian 

Affairs on the National Security Council,299 wrote to the president that Sato “will consider 

his visit a success . . . if he comes away from Washington with a firm sense that we accept the 

Japanese as full partners (on equal footing with our European allies) and that we will take 

them into our confidence on long-term planning,” and it “will be an added plus for us both” 

if some progress is made on bilateral frictions.300 One of these issues was the Bonin Islands 

visits, and Thomson informed Johnson, based on Rusk’s memorandum, that the administration accepted, in principle, grave visits for the former inhabitants who live in Japan.301

The graves visit issue was taken up, and quickly agreed to, at a private meeting in the 

late morning of 12 January between President Johnson and Sato, who had arrived early 

the previous evening. After coordinating the next day’s agenda at the Japanese embassy 

at 2520 Massachusetts Avenue, Sato retired to Blair House with which he was apparently 

very satisfied, noting in his diary: “the accommodations at Blair House were quite good 

(soto no mono).”302 Sato was also satisfied with the content of his talks the next day with 

Johnson. According to the Japanese memorandum of conversation, the president spoke of 

his desire to improve the welfare of the Okinawans and make further efforts at developing 

the economy, and followed this by stating his willingness to consider the Bonins grave visits question.303 According to his diary, Sato was “surprised at how quickly his request with 

regard to ancestral grave visits” was received and agreed to by the president.304

Later that day, Sato met with Rusk, Under Secretary George Ball, Reischauer, and the 

rest of the State Department staff to discuss the grave visits, which was included in the draft 

communiqué. Ambassador Takeuchi inquired about the timing of the visit, because the 
346

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

release of the communiqué to the press would inevitably invite questions about the dates. 

The ambassador suggested from a Japanese point of view, either March or April (around 

the time of the vernal equinox) or in August, for Obon (the Buddhist custom to honor the 

spirits of one’s ancestors) would probably be best. Rusk responded by saying that the timing would have to be decided later, following talks between Reischauer and a representative 

of the prime minister, but he wished to “discuss frankly” with the Japanese government 

the “various practical problems” involved in such a visit and ask the Japanese government 

the best way to handle them.305 Reischauer mentioned that John K. Emmerson, minister 

of the embassy, who was attending the meeting, would be returning to Japan the following day and could launch preliminary discussions with the Foreign Ministry immediately. 

Interestingly, Rusk also suggested that the prime minister might wish to have a personal 

representative make a “confidential and unpublicized visit” to the islands to explore how 

best to handle problems that might arise, stating that such an “exploratory visit” would 

be helpful to both sides by facilitating the consultations.306 Sato agreed to consider it, but 

said such an unpublicized and confidential visit might be difficult. (It appears that no such 

person was ever designated by Sato, although Owen Zurhellen from the embassy went in 

early February to make a survey.)

The joint statement was released the following day, with the section dealing with the 

Bonins noting,

The President and the Prime Minister recognized the importance of United States 

military installations on the Ryukyu and Bonin Islands for the security of the Far 

East. The Prime Minister expressed the desire that, as soon as feasible, the administrative control over these islands will be restored to Japan and also a deep interest 

in the expansion of the autonomy of the inhabitants of the Ryukyus and in further 

promoting their welfare. Appreciating the desire of the Government and people of 

Japan for the restoration of administration to Japan, the President stated that he 

looks forward to the day when the security interests of the free world in the Far 

East will permit the realization of this desire . . . The President agreed to give favorable consideration to an ancestral graves visit by a representative group of former 

residents of the Bonin Islands.307

Reischauer, who stayed on in Washington for some weeks later, described the Sato visit 

on the morning of 25 January as a “smashing” success before an audience of State Department and military personnel interested in Japan and Far East problems.308 Reflecting, however, his concerns about the importance of Okinawa and the Bonins, the former Harvard 

University professor and leading Japan scholar explained that “we must expect the Japanese 

desire to regain administrative control over these islands to grow. The Bonins question is 

directly tied to the Ryukyu Islands. Whatever happens with respect to them will carry the 

Bonins along because there is no difference in their legal position. Residual sovereignty has 

been acknowledged in both.”309 Reischauer then went on to point out that he “has never 

been able to understand the Navy’s position with regard to the Bonins,” a statement that got 

the attention of the Navy’s notetaker, Commander A. K. Rentschler, who quoted it in full. 

“The graves visit,” Reischauer continued, “is related and something we could give, especially, 

since those Russians allowed visits so why not ‘our good friends the Americans?’ ” Finally, 
347

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

after reiterating that “the Bonins are directly related to whatever happens with Okinawa,” 

Reischauer argued “we must be ‘flexible and daring’ in dealing with Japan” and suggested, 

prophetically, that “possibly a deal could be made to allow entry of nuclear weapons at bases 

in Okinawa in exchange for Japanese administration.” This later became the basis of the 

formula used not only for the reversion of Okinawa but for that of the Bonins as well.

Following the Johnson-Sato talks, the U.S. government began to investigate the state 

of the graves on the islands and the issues surrounding the visits by dispatching Zurhellen 

on 5 February. Zurhellen, a highly respected Japan specialist within the department who 

served in both the Navy and the Marines in World War II,310 completed his trip on the 9th 

and, to the relief of many, discovered that while the conditions of the sites on Chichi Jima 

and Haha Jima were mixed, “In no case is there anything resembling improper treatment 

or desecration of grave site[s].”311 While U.S. authorities felt that the destruction caused 

during the war and in the years after due to exposure to the weather was beyond the “reasonable capability of the U.S. to prevent” and that the current islanders “should [not] be 

thought responsible for the present condition,” it would not stop the residents from helping 

to clean up the graves sites. Indeed, one resident, Anglican priest Father Gonzales (Ogasawara Aisaku) said he was “troubled by the impression that would be made on old friends 

among the former islanders who find that family graves of present islanders are well kept 

while those of former islanders have received no care,” and as a result some of the current 

islanders “had in mind attempting a cleanup of grave sites, at least on Chichi Jima, to the 

extent their free time might permit.”

Based on Zurhellen’s report, a talking paper dated 4 March 1965, was prepared and 

submitted to the Japanese side.312 It described the logistics of the trip, the conditions of the 

graves sites, and the possible challenges to be faced and asked for Japan’s comments and 

suggestions.

After receiving a copy of the study, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government began drafting 

its plan for the grave visits, and set up the Ogasawara Grave Visit Measures Headquarters 

(Ogasawara Bosan Taisaku Honbu) within its General Affairs Division on 22 March.313 On 

30 March, the government began accepting names of those who wished to make the visit. 

The Ogasawara Association, which would officially come into being on 8 May, was put in 

charge.

Two teams were formed to handle each of the visits—an Iwo Jima Team, led by Iizuka 

Fujitaro, and a Chichi Jima–Haha Jima Team, led by Yoshida Shimaichi. Several U.S. and 

Japanese officials and members of the press also went along, as did Dietman Fukuda, as a 

board member of Nanpo Doho Engokai.

314

The Iwo Jima delegation, which totaled 26 people, including 10 family members and 5 

Japanese government officials—among them Fukuda, a doctor, and a Buddhist priest—5 

members of the Japanese press, a State Department official (embassy First Secretary William H. Bruns), and 5 American press representatives, departed Haneda Airport early 

on the morning of 18 May for the one-day trip. After flying over Chichi Jima and then 

Haha Jima, the chartered Japan Airlines flight landed on Iwo Jima at 1140. The island had 

changed dramatically in the 21 years since the former residents were last there because of 
348

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

its destruction in the battle. In the short time the delegation had on the island, they were 

unable to locate the Nishi cemetery. As a result, they performed the ceremonies by the 

roadside near a hill that was close to the site.315

The Chichi Jima and Haha Jima delegation of 37 members, including Yoshida Shien 

of the Nanpo Doho Engokai, departed two days later in the evening of 20 May on board 

the Japanese Coast Guard (Kaijo Hoancho) patrol vessel Soya, a ship that had made six 

trips to Antarctica in the past for research purposes. The group included Bruns, from the 

embassy, and a reporter from U.S. News & World Report.

316 They arrived in Futami Bay in 

the early morning of 23 May. About 40 U.S. officials and local representatives turned out 

in welcome when the visitors arrived at Omura village. After a party that lasted until 1100, 

the delegation helped local islanders clean the Komagari cemetery, where a ceremony was 

held the next day. The following day, the group cleared and cleaned Oneyama cemetery, 

and conducted a similar ceremony on the 26th. On the 27th, the delegation left for Haha 

Jima where it repeated its burial ground activities. The delegation departed Haha Jima’s 

Oki port in the mid-afternoon of 30 May and arrived back in Tokyo in the early morning 

of 2 June.317

The first Bonin Islands grave visits were thus conducted without incident, and the following year, after consultations between the two governments, a second visit took place at 

the same time of year318 followed by a third one in 1967. At the time of Zurhellen’s inspection trip, he noted the likelihood of follow-up requests and urged that the United States 

cooperate with them, and thus the embassy and military officials were already prepared.

The possibility of follow-up visits had been raised in early 1966 by Nakajima Toshijiro, 

the chief of the North American section of the Foreign Ministry.319 Like Asakai and others 

before, Nakajima said the government was receiving pressure from the islanders and noted 

that the Soviet Union had permitted “consecutive grave visits” to Habomai and Shikotan 

islands in 1964 and 1965.320 He also suggested that an additional argument in favor of permitting the visits was that space limitations had precluded the participation the year before 

by many former residents who had wished to be included. The embassy recommended to 

the department that it approve the request, arguing that the visit had a “favorable effect” on 

the bilateral relationship and had not resulted in an increase in pressure for reversion. After 

consultations with the DOD, the State Department replied in March to inform the embassy that the visit had been approved. Rodney E. Armstrong, the embassy second secretary, 

would represent it on the second and third trips.321

Importantly, through these visits, two decades of suspicion and mistrust began to gradually disappear. An after-action report in 1967 stated that “the general attitude of the islanders to the visits appears increasingly receptive each year. It was especially noted that the 

islanders appeared far less reluctant to converse with the visitors, both in homes and during 

the various receptions,” and added that “there was a marked increase in the fraternization 

between visitors and islanders. It is believed that this resulted from lessening of island fears 

that the graves visits signaled the imminent reversion of the islands to Japan.”322

Ironically, from the mainland perspective, however, it was apparent that the next issue 

to be addressed was reversion, and thus the grave visits, if anything, was one more definite 
349

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

step in that process. Indeed the reversion issue was taken up in the Diet literally as the 1967 

grave visit was being conducted.

Religious Rites and the Problem

of Collecting War Remains on Iwo Jima

As of 1967, three annual visits to the family grave sites on Chichi Jima, Haha Jima, and Iwo 

Jima had all been handled successfully, but one outstanding problem remained—conducting religious rites and collecting remains of Japanese soldiers killed on Iwo Jima during the 

battle. This problem saw little resolution since it was first taken up in the early 1950s and, as 

alluded to in other parts of this book, the collection of the remains of Japanese personnel is 

still not completely settled. U.S. military officials have described this as “probably the most 

drawn-out and difficult operation” that they faced.323

Former Imperial Navy Captain Wachi Tsunezo, garrison commander on Iwo Jima prior 

to Lieutenant General Kuribayashi Tadamichi’s arrival in mid-1944, had become a Buddhist priest of the Kuya Sect of the Tendai School in the immediate aftermath of the war. 

He assumed the name Jushoan Koami and devoted the remaining half-century preparing 

for the souls of his fallen men as well as for all U.S. and Japanese forces. His work began 

immediately after the end of hostilities when he explained to Marine Lieutenant Colonel 

Richard W. Hayward, who had arrived at the end of August to discuss the arrangements 

to take over Wachi’s 32d Assault Unit’s base in Kagoshima, that he “sincerely wished to go 

back to [Iwo] to pray and mourn for the departed souls of all the colleagues, officers, and 

men who had bereaved me.”324 According to Wachi, Hayward “kindly took my appeal to 

heart just like a comrade of many years and suggested that I should write an application 

to General Headquarters of the Allied Occupation Forces which he would forward.”325

Around the same time, a British officer, Colonel Thomas, arrived in Kagoshima on other 

business and later offered to correct Wachi’s English draft. “It was very significant and 

humanitarian that two officers of enemy forces until a few months ago generously offered 

me their helping hand to make my appeal come to light. I was deeply impressed. It actually 

marked the very first step of my devotion to the problems of Iwo Jima and to this day I 

appreciate the thoughtfulness and friendship rendered me by them right after the dreadful war.”326 Wachi applied to GHQ through Hayward on 10 November 1945, but did not 

receive a response.327

In the end, he applied another three times (on 6 June 1947, on 13 May 1949, and again 

on 5 February 1951), but his requests were always denied. The headquarters was reluctant 

to approve the requests, it seems, for fear of creating a precedent, as well as problems over 

who would pay for the costs involved.

However, Wachi applied one more time on 27 May 1951. Three weeks before, one of his 

subordinates, Yamakage Kofuku of the Imperial Navy, who had been permitted to go back to 

Iwo to recover his diary and other personal effects that he supposedly left in a cave that he 

and another man had lived in for almost four years after the battle of Iwo Jima ended, had 

unexpectedly killed himself by jumping off the side of Mount Suribachi some 30 minutes 

before he was to fly back to Tokyo.328 According to Wachi, “From a viewpoint of a Buddhist, 
350

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

it is construed that he was invited by the souls of his war-dead comrades-in-arms. It is believed that the souls of the Japanese warriors killed on the island are roaming over the island 

as unconsoled souls without any religious service being held for their repose.”329

This incident made headquarters even more cautious. By this point, however, General 

Douglas A. MacArthur had already been relieved and succeeded in April by the more flexible General Matthew B. Ridgway. Perhaps because of this, Wachi received his first positive 

response on Independence Day, 4 July, from Marine Lieutenant Colonel D. R. Nugent, 

who was the chief of the Civil Information and Education Section. After explaining that 

the proper procedures for applying for “travel abroad” were through the Foreign Ministry 

and that Wachi should consult with its officials, Nugent added, “you may rest assured that 

the religious motivations of your interest in this matter are fully recognized and that this 

headquarters is prepared to give consideration to any suitably sponsored and coordinated 

program for the care of remains of Japanese war dead in overseas areas.”330 After consulting 

more with Nugent and others, Wachi decided to resubmit a detailed plan to the Japanese 

government, and sent his application to the director of the Repatriation Relief Agency

(Hikiage Engocho), Ministry of Welfare, the minister of education, and the minister of foreign affairs.331

After studying the application, on 20 August the Foreign Ministry and the Repatriation 

Relief Agency held a meeting with regard to handling war remains in the southern areas, 

and agreed to support Wachi’s application as well as to send some officials along to conduct 

an investigation on Iwo Jima.332 On 8 September, the Repatriation Relief Agency informed 

the Foreign Ministry that it was prepared to send two of its officials, Shirai Masatoki (chief 

of 2d Branch, Demobilization Section, Demobilization Business Division, Demobilization 

Bureau) and Nakajima Chikataka (chief of Business Branch of the same section, who was 

once one of Wachi’s subordinates) along with Wachi to Iwo Jima.333 The Foreign Ministry, 

in turn, forwarded the application to the GHQ, explaining that the Japanese government 

has “long been making inquiries into the problems of maintaining the graves of the Japanese 

who were killed in the war not only in Iwo Jima but also on other islands scattered in the 

Southern Pacific, and of collecting their remains and relics for burial or delivery to the bereaved families. In view of the established Japanese custom, no small importance is attached 

to those problems.”334 The ministry’s request emphasized that “if anybody is to be sent to the 

island for the stated purposes, Rev. Jushoan is regarded as the best qualified person.”335

The headquarters forwarded Wachi’s request on to Hawaii for the attention of Admiral 

Radford at CINCPAC. He and his staff viewed the request suspiciously and requested 

guidance from Chief of Naval Operations Admiral William M. Fechteler, warning what 

it felt would be “far reaching consequences.”336 Nevertheless, Fechteler agreed to the visit, 

explaining that requests for such visits, following approval by the Supreme Commander 

of the Allied Powers, should be considered based on several criteria, including that (1) no 

expense would accrue to the United States; (2) CINCPAC concurs from a security standpoint; and (3) group size is limited to those necessary for ceremonial purposes.

The chief ’s concurrence was forwarded by CINCPAC to SCAP, which informed the 

Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 3 December 1951 that it approved the visit in 

principle subject to the submission of a detailed plan.337 Subsequently, a plan for a visit by 
351

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

five people—Wachi, the two Repatriation Agency representatives, a correspondent, and a 

photographer—was submitted to GHQ.

Wachi’s group eventually departed on board the Chinese chartered vessel, the SS Chiho, 

from Yokohama’s Tsurumi Port for Iwo Jima near the end of January 1952. They arrived at 

the island four days later on 30 January. It was the first time in more than seven years that 

Wachi had been to Iwo and much had changed during that time, including the landscape. 

U.S. Air Force Major Maurice F. Youngs, more than 10 years Wachi’s junior, was there to 

meet him on the shore.338

Wachi, carrying two kannon statues, explained that he hoped to place one that was covered in gold on top of Mount Suribachi, and the other stone one, at the northern point of 

the island, where so many of his comrades had died. Youngs called his higher headquarters 

in Tachikawa, which said the statue could be placed on Suribachi but not on the top of 

the mountain. With the assistance of workers from one of the salvage companies that was 

on Iwo collecting discarded weapons and other metals, a “South Kannon (Minami Kannon)” and “North Kannon (Kita Kannon)” were named and installed. On the afternoon of 

10 February, a dedication ceremony was held. Most of the participants were U.S. military 

personnel. Both Youngs and Wachi gave speeches calling for world peace.339

Wachi spent a full month on the island trying to determine the location and number of 

remains. Several days after the dedication ceremony, Navy Captain J. L. Collis, who was on 

the staff of Commander, Naval Forces Marianas, rushed out to Iwo to speak with Wachi 

and investigate “macabre statements and photos concerning skeletal remains being scattered 

about the Iwo landscape,” as was being reported by members of the Japanese press that had 

preceded Wachi to the island and repeated in stories in the United States.340 Apparently, 

the newsmen and photographers, under pressure from their editors for stories, had removed 

items from the caves to use as props for the article. The resulting stories “did a maximum 

amount of damage to U.S. prestige in Japan” a Navy study later observed.341 When asked 

by Collis about the stories, Wachi, who knew nothing, lamented them and said that “the 

tendency of journalists to write sensational stories is found in every country.”342

However, while on Iwo, Wachi noticed to his “sorrow” that a number of skulls had been 

removed from the skeletons of soldiers he had seen in the caves and told Collis. The captain 

reportedly responded, “I know,” and asked that Wachi not talk about it when he went back 

to Japan and to leave it up to the authorities on the island.343 This Wachi promised to do.

Afterward, Collis continued to investigate and immediately reported his findings to 

CINCPACFLT. He found that:

a. The caves are now strictly out of bounds for military personnel, but are not so for 

the salvage contractor. Caves have been combed in the past by souvenir hunters.

b. There are still skeletal remains in many, if not most of the caves.

c. In the Suribachi caves, most of the skulls are missing.

d. In caves elsewhere, most of the skeletons are intact.

e. It is possible by diligent search in the heavy undergrowth to uncover a bone or 
352

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

two . . . Nevertheless, the painstaking observer, much less the casual one, would 

never gain an impression that the island is littered with “uncared for” remains.

f. There are many small pieces of bleached white coral scattered over the island 

which bear resemblance to a bone fragment.

g. In no spot were bones in full view of the public except as previously reported 

by dispatch to Commander in Chief Pacific, at the mouth of the caves, on the 

main road, directly opposite the Coast Guard station. A litter of new flash bulbs 

were scattered amongst the bones [and] the battle litter, which had been moved 

from the caves. The Commanding Officer of the Coast Guard station was quite 

familiar with the spot and declared the bones and gear were not there a few days 

before. His testimony was merely corroborative because the condition of the 

bones and gear negated the possibility of their having been exposed to weather 

for more than a few days. The caves, warmed by the inner fires of Iwo, preserve 

things rather well.344

Collis also added that “Wachi impressed me as a man of high character and motives and 

I am convinced that the handling of the story, had it been left to his group alone, would 

have been factual and dignified. I told him that his group could do much to set the record 

straight with subsequent publicity and was assured they would do so.”345

Wachi kept his promise upon returning to mainland Japan. He did not inform the Japanese government that the skulls were missing, nor did he tell the bereaved families when he 

met them around the country. Despite Collis’ report, however, it does not look like Wachi 

or the Japanese government was told anything further.

In the interim, the U.S. government examined the possibility of permitting religious 

services on Iwo and the remains of Japanese soldiers to be gathered. The impetus for the 

review appears to have been a request from Japan, which Ridgway forwarded to the Army 

Department in Washington. In it, Ridgway pointed out the importance of public sentiment 

in Japan, particularly in light of Japan being a Buddhist nation that requires the proper 

interment of their dead.346 This request was in turn sent on to the Chief of Naval Operations and subsequently the State Department called a meeting with representatives from 

the Army and Navy and Department of the Interior. The result of this conference was that 

approval should be granted and “that [such entry] should be for a single visit only to each 

location, in order that the operation would have a positive terminal date.”347 In other words, 

“any practical request by the Japanese government for a limited number of Japanese government and religious officials to undertake, at their expense, a token disinterment of Japanese 

World War II dead in the Pacific Islands under U.S. control would be favorably considered.”348 Japan subsequently submitted a detailed plan to disinter remains and conduct 

ceremonies at six islands, including Saipan, Tinian, and Iwo Jima. The U.S. government 

conditionally accepted the plan, permitting the Japanese government’s mission to make 

only one trip at its own expense to disinter “token” remains at each site, conduct appropriate 

religious services, and erect small markers.349

Later on 22 December, Japanese and U.S. officials met at the American embassy to 

coordinate the mission’s trip to the Pacific islands. A month later on 30 January, the mis-
353

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

sion departed from Shibaura Port on the Nippon Maru, a 2,400-ton sailing ship, and after 

stops at Guam, Saipan, and other islands, arrived at Iwo Jima on 13 March, the last of the 

sites visited before returning to Japan on the 17th.350 Afterward, Tsurumi Kiyohiko, chief 

of the 5th Section of the Asian Affairs Bureau of the Foreign Ministry, relayed to the U.S. 

government that “the memorial services conducted on Iwo Jima on 13 March 1953, were 

sufficient for all religious purposes.”351

Wachi did not participate in the government’s mission, but he maintained his interest 

in Iwo Jima. Following his departure from Iwo in February 1952, he began work to create 

an organization dedicated to consoling the souls of the fallen Japanese and U.S. forces and 

giving comfort and assistance to their families. The Iwo Jima Kyokai (Iwo Jima Association) 

was established in the summer of 1953. Despite his hope for a truly bilateral association, 

and his efforts at informing influential figures in the Marine Corps and Navy—such as 

meeting with Major General E. A. Pollock when the latter was traveling through Japan 

on his way to Quantico after having been in Korea, Admiral Stump, and former Admiral 

Raymond A. Spruance, then U.S. ambassador to the Philippines—he had only little success 

in getting Americans to join. As a result, the Iwo Jima Association became predominantly 

Japanese.

Another disappointment for Wachi was the sad news that reached him in early 1954 

that the gold-covered kannon statue on the island had been stolen shortly after some amphibious exercises there. Wachi read about it in a story published in the Mainichi Shimbun

whose reporter had been able to visit Iwo Jima on an Air Force plane (because the public 

affairs office of the Far East Air Force was unaware of the need to refer such requests to 

CINCPACFLT).352 The Navy found the article “very similar” to the ones written by the 

“horde” of reporters that went to the island in January 1952.353 The embassy did not expect 

the report to negatively influence public opinion “to any appreciable degree,” but did see it 

as “indicative of the continuing interest of the Japanese press and public in the disposition 

of war dead remains,” and likely to encourage the Foreign Ministry to continue its request 

for further assistance from the United States in returning the remains to Japan.354 After 

seeing the article, Wachi immediately met with the reporter, Kato, to confirm the story, and 

then shortly after wrote to the commander of the Far Eastern Command, who was also the 

commanding general of the Air Force in Japan.355 In the letter, Wachi referred to his January–February 1952 visit and wrote, “I had found that a considerable number of the skulls 

of the Japanese war-dead had been taken away from the caves which many Americans had 

got into,” and mentioned that he had informed Youngs and Collis about it. He then stated 

that “if such a fact should be revealed to the bereaved families as well as the Japanese people, 

a very grave consequence would be brought about, so that I have kept the fact to myself . . . 

As it is believed that the above mentioned matters are so delicate in nature that they should 

not be notified to you through the Japanese government as a formal channel, I write this 

letter directly . . . to request to take appropriate measures.”

Unfortunately, Wachi received no response. In 1955, 10 years after the Battle of Iwo 

Jima, Wachi learned of a similar incident and once again wrote to U.S. military officials in 

Japan.356 Because he failed to receive a response again, he wrote on 3 June to the secretaries of State, Defense, and Treasury.357 This included an overview of a plan to repatriate the 
354

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

former islanders to Iwo Jima as a way to “prevent [the] occurrence of stealing the statue.” 

Nevertheless, he received no reply.

In November the following year, Wachi wrote to Admiral Stump and this time, Civil 

Affairs/Island Government Officer Commander L. G. Findley responded.358 Findley was, 

along with Admiral Radford, among the two strongest proponents in the Navy of keeping 

the Bonin Islands an exclusive American Navy preserve. According to Findley’s response, 

he had met Wachi in December 1951 when Wachi was planning his 1952 visit to Iwo Jima. 

Findley then went on to note he well remembered the negative publicity after Wachi’s trip, 

and that he was also involved in planning the Japanese government’s mission to the islands 

in 1953. He explained that “following the completion of the ceremonies on Iwo Jima, on 13 

March 1953, the Japanese Government informed the Commander U.S. Naval Forces, Far 

East, that it was pleased with the arrangements that had been made and with the results 

of the mission.”359 Findley further stated that “Since that time all caves known to contain 

Japanese war-dead on Iwo Jima have been sealed by setting off demolition charges at the 

mouth of each cave, thus blowing in the cave and providing a six-foot cover of rock and 

soil at the entrances . . . In view of the above, it is not considered necessary for you to visit 

this headquarters to discuss this matter further.” Although Wachi sent other letters and 

pamphlets to the U.S. government in the early part of 1957, no replies were sent, the Navy’s 

history records, as the “war dead mission in the Bonin-Volcano Islands and other islands in 

the central Pacific was considered to be a closed issue.”360

It is not clear if Findley’s arguments were deliberate or not, but they were certainly incorrect in places. Wachi had already gathered counter testimony from salvage workers on 

Iwo Jima and reporters who traveled there. Wachi published “An Appeal,” a one-page letter, 

in Richard F. Newcomb’s 1965 book, Iwo Jima, in exchange for providing the author with 

documents and other information necessary to complete his work.361 The letter was not 

published in the Japanese translation of the book out of concern for the bereaved families.362

Wachi said the possible desecrations were “barriers to Japanese-American friendship.”363

In response to his appeal, an air-mailed package that did not have a return address or even 

the sender’s name on it arrived at Wachi’s Iwo Jima Association in June 1973. Inside was 

a skull and a letter that read in part: “This skull was taken from Iwo Jima in 1955.”364 This 

letter proved to Wachi that desecration or other such behavior was sadly possible until at 

least the mid-1950s, and thus Findley’s assertions were not entirely correct. He explained 

that he did not think this type of behavior was done by Marines, but instead was done by 

members of the military who stopped through Iwo Jima.365

Findley’s response continued,

Your letter claims that the Peace Kannon near Mt. Suribachi was stolen and that 

the remains of Japanese soldiers were desecrated, but I wish to make clear to you 

that since 1952, the caves and areas around them have been placed off-limits. 

American military members can not even go near them. You even admit that you 

have no actual evidence that members of U.S. forces have taken these remains 

home. In addition to U.S. military members, there are Japanese and people from 

other countries there working in salvage operations. We are bothered that “some 

unidentifiable person” has stolen the Peace Kannon.
355

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

Wachi was no doubt surprised and disappointed by the tone and contents of the letter. 

“I was informed by a staff officer . . . of the fact that the caves had been sealed with the bodies lying as they were. That might have helped prevent further removal of the skulls but it 

brought about another grave obstacle. It made it almost impossible for us to collect other 

remains which had been sealed in with the bodies unless we used heavy machinery.”366 He 

was also angry at the Foreign Ministry and Ministry of Health and Welfare officials, as well 

as those from the prime minister’s office, to whom he showed a copy of Findley’s letter. He 

blasted them for “giving the impression that the Japanese government was satisfied with 

the ceremony performed on Iwo, in just one day, and grateful to the U.S., thereby letting the 

U.S. government side off the hook.”367

Wachi saw no progress over the remainder of the 1950s but, with the start of the Kennedy administration in 1961, took it upon himself to raise the issue again. However, Assistant Secretary of State Bundy simply quoted Findley’s letter when he responded.368 Wachi 

also wrote to Bundy in April 1964, but he does not appear to have received an answer.369

Many of the bereaved families, who hoped to see the remains returned “as soon as possible,” 

would have to wait until a fuller retrieval effort after the reversion of Iwo Jima to Japan.370

Indeed, many are still waiting.371 For them, the war is yet to be over.

Notes

1

“Despatch 478 from Embassy Tokyo to State on Memorandum of Conversation on Bonins, Nuclear Test Compensation, etc. (September 25, 1957), October 25, 1957,” Folder: 322.3 Bonin Island 

1957, Box 46, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84.

2

“Letter from William C. Ockey, Acting Director, Office of Northeast Asian Affairs, to John M. 

Steeves, Political Advisor to Commander in Chief, Pacific, October 26, 1957,” Folder: I-5.1, Box 14, 

subject file relating to the Ryukyus, 1952–1958, lot files, RG 59.

3

Frank C. Nash, Appendix: United States Overseas Military Bases Report to the President, Country Studies, November 1957, 90.

4

“Telegram 01232 from State to Embassy Tokyo, October 2, 1957,” 033.9411/10-257, RG 59.

5

“Memo from Robertson to Acting Secretary on Visit of Japanese Socialist Delegation, September 

18, 1957,” 033.9411/9-1857, RG 59.

6

“Memorandum of Conversation with Japanese Socialist Delegation’s Call on Mr. Robertson, October 2, 1957,” 611.94/10-257.

7

“Telegram from Embassy Tokyo to State, September 17, 1957.”

8

“Memorandum of Conversation on Japanese-American Relations, October 21, 1957,” 611.94/10-

21-57.

9

Ibid. Shortly after this visit, United Press reported that “American officials are expected to reject any 

demand Japan may make for compensation of Japanese nationals prohibited by U.S. from returning 

to their homes in Bonin Islands . . . U.S. attitude appears to be, so far as could be learned at State 

Dept, that islanders are Japanese responsibility. Officials implied that Japan is getting enough U.S. 

aid from various sources to be able to take care of islanders itself.” (See “Telegram 1182 from Em-
356

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

bassy Tokyo to State, October 23, 1957,” Folder: 322.3 Bonin Island 1957, Box 46, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84). However, the State Department informed the embassy, which was concerned about 

the story as it was reported in the Japanese press, that there was no basis for it and the embassy was 

unable to determine the source. See “Telegram from State to Embassy Tokyo, October 26, 1957,” 

Folder: 322.3 Bonin Island 1957, Box 46, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84.

10“Telegram 1551 from Embassy Tokyo to State, December 10, 1957,” 611.94/12-1057.

11“Telegram 1552 from Embassy Tokyo to State, December 10, 1957,” Folder: 322.3 Bonin Island 

1957, Box 46, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84.

12Ibid.

13Ibid.

14Ibid.

15Ibid.

16“Telegram 1522 from Embassy Tokyo to State, December 6, 1957,” Folder: 322.3 Bonin Island 

1957, Box 46, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84.

17“Letter from Robertson to Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense John N. Irwin, II, November 

4, 1957,” Folder: Irwin, John N., II, Box 1, Records of the Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs, 1957, Lot 

Files, RG 59. Also see “Memo from Parsons to Robertson on Compensation to the Bonin Islanders, 

November 1, 1957,” in Folder: R6.1, Box 14, Subject File Relating to the Ryukyus, 1952–1958, Lot 

Files, RG 59, and “Memo from Parsons to Murphy on Status of Bonin Islanders’ Compensation, 

June 5, 1958,” ibid.

18“Letter from Robertson to Irwin, November 4, 1957.”

19Ibid.

20Folder: MC Japanese Jan–June 1957, Box 2, Records of the Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs, 1957, 

lot files, RG 59.

21“Letter from Sprague to Robertson, December 11, 1957.”

22Ibid.

23“Telegram from State to Embassy Tokyo, January 22, 1958,” Folder: 322.3 Bonin Islands 1958, 

Box 46, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84.

24Ibid.

25Ibid.

26Ibid.

27“Telegram from State to Embassy Tokyo, February 13, 1958,” Folder: 322.3 Bonin Islands 1958, 

Box 46, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84.

28“Memorandum of Conversation on Compensation for Ex-Bonin Islanders, January 28, 1958,” 

Folder: R 6.4, Box 14, Subject File Relating to the Ryukyus, 1952–1958, lot Files, RG 59.

29Ibid.

30Ibid.
357

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

31“Telegram from State to Embassy Tokyo, February 13, 1958.”

32Ibid.

33Ibid.

34“Telegram from CINCPAC to Embassy Tokyo, February 28, 1958,” Folder: 322.3 Bonin Islands 

1958, Box 46, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84.

35Ibid.

36Ibid.

37Ibid.

38Ibid.

39“Telegram from Embassy Tokyo to State, March 3, 1958,” ibid.

40Ibid. The State Department was primarily interested in linking it to the Ryukyus for evaluation 

since Congress had already expressed approval for payments in those islands and, therefore, the 

department assumed it would be easier to get the appropriation from Congress on that basis. See 

“Memorandum from Martin to Parsons on Bonin Compensation, March 5, 1958,” Folder: R 6.4, 

Box 14, subject file relating to the Ryukyus, 1952–1958, lot files, RG 59.

41“Telegram from Embassy Tokyo to State, March 3, 1958.”

42“Memo from Parsons to Murphy on Status of Bonin Islanders’ Compensation, June 5, 1958.”

43Ibid. The Defense Department agreed in the summer of 1958 to “support legislation to obtain 

funds for compensation,” but disagreed with the State Department’s assertion that the problem “is 

primarily a military one revolving around the designation of the Bonins as a military reservation.” 

See “Memo from Bane to Robertson on Compensation for the Bonin Islanders Residing in Japan, 

August 15, 1958,” Folder: R 6.4, Box 14, Subject File Relating to the Ryukyus, 1952–1958, lot files, 

RG 59.

44“Letter from Robertson to Sprague, June 26, 1958,” Folder: Sprague, Mansfield D. 1958, Box 3, 

Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs, Correspondence, 1958, lot files, RG 59.

45Ibid.

46“Letter from Sprague to Robertson, August 6, 1958,” Folder: Sprague, Mansfield D. 1958, Box 3, 

Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs, Correspondence, 1958, lot files, RG 59.

47Sprague wrote later that “as the negotiation of the settlement of these claims will be a matter 

within the cognizance of the Department of State, I believe it appropriate that State should present the legislation to Congress. As stated in my letter . . . the Department of Defense will support 

the Department of State in this matter.” In other words, Defense was not going to jointly sponsor 

the legislation, but would support the State Department in doing so. See “Letter from Sprague to 

Robertson, September 23, 1958,” ibid.

48“Memorandum from Bane and Robertson on Compensation for the Bonin Islanders Residing in 

Japan, August 15, 1958.”

49Ibid.

50“Despatch 114 from Embassy Tokyo to State on Compensation for the Former Inhabitants of the 
358

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Bonin Islands, July 25, 1958,” Folder: 322.3 Bonin Islands 1958, Box 46, Tokyo Post Records, RG 

84.

51Ibid.

52Ibid.

53Ibid.

54Ibid.

55“Telegram from Embassy Tokyo to State, July 28, 1958,” Folder: 322.3 Bonin Islands 1958, Box 

46, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84.

56“Telegram from State to Embassy Tokyo, August 23, 1958,” Folder: 322.3 Bonin Islands 1958, Box 

46, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84.

57Ibid.

58“Telegram from Embassy Tokyo to State, August 29, 1958,” Folder: 322.3 Bonin Islands 1958, Box 

46, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84.

59Ibid.

60Ibid.

61Ibid.

62Ibid.

63Ibid.

64Ibid.

65“Telegram from Embassy Tokyo to State, September 2, 1958,” Folder: 322.3 Bonin Islands 1958, 

Box 46, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84.

66According to the telegram, the time period used in the calculations included the period from the 

effective date of the peace treaty to the end of 1957 and 10 times the lost revenue for 1957. The total 

of 152/3 years is less than the period envisaged under the old formula in the Ryukyus.

67“Dispatch 266 from Embassy Tokyo to State on Japanese Justification for Bonin Islands Compensation Claim, September 2, 1958,” Folder: 322.3 Bonin Islands 1958, Box 46, Tokyo Post Records, 

RG 84.

68The State Department later asked MacArthur to confirm the dates and citations of the laws said 

to be approved by SCAP. See “Airgram G-112 from State to Embassy Tokyo, September 12, 1958,” 

Folder: 322.3 Bonin Islands 1958, Box 46, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84; “Outgoing Telegram 778 

from Embassy Tokyo to State, October 10, 1958,” ibid.; and “Despatch 409 from Embassy Tokyo to 

State, October 8, 1958,” ibid.

69“Telegram from Embassy Tokyo to State, September 2, 1958.”

70Ibid.

71“Telegram 509 from Embassy Tokyo to State, September 2, 1958,” 033.9411/9-258, RG 59.

72“Memorandum of Conversation on Bonin Islands, Japanese Negotiating Strategy, September 3, 

1958,” Folder: 322.3 Bonin Islands 1958, Box 46, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84.
359

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

73Ibid.

74Ibid.

75Ibid.

76Ibid.

77Ibid.

78“Memorandum from Herz to MacArthur, September 4, 1958,” Folder: 322.3 Bonin Islands 1958, 

Box 46, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84.

79Ibid.

80Ibid.

81Ibid.

82Ibid.

83“Telegram 536 from Embassy Tokyo to State, September 4, 1958,” Folder: 322.3 Bonin Islands 

1958, Box 46, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84. Perhaps unbeknownst to the embassy, the Office of 

Northeast Asian Affairs had also examined the possibility of obtaining money from P. L. 480 Funds, 

but this appears to have been “future” funds, those related to the future sale of surplus agricultural 

commodities to Japan. For several reasons, this solution was not viewed as acceptable. See “Memorandum from Bane and Robertson on Compensation for the Bonin Islanders Residing in Japan, 

August 15, 1958.”

84“Fujiyama Visit (September 1958), Position Paper, Bonin (Ogasawara Islands),” Folder: Fujiyama 

Visit, Walter S. Robertson, Briefing Book, September 1958, Box 6, Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs, 

Records Relating to Conferences, Meetings, Visits, 1956–1958, Lot Files, RG 59.

85“Memorandum from Lamb to James Martin on Position Papers for Fujiyama’s Visit, August 25, 

1958,” 033.9411/8-2558.

86Ibid.

87“Memorandum from Robertson to Dulles on Reappraisal of United States Policies toward Japan, 

March 28, 1958,” 611.94/3-2858.

88Ibid.

89Ibid.

90Ibid.

91“Memorandum from Howard L. Parsons to Robertson on Reversion of Administrative Rights in 

Ryukyus to Japan, April 12, 1958,” 611.94/4-1258.

92Ibid.

93Ibid.

94Ibid.

95For more on the question of including the Article 3 islands in the revised security treaty, see Robert 

D. Eldridge, “The Revision of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty and Okinawa: Factional and Domestic 
360

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Political Constraints on Japanese Diplomacy in the 1950s,” in Makoto Iokibe, Caroline Rose, Junko 

Tomaru, John Weste, eds., Japanese Diplomacy in the 1950s: From Isolation to Integration (London: Routledge, 2008), chapter 8.

96“Memorandum of Conversation of Dietman Fukuda’s Representation on Behalf of Bonin Islanders, September 9, 1958,” 794C.022/9-958. The pamphlet he delivered to them was prepared by the 

league.

97Ibid.

98Ibid.

99“Memorandum of Conversation with Fujiyama, September 11, 1958,” Foreign Relations of the 

United States, 1958–1960 (hereafter, FRUS, 1958–1960), vol. 18, Japan and Korea (Washington,

DC: Government Printing Office, 1994), 82.

100Ibid.

101Ibid.

102Ibid., 82–83.

103“Telegram 778 from Embassy Tokyo to State, October 10, 1958.”

104“Memorandum of Conversation with Yasukawa on Bonin Island Compensation, October 17, 

1958,” Folder: Miscellaneous Japanese, July–Dec 1958, Box 3, Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs, Subject 

Files Relating to Japan, Lot Files, RG 59.

105Ibid.

106Ibid.

107Ibid.

108“Memorandum of Conversation with Asakai on Bonin Island Compensation, etc., November 12, 

1958,” ibid.

109Ibid.

110Ibid.

111Ibid.

112Ibid. The United States experienced a recession in 1958. For more on the budget deficit that year, 

see Maurice H. Stans, One of the Presidents’ Men: Twenty Years with Eisenhower and Nixon (Washington, DC: Brassey’s, 1995), 63–64.

113“Memorandum of Conversation with Asakai on Bonin Island Compensation, etc., November 12, 

1958.”

114“Memorandum of Conversation with Itagaki, November 13, 1958,” Folder: 322.3 Bonin Islands 

1958, Box 46, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84.

115Ibid.

116Ibid.

117Ibid.
361

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

118Ibid.

119“Letter from Horsey to Howard Parsons, November 25, 1958,” Folder: R 6.4, Box 14, subject file 

relating to the Ryukyus, 1952–1958, lot files, RG 59.

120Ibid.

121Ibid.

122Ibid.

123Ibid.

124Ibid.

125“Telegram 1162 from Embassy Tokyo to State, December 4, 1958,” Folder: 322.3 Bonin Islands 

1958, Box 46, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84.

126Ibid.

127Ibid.

128“Letter from Dulles to Maurice H. Stans, Director, Bureau of the Budget, December 4, 1958,” 

Folder: R 6.4, Box 14, Subject File Relating to the Ryukyus, 1952–1958, Lot Files, RG 59.

129“Letter from Director Stans to Secretary Dulles, November 26, 1958,” Folder: 322.3 Bonin Islands 1958, Box 46, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84.

130Stans, One of the Presidents’ Men, 63.

131“Letter from Director Stans to Secretary Dulles, November 26, 1958.”

132“Letter from Dulles to Maurice H. Stans, Director, Bureau of the Budget, December 4, 1958.”

133Ibid.

134“Letter from Parsons to Horsey, December 19, 1958,” Folder: 322.3 Bonin Islands 1958, Box 46, 

Tokyo Post Records, RG 84. The Price Committee was formed in response to a request by Okinawan 

leaders and residents to investigate the Okinawa base problem. Headed by Charles M. Price, the 

committee traveled to Okinawa in the summer of 1955 and released its report in June 1956. Okinawans opposed the contents of the report, leading to the “island-wide protests” of 1956.

135Ibid.

136“Telegram 998 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, January 20, 1959,” Folder 322.3 Bonin 

Islands, 1959–1961, Box 66, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84.

137“Airgram G-456 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department on Bonins Island Compensation, 

February 3, 1959,” ibid.

138“Memorandum of Conversation on Compensation for Former Inhabitants of the Bonin Islands, 

February 6, 1959,” ibid.

139“Telegram from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, February 22, 1959,” ibid.

140“Telegram 1707 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, February 24, 1959,” ibid.

141Ibid.
362

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

142“Letter from Clark to Parsons, March 2, 1959,” ibid.

143Ibid.

144Ibid.

145Ibid.

146Ibid.

147Ibid.

148Ibid.

149“Letter from Parsons to Clark, March 9, 1959,” ibid.

150Ibid.

151“Letter from Clark to Parsons, March 20, 1959,” ibid.

152Ibid.

153“Letter from Clark to Richard L. Sneider, May 22, 1959,” ibid.

154“Telegram 2558 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, June 2, 1959,” ibid.

155“Telegram 1864 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, June 2, 1959,” ibid.

156The letter is reprinted in full in Fukuda, ed., Sono 1, 225–28.

157Fukuda, ed., Sono 1, 225, 228–29. Also see “Telegram 135 from State Department to Embassy 

Tokyo, July 18, 1959,” Folder: 322.3 Bonin Islands, 1959–1961, Box 66, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84.

158“Telegram 133 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, July 15, 1959,” ibid.

159“Telegram 135.”

160“Telegram 222 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, July 28, 1959,” ibid. Also see “Letter 

from Leonard Lee Bacon, Acting Director, Office of Northeast Asian Affairs, to William Leonhart, 

July 31, 1959,” ibid.

161“Telegram 421 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, August 22, 1959,” ibid.

162Ibid.

163“Telegram 512 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, August 24, 1959,” ibid.

164Ibid.

165Ibid.

166“Telegram 430 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, August 25, 1959,” ibid.

167“Despatch 412 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, on Visit by Leaders of the Bonin 

Island Repatriation League, September 29, 1959,” ibid.

168Ibid.

169Ibid., and “Despatch 519 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department on Congressional Correspondence, October 27, 1959,” ibid.

170“Memorandum of Conversation with Kishi, January 19, 1960,” FRUS, 1958–1960, 274–75.
363

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

171Ibid.

172“Telegram 1770 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, January 26, 1959,” Folder: 322.3 

Bonin Islands, 1959–1961, Box 66, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84.

173“Telegram 2901 from Embassy Tokyo to State, March 9, 1959,” ibid.

174“Telegram 2117 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, March 11, 1959,” ibid.

175“Telegram 3770 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, May 20, 1959,” ibid.

176“Telegram 2744 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, May 20, 1959,” ibid.

177“Telegram 3770.”

178Ibid.

179Fukuda, ed., Sono 1, 182.

180“Telegram from State Department to Embassy, June 3, 1960,” ibid.

181“Despatch 1457 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, on Call by Leaders of the Bonin 

Island Repatriation League, June 8, 1960,” ibid.

182Ibid.

183Ibid.

184Fukuda, ed., Sono 1, 230.

185Mike Masaoka, They Call Me Moses Masaoka: An American Saga (New York: William Morrow and 

Company, Inc., 1987), 295.

186Ibid.

187Ibid., 296.

188“Telegram 3008 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, June 16, 1960,” Folder: 322.3 Bonin 

Islands, 1959–1961, Box 66, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84.

189“Telegram 18 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, July 5 1960,” ibid.

190“Telegram from State to Embassy Tokyo, August 25, 1960,” ibid.

191“Telegram 619 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, August 24, 1960,” ibid.

192Ibid.

193“Airgram G-428 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, October 14, 1960,” ibid.

194Ibid.

195It does not appear that the Foreign Ministry submitted its own draft note, as no such note was 

found in U.S. files or in the documents declassified as a result of the author’s FOIA request to the 

Foreign Ministry around this time.

196Nanpo Doho Engokai, ed., Ogasawara Mondai no Gaiyo [An Overview of the Ogasawara Problem] (Tokyo: Nanpo Doho Engokai, 1963), 17, and “Airgram 1063 from Embassy to State on Distribution of Bonin Islands Claims Settlement, June 26, 1962,” Box 2175, Central Decimal Files, 

1960–1963, RG 59.
364

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

197Fukuda, ed., Sono 1, 230.

198“Letter from James S. Sutterlin to Sneider, December 2, 1960,” Folder: 322.3 Bonin Islands, 

1959–1961, Box 66, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84.

199“Telegram 1921 from Embassy Tokyo to State, January 5, 1961,” ibid.

200Ibid.

201“Telegram 1922 from Embassy Tokyo to State, January 6, 1961,” ibid.

202Ibid.

203Ibid.

204“Telegram 1190 from State to Embassy Tokyo, January 7, 1961,” ibid.

205“Letter from Coburn Kidd to Sneider, February 13, 1961,” ibid.

206“Memorandum for the Record on Expiration of Bonin Appropriation, February 8, 1961,” ibid.

207“Ogasawara Hosho Mondai Kokan Kobun ni Kansuru Ken” (Dai Ikkai Nichibei Kaidan Yoshi) 

[First U.S.-Japan Meeting Regarding Exchange of Notes on Ogasawara Compensation Problem], 

March 1, 1961, Eldridge JFOIA.

208Ibid.

209“Memorandum of Conversation on Compensation for Bonin Islanders, March 3, 1961,” Folder: 

322.3 Bonin Islands, 1959–1961, Box 66, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84. Kidd forwarded the unofficial 

draft to the department by letter on 8 March. See “Letter from Kidd to Sneider, March 8, 1961,” 

ibid. A Japanese version of the memorandum of conversation can be found at “Ogasawara Hosho 

Mondai Kokan Kobun ni Kansuru Ken (Dai Nikai Nichibei Kaidan Yoshi) [Second U.S.-Japan 

Meeting Regarding Exchange of Notes on Ogasawara Compensation Problem], March 3, 1961,” 

Eldridge JFOIA.

210“Memorandum of Conversation on Compensation for Bonin Islanders, March 3, 1961.”

211Ibid.

212“Letter from Kidd to Sneider, March 8, 1961.”

213“Telegram 2547 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, March 8, 1961,” ibid. A Japanese 

version of the memorandum of conversation can be found at “Ogasawoara Hosho Mondai Kokan 

Kobun ni Kansuru Ken (Dai Sankai Nichibei Kaidan Yoshi) [Third U.S.-Japan Meeting Regarding 

Exchange of Notes on Ogasawara Compensation Problem], March 8, 1961,” Eldridge JFOIA.

214Ibid.

215Ibid.

216Ibid.

217Ibid. The Japanese draft was sent the same day as “Telegram 2546,” ibid.

218This reference appeared in “Summary of US-Japan Post-War Relations and Problems—Past, 

Present, and Future,” enclosure to “Letter from Kidd to David M. Bane, December 20, 1960,” 

611.94/12-2060. In the summary, it was noted that, when MacArthur arrived in Japan, the United 

States was faced with the “insistence we transfer administration of Bonin Islands to Japan and if 
365

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

that not possible we at least permit return dispossessed inhabitants of Bonin Islands (whom, with 

exception of those having some Western blood, we had refused to repatriate) or alternatively offer 

them monetary compensation.”

219“Ogasawara Hosho Mondai Kokan Kobun ni Kansuru Ken (Dai Yonkai Nichibei Kaidan Yoshi) 

[Fourth U.S.-Japan Meeting Regarding Exchange of Notes on Ogasawara Compensation Problem], 

March 10, 1961,” Eldridge JFOIA.

220“Telegram 2579 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, March 10, 1961,” Folder: 322.3 Bonin Islands, 1959–1961, Box 66, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84.

221“Ogasawara Hosho Mondai Kokan Kobun ni Kansuru Ken (Dai Gokai Nichibei Kaidan Yoshi) 

[Fifth U.S.-Japan Meeting Regarding Exchange of Notes on Ogasawara Compensation Problem], 

March 27, 1961,” Eldridge JFOIA.

222“Ogasawara Hosho Mondai Kokan Kobun ni Kansuru Ken (Dai Rokukai Nichibei Kaidan Yoshi) 

[Sixth U.S.-Japan Meeting Regarding Exchange of Notes on Ogasawara Compensation Problem], 

April 4, 1961,” Eldridge JFOIA, and “Ogasawara Hosho Mondai Kokan Kobun ni Kansuru Ken 

(Dai Nanakai Nichibei Kaidan Yoshi) [Seventh U.S.-Japan Meeting Regarding Exchange of Notes 

on Ogasawara Compensation Problem], April 10, 1961,” ibid.

223“Memorandum of Conversation on Compensation of Bonin Islanders, May 2, 1961,” Folder: 

322.3 Bonin Islands, 1959–1961, Box 66, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84.

224Fukuda, ed., Sono 1, 230–42.

225“Airgram 1063.”

226NSC 6008/1, “United States Policy Toward Japan, June 11, 1960,” FRUS, 1958–1960, 335–49.

227Fukuda, ed., Sono 1, 241.

228“Airgram 1063 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department on Distribution of Bonin Islands 

Claims Settlement, June 26, 1962,” Box 2175, CDF, 1960–1963, RG 59.

229Kato had questioned Foreign Minister Kosaka Zentaro in the lower house Foreign Affairs Committee on 11 April 1962 on what progress the Japanese government was making in achieving return 

of administrative rights over the Bonin Islands. (“Airgram 210 from Embassy to State on Socialist 

Interpellations Concerning Bonins, April 17, 1962,” Box 2177, CDF, 1960–1963, RG 59.) Kosaka 

said that he believed the United States had been withholding permission for the return of former 

inhabitants to the Bonins because of military reasons. Kato then asked about the status of the U.S. 

$6 million compensation, to which the prime minister’s office Director General Kodaira Hisao explained that the government would distribute the money according to the wishes of the islanders but 

had so far not been able to reach agreement with them on a formula for dividing these funds.

230“Airgram 1063.”

231Ibid.

232Ibid.

233Ibid.

234Nanpo, Ogasawara Mondai no Gaiyo, 17.

235Fukuda, ed., Sono 1, 266.
366

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

236The Nanpo Doho Engokai, or NDEK, was established on 15 November 1956, as a judicial foundation (shadan hojin) in “order to conduct research, investigation, education and propaganda concerning the various problems of the Northern Islands, and to cooperate with the Japanese government in 

expediting the settlement of the problems of Okinawa and Ogasawara.” See “A Brief of Assistance 

Association for Okinawa, Ogasawara, and Northern Islands,” in “Despatch 26 from Naha to State 

on Visit to Ryukyus of Shien Yoshida, May 17, 1960,” 794c.022/5-1760. The literal name of the association was Southern Areas Benevolent Association.

237Ogasawara Kyokai, ed., “Ogasawara Shoto no Gaiyo Oyobi Fukkoto no Seika,” 7.

238Fukuda, ed., Sono 1, 273.

239“Kito ni Tomonau Kakushibu o Keisei [Formation of Chapters to Pursue Return to Islands],” 

Ogasawara, no. 44 (December 1995), 28.

240Ibid.

241“Airgram 1354 from Embassy Tokyo to State on Diet Resolutions on Okinawa and the Northern 

Territories,” Folder: POL 19 Government of Dependencies Ryukyu Islands 1/1/65, Box 2626, CFP 

1964–1966 Political and Defense, RG 59.

242Nanpo, Ogasawara Mondai no Gaiyo, 12.

243“Airgram 1354.”

244Fukuda, ed., Sono 1, 255.

245Ibid.

246Ibid., 256–59.

247Ibid., 259.

248Ibid., 259–62.

249“Petition Concerning Visit to Bonin Cemeteries,” enclosure to “Despatch No. 265 from Embassy 

Tokyo to State on Petition from Former Bonin Island Residents to Visit Ancestral Graves, September 19, 1961,” Folder: 322.3 Bonin Islands, 1959–1961, Box 66, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84.

250“Despatch 265.”

251“Airgram A-665 from Embassy Tokyo to State, February 6, 1962,” 661.94/2-662.

252“Airgram 342 from Embassy Tokyo to State, October 3, 1961,” Folder: 322.3 Bonin Islands, 

1959–1961, Box 66, Tokyo Post Records, RG 84.

253Ibid.

254Ibid.

255Ibid.

256“Airgram 351 from Embassy Tokyo to State, October 6, 1961,” ibid.

257Ibid.

258“Telegram 1230 from Embassy Tokyo to State, November 3, 1961,” ibid.

259Reischauer, My Life Between Japan and America, 248.
367

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

260“Telegram 1230.”

261Ibid.

262Ibid.

263“Airgram 471 from Embassy Tokyo to State, November 16, 1961,” ibid.

264Ibid.

265Ibid.

266“Airgram CA-620 from Embassy Tokyo to State, November 16, 1961,” ibid.

267Ibid.

268Ibid.

269Ibid.

270Ibid.

271“Memorandum from OP-09B to OP-03 and OP-06 on Bonin-Volcano Islands and Marcus Island; Use of by the United States, December 1, 1961,” records regarding the Bonin-Volcano Islands, 

operational archives, Naval Historical Center.

272“Memorandum from CINCPAC to JCS on Adequate Utilization of Bonin/Volcano Islands, 

March 11, 1962,” ibid.

273Ibid.

274Ibid.

275“Telegram 2106 from State to Embassy, February 23, 1962,” Box 2176, CDF, 1960–1963, RG 59.

276“Telegram 11040.”

277Ibid.

278For a description of the visits, see “Airgram A-8 from American Consulate, Sapporo, to State 

Department, on Japanese Visit Graves in Habomai Islands, September 25, 1964,” Folder: 10 BoninVolcanos-Chichi Jima and Iwo Jima Graves Visit, 1957–1966, Box 10, series 99, records regarding 

the Bonin-Volcano Islands, operational archives.

279Fukuda, ed., Sono 1, 262–5.

280“Memorandum of Conversation of Visit of Mr. Fukuda, Director General, Japan Defense Agency, 

with the Secretary of Defense, June 30, 1964,” Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968 

(hereafter FRUS, 1964–1968), vol. 29, part 2, Japan (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 

2006), 21.

281Fukuda, ed., Sono 1, 266.

282Reischauer, My Life Between Japan and America, 247.

283“Telegram from Secretary Rusk to State Department, December 5, 1964,” Folder: Pol 7 JapanU.S., Box. 1925, CDF, 1964–1966, RG 59.
368

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

284“Memo from William P. Bundy to Secretary Rusk, November 25, 1964,” Folder: Pol 7 Japan, Box 

1925, CDF, 1964–1966, RG 59; and “Memorandum of Conversation on U.S.-Japanese Interests, 

November 25, 1964,” Folder: Pol Affairs Japan 1964, Box 6, Office of Far Eastern Affairs, Central 

Files, 1947–1964, RG 59.

285“Letter from Secretary Rusk to Secretary McNamara on Bonin Islands, December 22, 1964,” 

Folder: Pol Bonin Is, Box 1925, CDF, 1964–1966, RG 59.

286“Telegram 1986 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, December 18, 1964,” Folder: Pol 7 

Japan-U.S., Box 1925, CDF, 1964–1966, RG 59.

287“Action Memorandum from William P. Bundy to Secretary Rusk on Japanese Request for Temporary Visits to the Bonin Islands, December 18, 1964,” Folder: Political Affairs and Relations, 

Bonin Islands, 1/1/64, Box 1925, CDF 1964–1966, RG 59.

288“Letter from Marshall Green to Peter Solbert, December 28, 1964,” ibid.

289Fukuda, ed., Sono 1, 267.

290Ibid.

291“Telegram 2051 from Embassy to State on Sato Visit, December 28, 1964,” Folder: Pol 7 Japan, 

Box 1925, CDF, 1964–1966, RG 59; “Telegram 2052 from Embassy to State on Sato Visit, December 28, 1964,” ibid.

292Sato Eisaku, Sato Eisaku Nikki [The Diary of Sato Eisaku], vol. 2 (Tokyo: Chuo Koron, 1998), 

212.

293“Telegram 2061 from Embassy to State on Sato Visit, December 29, 1964,” Folder: Pol 7 Japan, 

box 1925, CDF, 1964–1966, RG 59.

294Ibid.

295Sato, Sato Eisaku Nikki, vol. 2, 218–20.

296“Memorandum from Fearey to Bundy, October 16, 1964,” Folder: Pol Affairs, June 1964-Pol 1 

General Policy, Box 6, Bureau of Far Eastern Affairs Office of East Asian Affairs, 1947–1964, RG 

59.

297“Airgram 716 from Embassy to State on Politico-Economic Assessment: Japan, as of 1 December 

1964, December 4, 1964,” Folder: Pol 2-3, CDF, 1964–1966, RG 59.

298“Memorandum for the President by Dean Rusk on Your Meetings with Prime Minister Sato for 

Visit of Prime Minister Sato, January 11–14, 1965,” ibid.

299Author’s interview with Dr. James C. Thomson, 3 October 2000, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

Reischauer wrote, “There was no moral or legal justification for the removal from Japan of the Bonin, 

Ryukyu, and Kurile Islands, either, and these the Japanese most certainly have not renounced in their 

hearts. They promised in the peace treaty to support American proposals for the assignment of the 

Ryukyu and Bonin Islands to the United States as trusteeship territories, but they still have hopes of 

getting them back some day. The Bonin Islands, located in the Pacific between Japan and her former 

Mandates, have been indisputably Japanese since 1875.” Edwin O. Reischauer, The United States and 

Japan (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961), 238.

300“Memorandum by J. C. Thomson Jr., for the President on Your Meeting with Prime Minister 

Sato, January 11, 1965,” FRUS, 1964–1968, 64.
369

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

301Ibid.

302Sato, Sato Eisaku Nikki, 223.

303“Daiikkai Jonson Daitoryo Oyobi Sato Sori Kaidan Yoshi, 1 Gatsu 12 Nichi Howaito Hausu ni 

Oite [Summary of First Meeting Between President Johnson and Prime Minister Sato, January 12, 

White House],” Eldridge JFOIA.

304Sato, Sato Eisaku Nikki, 223.

305“Memorandum of Conversation on Ryukyu and Bonin Islands, January 12, 1965, 3:30 p.m.” Folder: Pol 19 Ryu Is, CF 1964–1966, RG 59.

306Ibid.

307“Joint Statement of Japanese Prime Minister and U.S. President Johnson, January 13, 1965,” Public Papers of the Presidents: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1965, 40–42.

308“Memorandum for the Record on Ambassador Reischauer Briefing at 1000, January 25, 1965,” 

records regarding the Bonin-Volcano Islands, operational archives, Naval Historical Center.

309Ibid. For a recent biography on Reischauer, see George R. Packard and Edwin O. Reischauer in

the American Discovery of Japan (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010), especially chapters 

8 and 9.

310For more on Zurhellen, see Roger Dingman, Deciphering the Rising Sun: Navy and Marine Corps 

Codebreakers, Translators, and Interpreters in the Pacific War (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 

2009).

311“Naval Message 160943Z from Embassy Tokyo to CINCPACFLT, February 17, 1965,” records 

regarding the Bonin-Volcano Islands, operational archives, Naval Historical Center.

312“Talking Paper, March 4, 1965,” in Fukuda, ed., Sono 1, 267–70.

313Ibid., 273.

314Ibid.

315Tokyoto Ogasawara Bosan Taisaku Honbu, ed., Ogasawara Bosan Jisshi Hokokusho [Report on 

the Implementation of the Ogasawara Grave Visits] (Tokyo: Tokyoto Ogasawara Bosan Taisaku 

Honbu, September 1965), 10–15. For the story that emerged, see James McC. Truitt, “Iwo Jima 

Revisited,” Newsweek, 31 May 1965, 40.

316For the story by the unidentified member of the international staff of the magazine, see “A Look 

Inside a Secret U.S. Base,” U.S. News & World Report, 23 August 1965, 66.

317Tokyoto Ogasawara Bosan Taisaku Honbu, ed., Ogasawara Bosan, 13–22.

318Fukuda, ed., Sono 1, 274.

319“Naval Message from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, February 3, 1966,” Records Regarding the Bonin-Volcano Islands, Operational Archives, Naval Historical Center.

320Ibid.

321See Rodney E. Armstrong, “The Bonins and Iwo Jima,” Foreign Service Journal, vol. 69, no. 5 (May 

1992): 26–27. Also see the author’s interview with Rodney E. Armstrong, 12 March 2009, Tokyo, 

Japan.
370

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

322“Memorandum from Commander Naval Forces Marianas to Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific 

Fleet on Bonin-Volcano Islands Ancestral Graves Visit by Japanese Former Residents; report of 

June 16, 1967,” Records Regarding the Bonin-Volcano Islands, Operational Archives, Naval Historical Center.

323Findley, Book II, 172.

324Wachi Tsunezo, Miizu: Beiju Kinen (Yokosuka: Iwo Jima Kyokai, 1989), 20. This pamphlet, published in commemoration of Wachi’s 88th birthday, was translated by his daughter (Rosa Chikako 

Ogawa) as “The August Virtue of His Imperial Majesty,” and shared with the author by her. See the 

author’s interview with Ogawa Chikako Rosa, 5 June 2008, Tokyo.

325Wachi, Miizu, 20.

326Ibid., 21.

327For the petition, see “1st Petition to Lt. Col. R. W. Hayward, November 10, 1945,” in “Beikoku 

Kanrika no Taiheiyo Shoto ni Okeru Honhojin Bochi Oyobi Ikotsu Chosa, Shushu Kankei (Irei o 

Fukumu), Daiikkan, 2 Iwo Jima (hereafter Ikotsu Shushu, Iwo Jima),” G-0013-G-3.2.0.5, Foreign 

Records Archives, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tokyo.

328According to the writer Kamisaka, who authored a book about Wachi and Iwo Jima, Kikumura 

Itaru based his Akatagawa Prize-winning novel, Iwo Jima, published by Bungei Shunju in 1957, on 

Yamakage. Along with PO2 Yamakage, PO1 Matsudo Rikio spent four years after the battle on Iwo 

Jima, living in the caves and avoiding detection and capture by U.S. forces on the islands. Because 

they would steal food from the storage areas of the U.S. military, they had actually gained some 

weight by the time they surrendered. The book, Iwo Jima: Saigo no Futari [Iwo Jima: The Last Two 

Men], was published by Yomiuri Shimbunsha posthumously in 1968. For a story about someone 

who traveled with Yamakage back to Iwo Jima, see Stuart Griffin, “The Last Jap Off Iwo,” Marine 

Corps League, Summer 2001, 25–28. For a story about one of the men (Alfred L. Ritz) who discovered Yamakage and Matsuto in 1949, see “KBC Sgt. ‘Captures’ Iwo Jima Defenders 4 Years After 

War,” Kanto Base Command Plainsman, vol. 8, no. 25 (21 June 1968): 5, 8.

329“Petition to Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers from Jushoan Koami, Service Priest, 

Main Temple at Nikko, Byakurensha (Religious Corporation), Nikko Sannnai, Nikko-machi, 

Tochigi Prefecture, Regarding Request for Permission to Visit Iwo-Jima for Religious Service for 

the War-Dead, May 27, 1951,” Ikotsu Shushu, Iwo Jima.

330“Letter to Rev. Jushoan Koami from Lt. Col. D. R. Nugent, July 4, 1951,” Ikotsu Shushu, Iwo 

Jima.

331“Letter and Application to the Director of the Repatriation Relief Agency, Ministry of Welfare, 

the Minister of Education, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, from the Byakuren-sha, Religious 

Corporation, July 18, 1951,” Ikotsu Shushu, Iwo Jima.

332Hamai Kazufumi, “Kita no Hate Kara Minami no Shima e: Kita Reihi Junpaidan no Okinawa 

Toko to Sono Inpakuto” [From the Northern Extreme to the Southern Islands: The Trip to Okinawa of the Northern Delegation to Pay Respects and Impact of That Visit], 20 Seiki Kenkyu, no. 7 

(December 2006), 58–59.

333“Letter from Chief of Demobilization Bureau, Repatriation Relief Agency, to Chief of Control 

Bureau, Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding Dispatch of Agency’s staff members to Iwo Jima for 

investigation of plight of remains of those killed on the island in action, September 8, 1951,” Ikotsu 

Shushu, Iwo Jima.
371

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

334“Letter from Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs to General Headquarters, Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, Regarding Request for Sending Religious and Governmental Representatives to Iwo Jima to Conduct Religious Services for and Collect Remains and Relics of the 

Japanese War Casualties, September 17, 1951,” Ikotsu Shushu, Iwo Jima.

335Ibid.

336Findley, Book II, 173.

337“Memorandum for the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs from the Diplomatic Section Regarding Request for Sending Religious and Governmental Representatives to Iwo Jima to Conduct 

Religious Services for and Collect Remains and Relics of the Japanese War Casualties, December 3, 

1951,” Ikotsu Shushu, Iwo Jima.

338Around the same time, Ishii Shuji, who was a hygienic specialist on Iwo Jima during the battle 

and was later captured, traveled to Iwo Jima with a reporter from the Mainichi Shimbun. See Ishii 

Shuji, Iwo Jima ni Ikiru [Surviving on Iwo Jima] (Tokyo: Kokusho Kankokai, 1981), 175–216.

339Kamisaka, Iwo Jima Imada, 124, and “Gold Statues Honor Iwo Jima Dead,” Pacific Stars and 

Stripes, 13 February 1952.

340Findley, Book II, 179–81. It is unclear if the captain’s name is “Collis” as is written in Findley’s version or “Collins” as Wachi writes. The author used “Collis” along the lines of the official Navy study.

341Ibid., 176.

342Kamisaka, Iwo Jima Imada, 125.

343Ibid., 125–28.

344Findley, Book II, 179–80.

345Ibid., 180.

346See Hamai Kazufumi, “Okinawasen Senbotsusha o Meguru Nichibei Kankei to Okinawa” [U.S.-

Japan Relations, Okinawa, and the Issue of the Okinawa War-dead], Gaiko Shiryokanho, no. 19 

(March 2005), 89–115; and Hamai Kazufumi, “Kita no Hate Kara Minami no Shima e: Kita Reihi 

Junpaidan no Okinawa Toko to Sono Inpakuto” [From the Northern Extreme to the Southern Islands: The Trip to Okinawa of the Northern Delegation to Pay Respects and Impact of That Visit], 

20 Seiki Kenkyu, no. 7 (December 2006), 58–59.

347Findley, Book II, 183.

348Ibid., 184.

349Ibid., 187.

350Ibid., 191–93.

351Ibid., 201.

352Ibid., 199. Also see “Iwo Jima ni Ikotsu o Saguru: Honsha Kato Kisha Zento Shisatsuki” [Looking for Remains on Iwo Jima: A Record of Reporter Kato from Our Newspaper on His Investigative 

Trip around the Whole Island], Mainichi Shimbun, 8 April 1954.

353Findley, Book II, 199. A Japanese man who was working on Iwo Jima in 1951 for a total of three 

months between February and October that year published a book in early 1952 with a dozen pho-
372

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

tos about what he reportedly saw there. See Hagiwara Toshio, Hakkotsu no Shima: Iwoto no Higeki

[Island of Skeletons: The Tragedy of Iwo Jima] (Tokyo: Aokisha, 1952). It is unclear if the embassy 

or the U.S. military was aware that the book was published, as they seemed more concerned about 

the news reports.

354Findley, Book II, 200.

355“Letter Concerning to Missing of the Statues of Kannon and Skulls of Japanese War-Dead of 

Iwo Jima, April 19, 1954,” Folder 7, Japanese War Dead, Box 100, records regarding the BoninVolcano Islands, Operational Archives, Naval Historical Center.

356“Concerning Damage to Statue of Kannon at Iwo-Jima, April 11, 1955,” ibid.

357“Repeated Misdoings by American Military Personnel on Iwo-jima and Drastic Measures Thereafter,” ibid.

358“Plan for Digging-Out Remains, November 15, 1956,” ibid. “Letter from Findley to Wachi, December 18, 1956,” ibid.

359Ibid.

360Findley, Book II, 206. Emphasis in original.

361Newcomb, Iwo Jima, 293.

362Kamisaka, Iwo Jima Imada, 215–23.

363Newcomb, Iwo Jima, 293.

364Wachi Tsunezo, “Zugaikokotsu Niko Beikoku Kara Kaeru” [Two Skulls Arrive from the U.S.], 

Iwo Jima Kyokai, ed., Iwo Jima Senbotsusha Kenshohi Senza ni Tomonau Inen [The Fate of Relocating 

the Memorial to Those Fallen on Iwo Jima] (Yokosuka: Iwo Jima Kyokai, 1987), 17.

365Ross, Iwo Jima, 358–59.

366Wachi, Miizu, 24.

367Kamisaka, Iwo Jima Imada, 166.

368Ibid., 167–68. Also see “Letter from Wachi to William P. Bundy on The Deplorable Matters of 

Iwojima, April 23, 1964,” Folder: Bonins Visit, Box 26, Bureau of Far East Affairs Office of East 

Asian Affairs (FE/EA) Central Files, 1947–1964, RG 59.

369Ibid.

370Tada Minoru, “Shima Gyokusai no Shinso: Kiseki no Seikansha to Izoku no Zadankai” [The 

Truth about the Mass Death on the Island: A Conversation between the Miracle Survivors and the 

Bereaved Families], Shukan Yomiuri, 22 March 1968, 108–13.

371Despite Iwo having been reverted in the summer of 1968, the former islanders of Iwo and Kita 

Iwo, who once numbered 216 households and 1,164 people, were unable to return. Following reversion, studies were made on the volcanic activity of the island, which took several years. During that 

time, the islanders were allowed to go to Iwo for grave visits, but they could not live there. In May 

1977, the Ogasawara Mondai Kenkyukai (Ogasawara Problem Study Group) submitted an interim 

report on Ogasawara’s future development that recommended the establishment of a separate study 

group for Iwo Jima as a private advisory body under Tokyo Metropolitan Governor Minobe Ryokichi. On 28 September that year, the Iwo Jima Mondai Kenkyukai (Iwo Jima Problem Study Group) 
373

Bilateral Problem: Compensation, Visits, and Rites, 1957–67

came into being. It was headed by Ota Kazuo, president of the Ogasawara Association. One of its 

first acts was to request Tokyo Institute of Technology (Tokyo Kogyo Daigaku) to undertake a multiyear study on the possibility of redeveloping the islands for people to live on. The study took longer 

than initially expected, because of the islands’ location and other problems encountered. This fact 

hinted at the conclusions of the report: due to volcanic activities, unexploded ordnance, search for 

human remains, the changed landscape from the battle, and base development and related inability 

to confirm landholdings, the report noted that there were many problems that had to be overcome 

if people were to live there. There were numerous other problems working against resettlement—the 

large area occupied by the Self-Defense Forces base, the limited arable and other land for development, the limited number of former islanders who actually were willing to return, and the relative 

isolation of the island. In late May 1984, the Council for the Development of the Ogasawara Islands 

(Ogasawara Shoto Shinko Shingikai) of the Land Agency (Kokudocho) submitted its opinion that 

the return of the islanders was impossible due to the above reasons, and recommended that the 

government take all possible measures to compensate and otherwise alleviate the concerns of the 

former islanders. See Ogasawara Kyokai, ed., “Ogasawara Shoto no Gaiyo Oyobi Shinkoto no Seika: 

Henkan 35 Shunenme o Mukaete” [An Overview of the Ogasawara Islands and the Results of the 

Development of the Islands on the Eve of the 35th Anniversary of their Reversion], Ogasawara, no. 

48 (2003), 7.
374

Chapter 8

The Reversion, 1967–68

It was disheartening to learn that President Lyndon Johnson decided to return 

Iwo Jima to Japan. The island contains the blood of thousands of our men who 

valiantly fought and died for our nation. Although the remains of our heroes have 

been moved to American soil, Iwo Jima is an American shrine to be revered, not 

abandoned.

—Second Lieutenant Patrick F. Caruso,

rifle company officer, K Company, 9th Regiment, 3d Marine Division1

The road to reversion of the Bonin Islands was a long one on the one hand, but short on the 

other, if we consider that it took 20 years to permit just grave visits, while reversion itself 

was agreed to only two-and-a-half years after that. In reality, however, the reversion story 

was a long one—23 years in total—and slightly longer if the time involved for the islanders 

to actually be repatriated following reversion is considered.

“Spadework”2

There still had not been a resolution to the issue of the reversion of the islands when U. 

Alexis Johnson, one of America’s leading diplomats, succeeded Edwin O. Reischauer as 

U.S. ambassador to Japan in late October 1966.3 Johnson saw that with Japan “emerging as 

a major world power . . . many aspects of the relations between our two countries needed 

bringing up to date.”4

 The Bonins issue was one of them.

Yet, in order to resolve some of these issues, including the Bonins and Okinawa, Johnson believed Japan would have to put forth its basic positions and answer a “fundamental 

question,” namely “if administrative rights over the Ryukyus reverted to [ Japan], should 

the United States retain its present rights to mount operations from the bases there without consulting the Japanese government?”5

 Japan was reluctant to show its hand, Johnson 

recalls in his memoirs, and instead “tried the familiar gambit” of asking the U.S. side for its 

minimum needs without indicating its own position.6

This did not mean that the Japanese government was not thinking about the question. 

In late May, Edamura Sumio, chief of the North American Affairs Section of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ North American Bureau, informed the U.S. embassy that Foreign 

Minister Miki Takeo gave the “most serious attention” to the problems of the Ryukyus and 

Bonins and saw those problems as major ones in the bilateral relationship.7

 As a result, politicians and journalists, who knew of Miki’s feelings, were constantly attempting to probe 

his thinking on the issue to see if he was going to take some initiative.
375

Miki provided a suggestion during the upper house’s budget subcommittee interpellation on 23 May, in which he stated in response to questions by Seya Hideyuki of the Socialist Party that the Bonins were less militarily important than Okinawa, and thus, hinted that 

their early return might be possible.8

 He also said that he would push for the return of the 

former islanders, and discuss with the United States the return of the Bonins.

The next day, he took questions from the press after a meeting with Ohama Nobumoto 

of the Council of Advisers on the Okinawa Problem (Okinawa Mondai Kondankai), who had 

recently returned from a trip to the United States.9 Miki stated that, while the U.S. Navy 

felt the “Bonins have great military value,” the Japanese side “think[s] that the military value 

is different from that of Okinawa.”10 He explained that he believed the issue of repatriation 

needed to be dealt with first—“only then,” he added, “can we turn to our attention to the 

question of reversion.” On the question of separating the Bonins issue from that of Okinawa, 

he hedged, stating that he was not arguing for that, but at the same time saying that it might 

not be “entirely bad to separate the two problems.” In any case, he added that Japan wanted 

to study the Bonins question “in the context of the overall Okinawa problem.”

Back in Washington, the Bonins problem was raised at a daily press briefing at the State 

Department on 24 May. When asked what the U.S. position was on their return, spokesman 

Robert J. McCloskey responded that the department had studied the issue, but concluded 

that the return was not feasible because of the role they continue to play in the defense 

posture of the region “while conditions of threat and tension persist in the Far East.”11

Later that week, newspapers reported that a “high Foreign Office official” had set 1970 

as the date by which the return of the Bonin Islands and Okinawa had to be settled.12

Miki was asked about this the following week by Socialist Party member Mori Motojiro, 

a former reporter and secretary to Prime Minister Katayama Tetsu (May 1947–March 

1948), in the upper house Foreign Affairs Committee.13 He responded to the effect that it 

was an issue in which a date could not be set unilaterally. It was necessary, Miki stated, “to 

continue talks with the United States to harmonize the strong national wish for return of 

the Okinawa and Bonin Islands with the military role that the islands are playing for the 

security and stability of the Far East . . . In the current Far Eastern situation, immediate and 

complete return of the Okinawa and Bonin Islands is impossible.” He added, however, that 

the government would study “every possibility if not all possibilities” to “realize the national 

wish” of the return of the islands.

Because of these statements and newspaper reporting, the American embassy asked Edamura to explain if the Japanese government intended to take some initiative on these questions. 

He denied that was the case, and said that Miki’s comments were meant to end speculation 

that something was in the offing. The embassy informed the State Department that it agreed 

that the “current escalation of public attention” was not the result of deliberate actions on the 

part of the Japanese government, and was “possibly premature in terms of the GOJ’s [Government of Japan’s] own timetable” in determining its position on the issues of the Bonins and 

Okinawa.14 Nevertheless, the embassy felt that the publicity would stir up public interest in 

the issue, and noted that it seemed to be doing so in the United States as well, citing The Washington Post editorial of 26 May 1967.15 It encouraged U.S. officials to make no statements on 

the issue, as the American position had been made clear in the past.

The Reversion, 1967–68
376

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

This attention to the issue probably bothered Johnson more than the embassy’s telegram 

let on. He was a believer in “quiet diplomacy,” avoiding “television appearances, press conferences, and other splashy events” in favor of “more normal and mature relations.”16 He 

probably would have liked Japan to conduct the discussions on the Bonins issue out of the 

public spotlight.17 In an oral history, he noted that one of the “greatest difficulties” he had in 

working in Japan was the “impossibility of conversations,” or, as he said, “the great difficulty 

of having any private conversations.”18 It was not possible, he continued,

without very elaborate arrangements for me to meet with the Foreign Minister or 

the Prime Minister without having the press aware of this, and many of our meetings and discussions, have been carried on through intermediaries. When we’ve had 

private meetings, we’ve had to do this in hotel rooms and out at villas and other 

places. The press here in Japan follows these people very closely, they follow me 

closely, and I find it very difficult to have private conversations with the government 

here. Even when I think it’s private, things leak to the press in one way or the other 

. . . I have found that almost everything I say, everything I do, eventually appears in 

newspaper headlines here, even though I’d hoped at times that it would not.

As alluded to by Johnson, Miki sought to accommodate the ambassador’s style by arranging for the two to meet secretly at the New Otani Hotel on the morning of 15 July.19

Johnson brought with him Lewis M. Purnell, counselor of the Political Section, and interpreter James J. Wickel. Miki had Ushiba Nobuhiko, vice minister of foreign affairs, Togo 

Fumihiko, director of the Bureau of North American Affairs, Edamura, and interpreter 

Watanabe Makoto by his side. Miki had wanted to discuss an aide-mémoire submitted to 

the embassy the day before and to request that Johnson forward it to the State Department.20 Although it described the issue of the bases in Okinawa and their status as the 

main question between the two countries, as Johnson expected, the Japanese simply asked 

what the American minimum requirements were.21

Johnson was no doubt frustrated, as he had been trying since his arrival in Japan the 

year before to get the Japanese government to begin thinking not about the “minimum the 

United States can get along with, but rather what is the maximum which is desirable to 

both of us.”22 In his memoirs, Johnson stated that the Japanese

fully expected us to take the lead in figuring out how best to protect Japan [but] they 

seemed to take for granted that the best thing for Japan was to bargain us down on our 

base rights as far as we could be made to go. Japan’s attitude, I thought, was immature, 

contrary to its own long-term interest and certainly contrary to continued healthy 

relations with the United States . . . The Japanese were trying to have their cake and 

eat it too, taking the benefits of American military protection without acknowledging 

they really wanted it or assuming any concomitant responsibilities. I believed it was 

time for Japan to come to its own conclusions about the role it wanted to play, and 

wanted us to play, in the security of East Asia, and take responsibility for them.23

In addition to the Okinawa question, Miki asked about the Bonin Islands, to which his 

aide-mémoire also referred. The unsigned nine-page document, which called for the two 

governments “to explore means of solution to the problems of Okinawa and the Bonins on 
377

The Reversion, 1967–68

the basis of their common interest in the maintenance of peace and security in the Far East 

region, and for the purpose of maintaining and further developing friendly and cooperative 

relations between the two countries,” noted about the Bonins:24

(2) As regards Ogasawara:

To reach an understanding that the administration over Ogasawara be returned to Japan, and to make necessary arrangements for this end:

In view of the seemingly limited military significance of Ogasawara, it 

is difficult for the Japanese side to understand the reason why the United 

States should retain the administrative right on Ogasawara. Moreover, as 

there is a fact that a part of the former residents who have the Caucasian 

origin were allowed to return to the islands soon after the war, it is extremely difficult to persuade the Japanese people to accept the continuation of the present situation concerning the problems of the return of the 

former residents to the islands or the restoration of the administration to 

Japan.

If it is possible to have the former residents return to the islands, it 

would of course be welcome. However, as it might give rise to troublesome 

problems in relation to the administration over these residents, it is more 

pertinent to take another step forward so as to agree to an early restoration of the administration to Japan, and make necessary arrangements for 

it, including the examination of the United States military facilities to be 

continued on Ogasawara.

The return of the administrative right over Ogasawara would be a concrete proof of good faith of the United States and would strengthen the 

belief on the part of the Japanese that it will be possible to solve the problem of Okinawa also within the context of the relationship of mutual trust 

between Japan and the United States.

Miki stated it was only “common sense to recognize a difference” between the Bonins 

and Okinawa.25 Johnson privately agreed with him on this question, but felt it was premature to tell him so as he needed to gain the acceptance of CINCPAC and others in 

the U.S. government. According to a telegram he sent after the meeting, Johnson limited 

his comments at this point to agreeing with Miki that the question of repatriation of the 

islanders should not be considered until the question of the islands administration was 

determined.26

Johnson’s thinking on the issue was more complex than his comment suggested. According to his memoirs, the ambassador was convinced that whatever arrangements were 

made, they would set a “very firm precedent” for Okinawa and thus it was necessary to “take 

care over the fine print.”27 In the same passage, Johnson—who had served as the American consul in Yokohama at the time the islanders of Western descent made their request 

through the consulate to return to the Bonin Islands in late 1945—referred to the need for 

reimbursement of U.S. facilities Japan took over and protection of the islanders’ “economic 
378

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

rights” whose welfare the United States was representing.28 Although he did not specifically mention it here, the United States also had to ensure base rights as well, including 

the positioning or reintroduction of nuclear weapons. “By maintaining a tough façade on 

the Bonins,” Johnson wrote, “we might induce some concessions from Japan that would be 

invaluable on Okinawa.”29 Another key concern of his and the State Department was the 

timing of the return. If it was hastened, pressure from the Japanese public and government 

might increase for the return of Okinawa, rather than decrease, thus “diminishing our room 

to maneuver.”30 U.S. officials, as noted earlier, had been greatly concerned that the return of 

the Amami Islands might result in increasing expectations, rather than diminishing them. 

Indeed, initially, that was precisely what did happen.

Johnson had probed Japanese officials on this question before. At a private lunch with 

Vice Foreign Minister Ushiba on 21 June, Johnson was told that there was “no question 

whatever in [Ushiba’s] mind that if [reversion] could be done, it would help somewhat to 

relieve rather than to increase the pressure on Okinawa, because it would demonstrate that 

the GOJ was ‘doing something’ about these problems.”31 Still not certain, Johnson asked 

about Miki’s intentions, to which Ushiba replied that he did not think Miki would raise it 

with Secretary David Dean Rusk “in any definitive form” during their talks in September, 

but would probably wish to have an informal discussion on the issue prior to the prime 

minister’s visit in November. Miki viewed the talks he wanted to have with Johnson in the 

same light, according to Ushiba, who explained at the outset of the lunch that the Foreign 

Ministry was working on a paper on Okinawa (and the Bonins), and which Miki would 

want to discuss with the ambassador.

Johnson seemed uncertain how to respond on the issue of the Bonins’ connection with 

Okinawan reversion sentiments. On the one hand, he probably wished to believe Ushiba 

and Miki. In a telegram a week later, he noted that the talks Miki desired would “of course 

be of very preliminary nature and he will not necessarily be expecting any definitive answers 

on my part.”32 At the same time, he did express his hope that the department would provide 

some guidelines on Johnson’s “preliminary and ‘personal’ replies,” suggesting that he realized the issue would likely continue to grow. Indeed, Miki’s raising the issue in the way he 

did in July suggests his government was going to push for reversion of the Bonin Islands.

Johnson was also watching public sentiment in Japan, as the earlier concerns about the 

Diet interpellation and newspaper reporting of it had suggested, and mentioned to Ushiba 

his meeting with Tokyo Governor Minobe Ryokichi, who had recently been elected.33 Minobe raised the issue of repatriation of the islanders, many of whom continued to live in 

Tokyo, with the ambassador. Minobe, a Marxist economics professor from Hosei University in Tokyo, who ran with the backing of the Socialists and Communists, served for three 

terms (until 1979), before entering the upper house.34

As time went on, Diet and public interest did in fact grow. On 21 July, two resolutions 

were passed in the Special Committee on the Okinawa Problem, Et Cetera (Okinawa 

Mondaito ni Kansuru Tokubestu Iinkai) in both houses of the Diet. While generally similar, 

including calls for the “prompt” and “early” reversion of the Bonin Islands and Okinawa, 

the latter resolution went into more detail on the Bonins question, calling for the repatriation of the islanders and assistance in their resettlement.35
379

The Reversion, 1967–68

In Washington, DC, meanwhile, similar interest was being raised. Ambassador Shimoda Takezo, who had arrived on 20 June, paid a call on Assistant Secretary of State 

William P. Bundy on 10 July, where he raised the issue of Okinawa and the Bonins “at 

length.”36 Shimoda wanted to sound out Bundy and his colleagues on their views, and let 

them know about Japanese thinking on the reversion of Okinawa. He mentioned there 

were two schools of thought—one called the “enclave theory” by which the United States 

would retain administrative rights over the base areas with the rest of the islands being 

returned to Japan, and the second, a special arrangement by which the islands would be 

returned without a prior consultation clause applied to them.37 Shimoda had publicly spoken out on the latter idea, called the “Shimoda concept,” in Diet testimony, and told Bundy 

that he believed the prime minister, Sato Eisaku, also supported it.38 In either case, both 

formulas would “provide the U.S. 100 percent freedom in use of bases.”39 Shimoda added 

that he felt the return of the islands could occur before the end of the Vietnam War and an 

agreement on returning the islands should occur before 1970.

Regarding the Bonin Islands, Shimoda explained the “seriousness of the potential pressures” of the problem, and said that the government considered it separate from Okinawa. 

The ambassador also said the Foreign Ministry thought that repatriation of the islanders 

would invite more problems than it would solve, and for that reason also favored pursuing 

reversion directly. In response to questions about the impact an early return of the Bonins 

would have on Okinawa, Shimoda acknowledged that it might make Okinawans feel they 

had been “sacrificed” in a deal between the two governments. In any case, he asked if the 

United States would be able to respond to a “concrete” Japanese proposal when Miki visited in September. Bundy replied that it would require “serious study” and that he would 

respond in the future.40

Several in the U.S. government had already been thinking along the lines of the need to 

return the islands, particularly as they saw the Bonins issue, and that of Okinawa, “com[ing] 

to a head” prior to the visit of Sato, scheduled in the fall.41 Within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), for example, Policy Planning Staff Director Morton Halperin 

recommended in late May 1967 to Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs John T. McNaughton that the U.S. government should move ahead “with plans 

for reversion of Okinawa and the Bonins” prior to 1970.42 Halperin admitted to his boss, 

who had been in the Battle of Okinawa,43 that this would necessitate not only “overruling” 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff ( JCS), but “require convincing” the State Department that it was 

important to remove this “major irritant” to the bilateral relationship as well as to secure a 

“Japanese commitment to participate with us in responsibility for the region.”44 Halperin 

was optimistic that the timetable he spelled out in the memorandum could be met and, that 

in preparing for the Miki and Sato visits in September and November respectively, it was 

necessary to lay the ground work.

Halperin’s Policy Planning Staff was undergoing reorganization at the time. A Plans 

Division, one of three established under the staff, was charged with studying the question 

of the reversion of Okinawa and the Bonins.45 As director of the planning staff, Halperin 

was to represent OSD at an interagency committee that was to consider the question. In 

the meantime, Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, at Halperin’s and MacNaugh-
380

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

ton’s urging, had asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff, now headed by U.S. Army General Earle 

G. Wheeler, to examine the utility of the Bonin Islands.46 The JCS report was completed 

on 29 June.47

Despite some further interagency work, Bundy eventually informed Ambassador Johnson on 14 August that the government would not have an answer for him prior to his departure for the United States on 28 August on the eve of Miki’s visit. Bundy suggested that 

the ambassador tell the foreign minister that Secretary of State Rusk would be prepared 

to discuss the Japanese government’s proposals when Miki arrived.48 The issue, Bundy told 

Johnson, was not just U.S. military requirements but those of Japan and the region, something that Johnson had been trying to impress upon the foreign minister.

The same day the telegram went out, Bundy met with Secretary Rusk about the Okinawa and Bonins issue, and it was agreed that a National Security Council meeting would 

be held prior to Miki’s visit.49 It was two weeks later, at noon on 31 August, when the 

NSC took up the question of the reversion of Okinawa and the Bonins.50 Ambassador 

Johnson attended, in addition to the president, his cabinet, and National Security Adviser 

Walt R. Rostow.51 After identifying the topics to be discussed, the president noted that the 

upcoming visits of the foreign minister in September and the prime minister in November 

made consideration of matters particularly urgent. The meeting focused on Okinawa for 

the most part, but the Bonins question came up as well. Secretary Rusk argued that action on the Bonins would “take much heat out of ” the Ryukyus question.52 Ambassador 

Johnson pointed out that the issue was not the removal of the bases; indeed, the Japanese 

government desired that the United States retain its bases (under the Mutual Security 

Treaty). Instead, according to the ambassador, Sato sought the return of the Bonins, and 

“something on the Ryukyus that would look like movement,” perhaps with the issue being 

settled by 1970. When the president asked what the United States would get out of it, the 

ambassador said that, without any forward motion, it might end up with a hostile government. This was not the answer Johnson was looking for, and he repeated his question. “We 

always seem to think of what is necessary or good for others,” he questioned aloud, but, 

“what was in it for the United States?” The president’s question generated a long debate. 

Ambassador Johnson began by saying that the United States could get Japan to assume 

larger security responsibilities in the region. While direct military assistance was “not realistic,” he did see Japan playing a “greater political role.” “We need,” he continued, “to involve 

them more with us in Asia.” When the president asked if Japan could assist economically 

with the balance of payments problem, the ambassador said he was unsure of that, but was 

certain Japan would do more in Asia. President Johnson then requested a “list of things we 

hoped to get from Japan.” This list (discussed below) was eventually provided to Rostow in 

early November.

Within Japan, Ushiba had prepared the Japanese government’s negotiating position and 

presented it to the prime and foreign ministers on 8 August, according to an Asahi Shimbun

story published shortly thereafter.53 The story stated that the government would grant the 

United States free use of bases upon the return of the islands, but would not permit the 

storage of nuclear weapons in Okinawa. It also reported that the government would seek a 

commitment to begin talks on the return of the Bonins. When asked about the story by the 
381

The Reversion, 1967–68

embassy, Togo denied that any one official gave the reporter a verbatim account, but instead 

that the “bright young man” had pieced together what he thought to be the story.

On 16 August, Sato met with the Okinawa Mondaito Kondankai (Council of Advisors 

on Okinawa and Other Problems) for their first meeting since its reconstitution as an 

advisory body directly under the prime minister. (Previously, it had been under the director general of the prime minister’s office.) Symbolic of the importance of the Bonins, the 

council’s name, which had been limited to “Okinawa Problem” prior to its reconstitution 

now included “and other problems,” to represent Ogasawara and the Northern Islands.54

Sato told the council that “control by a foreign power 22 years after the end of WWII was 

‘unnatural’ ” and that “the continued administration of the islands might impair future U.S.-

Japan cooperation in defense of East Asia.”55 During the course of their one-hour meeting 

and lunch, Sato also said he intended to take up the issue during his official visit in November and asked the council to produce an interim report before he left for Washington.56 His 

comments were reported in the 17 August New York Times and by Reuters. Okikon, as the 

advisory council was known, subsequently released its “Interim Report on the Problem of 

the Return of Administrative Rights over Okinawa and the Ogasawara Islands (Okinawa 

oyobi Ogasawara Shoto no Shiseiken Henkan Mondai ni tsuite no Chukan Hokoku),” on 

1 November.57

Sato and Miki met a number of times prior to the latter’s departure in mid-September, 

including a final meeting on the issue of the islands at Sato’s home on Saturday, 9 September.58 A week later, on 14 September, Miki, along with Ambassador Shimoda and other 

Foreign Ministry officials, were meeting with their American counterparts at the State 

Department for a two-and-a-half hour discussion in the afternoon. Their talks covered five 

subjects, including the territories of Okinawa and the Bonin Islands. Miki described the issue as “the most important problem” in the bilateral relationship.59 He explained that while 

the reversion of Okinawa “need not be immediate,” it was necessary to prepare for it so that 

the reversion could be accomplished by 1970. On the complicated question of the Bonins 

Islands, Miki added, the “majority of opinion” in Japan felt that the United States could 

return the islands “as soon as it wishes,” and that the bases could “easily” be maintained 

under the SOFA and Security Treaty. When asked by Rusk, who did not seem to disagree 

with the above assessment, if the return of the Bonin Islands would “make the Okinawa 

situation more difficult,” Miki responded he did “not believe there would be a bad effect by 

first resolving the problem of the Bonins.” Miki and Rusk would take up this issue again a 

couple of days later, but in the meantime, a comment by a prominent U.S. senator visiting 

Japan highlighted the Bonins situation.

Senator Michael J. Mansfield (D-MT), the influential majority leader and someone 

with a long-time interest in the region, spoke out on the question of the Bonins and Okinawa during the first Shimoda Conference on 15 September 1967. Also known as the 

Japan-American Assembly, the conference was an early example of Track II diplomacy—a 

forum for high-level but unofficial discussions—in the bilateral relationship on issues of 

importance to U.S.-Japan relations. Despite the conference’s unofficial nature, President 

Johnson asked the State Department to prepare a memorandum for Mansfield’s use.60

The paper discussed the military importance of the Bonins, and in presenting it, the State 
382

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Department had asked Mansfield not to raise the Bonins-Okinawa issue unless the Japanese did.61 Because the senator took the separation of powers of the three branches of U.S. 

government very seriously, this request by the State Department to a member of Congress 

probably had the opposite effect. In any case, Mansfield made the following comment at 

the conference: “There are no major U.S. military installations [in the Bonins] and strategic 

considerations do not appear to be involved in any significant way. In sum, there would appear to be no major blocks—at least I know of none—to the restoration of the Bonins.”62

This was not Mansfield’s first expression of interest in the subject. In January, he had 

asked the former ambassador to Japan, Reischauer, questions on the status of the islands, 

and stated at the end that he hoped “at some feasible time that we could put into operation 

the term ‘residual sovereignty’ so that this situation, which now exists could be corrected 

and the islands returned to Japan where they should be, and will be in time.”63 He followed 

this with a proposal that a “two-stage formula—to return the Bonin Islands first and then 

to settle the Okinawan problem—should preferably be followed” in light of the difficulties 

with returning both groups of islands simultaneously.64 Knowing his position on the issue 

and as a critic of the Johnson administration, the Japanese media widely reported these 

views and his Shimoda Conference comments.

As expected, Secretary Rusk was asked by the press about Mansfield’s comments following the conclusion of the sixth meeting of the Joint Economic Committee. Rusk emphasized that Mansfield was “speaking individually and not for the government.”65 Rusk 

was asked a second time about the matter. He then explained that, while it was not a subject 

of the cabinet meeting on trade and economic affairs, he and Miki had discussed it in some 

of their earlier meetings and would continue to do so over the weekend and perhaps when 

both were attending the UN General Assembly. “This is a matter,” Rusk recognized, “on 

which our two governments will continue to be in close contact.”

Later that day, Miki and his staff met with Secretary of Defense McNamara in his 

Pentagon office. Ambassador Johnson, Halperin, and interpreter Wickel joined them. Miki 

stated that the military importance of Okinawa was well understood, but most Japanese felt 

that the Bonins were different and therefore could be resolved earlier.66 McNamara agreed 

the Bonins issue was probably easier to resolve, but he did not know exactly how to do so, 

but expressed his willingness to continue talks on the problem.

Miki also met with Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey Jr. that day. Both liberals 

and party men, the two had struck up a friendship and relationship of trust over the past 

decade. They both promised to work together should the other win in their respective elections: “If we both win, Japanese-American relations should go very well indeed.”67 Miki 

later acknowledged his indebtedness to Humphrey. He had felt that his talks with the U.S. 

side had not been going well and had grown increasingly concerned about how to proceed. 

Humphrey encouraged him with the exhortation to “try making one more push,”68 and said 

that he believed something could be worked out in a “short time span.”69

The next day, Rusk and Ambassador Johnson met with Miki and Shimoda. Much of 

the discussion focused on domestic public opinion and political calendars of both countries, 

including the 1968 U.S. presidential election and the start of the new administration in 
383

The Reversion, 1967–68

January 1969, as well as the situation with the Vietnam War and the attitude of Congress. 

As a result, Rusk stated, the United States would be “unable to give an answer on Okinawa 

before 1969 at the earliest . . . There is no possibility of reversion in the immediate future.”70

Miki responded that he hoped the joint communiqué by Sato and Johnson would show 

that both governments were committed to eventual return of the islands, and stressed that 

it was “essential to demonstrate some progress” on the questions before them.71 Miki suggested the return of the Bonin Islands at this point.

Rusk said he would be willing to consider “a formulation” that made clear the United 

States “anticipate[d] reversion” of Okinawa to Japan, premised on the security role of Okinawa not being negatively impacted. With regard to the Bonin Islands, Rusk raised the 

same question Johnson had asked a few months before—would the return of the Bonins 

make the Okinawa situation more difficult, with Okinawans asking, “Why not us, too?” 

Rusk asked a second question as well. Explaining that Iwo Jima was a “special case” with 

“special aspects” that placed it in a “special category,” especially “while there was a war in 

progress,” Rusk asked if Iwo Jima could be separated from the other islands were they to be 

returned. “It is important,” the secretary stressed, “not to give those in Peking any impression that the United States is withdrawing from its position and its commitments during 

this period. Otherwise they may miscalculate and this would present a danger to Japan 

and the United States.” Miki did not directly respond to Rusk’s suggestion, but explained 

that he believed the return of the Bonin Islands would not “adversely affect” U.S. security 

capabilities, and would be “an expression of goodwill and would demonstrate progress in 

this area.” He also reemphasized the political necessity in Japan for a solution to the reversion issue: “The prime minister’s political future as well as that of the Government of Japan 

depends on making some progress toward this problem.”

It was not only Miki who emphasized the importance of resolving the Bonins problem. 

Kuraishi Tadao, agriculture and forestry minister and a member of the Fukuda Takeo faction (formerly Kishi Nobusuke faction), raised the issue with Bundy at the cabinet meetings 

during a coffee break at the very outset of the bilateral talks on the morning of 13 September.72 Kuraishi—who Bundy believed was asking about U.S. views on the situation on 

the direct instructions from Sato and the top leadership of the ruling Liberal Democratic 

Party (LDP)—stressed that if it were possible to make “even a little” progress on the Bonin 

Islands, it would have a favorable effect on the “atmosphere in Japan.”

According to Johnson, although Miki “was unaware of it at the time,” it was the Bonins issue on which “the most substantial progress was made” during the foreign minister’s 

visit.73 As the above meetings were going on, Ambassador Johnson was meeting privately 

with Secretary Rusk, members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secretary McNamara, as 

well as attending a full National Security Council meeting. He noted that, while the Navy 

continued to argue that the Bonin Islands remained important in case the United States 

“were driven from the rest of the Far East,” the remainder of the joint chiefs, Secretary McNamara, and civilian officials at DOD agreed with “State’s position.” Johnson left Washington “fairly certain” that the return of the islands could be announced during Sato’s visit 

in November. On the return to Japan, Ambassador Johnson stopped off in Honolulu to 

brief Admiral Ulysses S. Grant Sharp, then CINCPAC, about the talks with Miki and 
384

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

the evolution of thinking on Okinawa and the Bonins in Washington.74 While Johnson 

does not mention it in his memoirs, Robert A. Fearey, who was then serving as the State 

Department political advisor to CINCPAC, was keeping Sharp up-to-date about the department’s thinking on the issue.75

Several weeks after the Miki visit, Ambassador Shimoda sounded out the U.S. side once 

again. Shimoda was preparing to return to Japan for consultations on Sato’s upcoming trip 

to the United States. After summarizing the U.S. position as he understood it, Shimoda 

laid out the basic thinking on the Japanese side and explained that his government “urgently hopes for at least more advanced steps” on the Bonins.76 Bundy stated the United 

States “appreciated the GOJ[’s] hopes on Bonins” and confirmed the U.S. “readiness . . . to 

take a hard look at Bonins as action separate from Ryukyus.” He stressed, however, that 

no final decision had been made and mentioned that the government remained concerned 

any action on the issue would, instead of being considered a step forward, actually “increase 

pressures in Japan for Ryukyu reversion.”

A few days later, Washington was visited by retired Admiral Hoshina Zenshiro, who 

had been elected to the Diet in 1955 and subsequently served as the chairman of the 

LDP’s Security Research Council (Jiminto Anzen Hosho Chosakai). Hoshina—a hawk on 

defense issues particularly as they related to Okinawa and the need for the United States 

to maintain nuclear weapons as part of its nuclear umbrella for Japan there—was designated by Sato to help push the U.S. side, particularly the Navy, to accept reversion of the 

Bonin Islands. It was hoped that this former Imperial Navy man, who was instrumental 

in working with the United States in building up the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, 

would be able to convince his Navy counterparts to go along. Over the course of more than 

a decade and a half, Hoshina had maintained a good relationship with many U.S. Navy 

figures, including retired Admiral Arleigh A. Burke, head of the Center for Strategic and 

International Studies, which he helped found in 1962 as the Center for Strategic Studies, 

then located at Georgetown University.77 Burke had served as Chief of Naval Operations 

from 1955 to 1961, and over the years had been a conduit for bilateral relations, introducing, for example, Hoshina to Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, who had just assumed the 

position of CNO in August.78 Moorer was at Pearl Harbor and had a bad relationship 

with McNamara, particularly for what he saw as political leaders’ interference in military 

decisions as well as McNamara starving the Navy budget and not replacing aging ships.79

He was the third CNO—after Leahy and Radford—to become chairman of the JCS.80 He 

also served in Japan as Commander, U.S. 7th Fleet, from October 1962 to June 1964, and 

then in Hawaii, as Commander, Pacific Fleet, from June 1964 to March 1965. Getting the 

U.S. Navy on board was crucial for the Japanese government—the service controlled the 

administration of the islands and its submarines and ships used Chichi Jima to support its 

Pacific strategy.

Hoshina first called on Halperin at the Office of the Secretary of Defense on 2 October 

to discuss the security treaty in addition to the Bonin and Ryukyu Islands. He cautioned 

the United States to handle the problem of Okinawa and the Bonins “astutely,” warning 

“it would become an emotional problem which would damage relations between the two 

countries” if it did not.81 While Hoshina was cautious on Okinawa, he felt that admin-
385

The Reversion, 1967–68

istrative rights over the Bonin Islands could be returned immediately. He alluded to the 

racially motivated policy with regard to the islanders, stating the “Japanese people had 

doubts about U.S. intentions.”82 Calling the Bonins problem a “political matter rather than 

a military problem,” he pointed out that “failure to resolve the issue would irritate Japanese 

sentiments” and urged President Johnson to tell Prime Minister Sato when he arrived in 

November that the United States would agree to return the islands.83

Later in the week, on 5 October, Hoshina met with State Department officials Richard 

L. Sneider and Richard R. Hart, both in the office of Japan affairs. Hoshina again stressed 

national sentiment in Japan. He stated that the return of the Bonin Islands would be of 

“mutual benefit,” including leading to, among other things, the “relax[ation of ] Japanese 

pressures for the reversion of Okinawa.”84 He added that Japan would be able to undertake 

greater security responsibilities in the Bonins area, including antisubmarine warfare activities in the Western Pacific. While Sneider did not comment, this was one of the critical 

points the U.S. side wanted to hear. No doubt, Hoshina had gotten some cues from his 

interaction during the week with Burke and Moorer.

Around the same time in Tokyo, Miki, who had returned to Japan on 25 September, 

spoke at an America-Japan Society luncheon on 5 October. He pointed out that, while the 

United States appeared reluctant to discuss the reversion of Okinawa until the Vietnam 

War had ended, Japanese feelings “demand early return” regardless of the Vietnam problem. 

He further expressed his view that it was “important for each side to place itself in the position of the other.”85

Next, I would like to turn to the problem of Okinawa and Ogasawara. To what 

extent does the United States understand Japan’s position in this matter? I believe 

that Secretary of State Rusk understands the national sentiment of the Japanese 

people in seeking an early return of these islands. However, as far as the general 

public and the Congress of the United States is concerned, the problem of utmost 

concern is the war in Vietnam. We must recognize that they do not have such great 

interest in the problem of Okinawa. Not only that, the United States considers the 

military importance of Okinawa as vital in the security of the entire Far East area. 

It believes that any weakening of the military effectiveness of Okinawa, resulting 

from its return to Japan, should be avoided. Of course, for Japan also, the handling 

of the Okinawa problem is a vital security issue. The keystone of Japan’s security 

lies in the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty. Needless to say, this coincides with the interests of our two countries. However, we must recognize that the respective views 

and positions of Japan and the United States are not identical. I am convinced that 

this problem can be adjusted if both our countries approach it from the basis of 

our mutual goal of strengthening United States-Japanese relations. It was with this 

thought in mind that I said recently in Washington that I was neither optimistic 

nor pessimistic. This question will be fully discussed at the highest level of government when Prime Minister Sato meets President Johnson in November. Until 

then, we in the Foreign Ministry will undertake all the necessary spadework in 

preparation for this meeting. So long as both sides exercise care and consideration 

in the conduct of U.S.-Japan relations, I believe that a just solution to the prob-
386

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

lem will inevitably be found. Toward this end, the leaders and the peoples of both 

countries must approach the problem with wisdom and reason. We all realize that 

matters of great importance cannot be settled in a day. But I have high hopes that 

the coming talks between our Prime Minister and President Johnson will mean a 

major step forward toward an overall solution of this problem.86

Ambassador Johnson also attended the meeting, undertaking some diplomacy on the 

sidelines of this unofficial gathering. Miki informed him that he had been meeting with 

Sato on the Okinawa problem and the wording of the joint communiqué to be released in 

November, expressing his hope to meet with Johnson the following week to begin work on 

the document.87 In his telegram to Rusk, Johnson expressed praise for Miki’s comments 

on Vietnam, in which Miki said it would be a “dangerous gamble” for the United States to 

stop bombing North Vietnam without a guarantee that the latter would come to the peace 

table, and called on North Vietnam’s friends to act as guarantors that it would “come to 

the table for productive talks.”88 Johnson said the comments should be read as a response 

to statements made to Miki in Washington that Japan needed to assume a “larger degree 

of political responsibility in this part of the world.”89 He also noted that Miki’s comments, 

which were similar to those that Sato had recently made in Bangkok, were a “reflection of 

the very healthy effect” Sato’s trip had had on the prime minister, too.90

Toward a Joint Communiqué

As Miki had alluded, the first round of talks on the joint communiqué began on 11 October.91 At their two-hour meeting, he handed Ambassador Johnson a copy of the version 

of the draft communiqué that the Japanese had prepared for discussion purposes, which 

Johnson subsequently forwarded to Washington.

Symbolic of the importance that the prime minister placed on the problem of the Bonin 

Islands and Okinawa, much of the draft was devoted to those subjects:

The President and the Prime Minister frankly discussed the matter of reversion of 

the Ryukyu and Ogasawara Islands. The Prime Minister emphasized that it is unnatural and abnormal that the Ryukyu and Ogasawara Islands, which are Japanese 

territories and their residents who are Japanese nationals, are still, 22 years after the 

end of the war, placed under the administrative right of the United States, and that 

the national sentiment of the Japanese people will not be able to leave such a situation indefinitely. He then expressed his conviction, from the standpoint of further 

strengthening friendly and cooperative relations between the two countries, that 

the time has come to seek an adequate solution to the problem of reversion of the 

Ryukyu and Ogasawara Islands on the basis of mutual understanding and trust 

between the governments and peoples of the two countries . . . On the question 

of the Ogasawara Islands, the President stated that, recognizing that it is possible 

to return the administrative right over the Nampo Shoto (including the Bonin 

Islands, Rosario Island, and the Volcano Islands) and Parece Vela and Marcus Island without hampering the security interests of the free world in the Far East, the 

United States government is prepared to return the administrative right over these 
387

The Reversion, 1967–68

islands to the Japanese government as testimony to the good faith of the United 

States government. The Prime Minister expressed his appreciation to this decision 

of the President, and stated that the return of the administration right over these 

islands would not only contribute to solidifying the ties of friendship between the 

two countries but also help reinforcing the conviction of the Japanese people that 

the problem of the return of the administrative right over the Ryukyu Islands will 

also be solved within the framework of mutual trust between the two countries. 

The President and Prime Minister agreed that the two governments enter immediately into consultations to make necessary arrangements for the implementation 

of the return of the Ogasawara Islands.92

In his accompanying telegram, Ambassador Johnson informed the State Department 

that he emphasized to Miki that one of the U.S. government’s main concerns was the relationship between the Bonins reversion and the Okinawa question. Miki, Johnson wrote, 

stated that both the foreign minister and the prime minister felt the return of the Bonins 

would enable the Sato government to better deal with the “public opinion problem” on 

the Ryukyus by demonstrating that the United States was not interested in keeping administrative rights over the Article 3 islands but did so only for security factors.93 Johnson 

explained that he had asked if the Japanese government “could and would” use the return of 

the Bonins “to buy time on the Ryukyus.”94 Miki replied that the “government would and 

could use it to buy time because this would enable the government to show ‘the goodwill’ 

of the U.S. . . . Since Okinawa and Ogasawara will be the focus of attention for [the] prime 

minister’s visit and since they will be unable to say when Okinawa will be returned, it would 

be most helpful in dealing with [the] overall problem to have a commitment on Ogasawara 

in November.”95

Johnson also asked about separating Iwo Jima from the islands to be returned. The 

foreign minister responded that “it would be very difficult to exempt” Iwo Jima as it would 

“blunt the effect of the return of the remainder of the islands.” Miki stated (according to 

the U.S. telegram) that the “airbase on Iwo could be ‘left’ under the security treaty.”96 He 

also said that he was aware of U.S. public opinion problems on the question, however, and 

thought “some special arrangement” might be possible.97 Miki did not provide specifics 

and limited his comment to saying the GOJ “could consider ‘some measures’ to meet U.S. 

national sentiment.”98 Next, Johnson asked about Japan’s assuming a greater defense role, 

referring to a statement at the Security Subcommittee in May.99 Miki said it was “only 

natural” that the Japanese government would take on additional defense responsibilities, 

and thus the prime minister needed to be prepared to assure President Johnson on this 

question, but it would take some time for the government to firm up its position.100

The following week, Johnson wrote to ask the State Department for its guidance on the 

Bonins question, as he was scheduled to meet Miki again shortly. He stated that he believed 

the United States “would not seek a decision on the Bonins” until immediately before Sato’s 

arrival in Washington, and it was seen how far Japan had come in “matters of interest to 

us.”101 Johnson was uncertain whether if by discussing other matters, he was “leading them 

down the garden path to think there is some real hope of getting the Bonin Islands if they 

came through on these matters,” or if he “shut the door firmly on the Bonins,” the United 
388

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

States would get less cooperation on these other matters.102 If the door was going to be 

shut, Johnson urged that Sato be told “sooner rather than later” and be prepared for the 

“considerable” consequences.103

By chance, Johnson received a telegram from the State Department about the communiqué the same day, but it did not reference his telegram, and his did not reference the 

department’s, and so it seems they just missed each other. The State Department, after 

examining the draft communiqué sent by Johnson on 11 October, replied that while it 

was “disappointing in some respects,” the department nevertheless realized it was simply 

an “opening gambit” by the Japanese government.104 Regarding the Bonins, the department told Johnson it supported his preliminary comments to Miki and mentioned that it 

assumed the Japanese government understood that the U.S. had made no commitment on 

the return of the Bonin Islands.

The next day, on 18 October, Ambassador Shimoda, who had recently returned from 

Tokyo, called on Bundy. The assistant secretary told him that the department had just sent 

off its comments to Ambassador Johnson the evening before and stated many of the same 

reservations regarding the communiqué that Johnson had told the foreign minister.105 These 

included the fact that the United States had made no final decision on return of the islands, 

the concern it had over the failure of the Japanese government in making special provisions 

for Iwo Jima, and the desire to see Japan assuming additional defense responsibilities connected with the return of the Bonin Islands.

Later that week, on Saturday, 21 October, Togo handed Purnell a copy of an aidemémoire on the Bonins that had been promised by Miki earlier.106 The seven-page document builds on the earlier one of 15 July, and tries to answer the question of whether the 

reversion of the Bonins will stimulate the calls for the reversion of Okinawa by stating,

It should be borne in mind that the movements for the return of the administrative 

right over Okinawa still continue to gather momentum regardless of actions which 

might be taken in respect of Ogasawara . . . It is believed, in these circumstances, 

that the consideration for the temporary impact which the return of Ogasawara 

might give to the urge for the return of Okinawa should not let us lose sight of the 

far more basic question . . . namely, the question of how the Government of Japan 

should best be able to persuade the people with confidence and in good conscience, 

in order to handle the problem of Okinawa wisely, that they should seek a solution 

of the problem within the context of the friendly relationship between the two 

countries . . . Since the announcement on the return of the administration of Ogasawara is expected this time to be combined with that on the basic understanding 

on the intension of the United States to return the administrative right over Okinawa, the Government of Japan will be in an even better position than at the time 

of the reversion of the Amami Oshima Group to tell the public that the return of 

Ogasawara is a concrete proof of the good faith of the United States.107

The Japanese government’s aide-mémoire also covered other issues that Johnson had 

raised, including the status of Iwo Jima and Japanese defense responsibilities.
389

The Reversion, 1967–68

Regarding the former, the Japanese government stated that, while it understood that “a 

special sentiment may exist” among Americans concerning Iwo Jima, both countries had 

developed relations with one another “rising above the hard experiences of the past war.” 

Further, it would be “out of tune with our present relationship” to separate Iwo Jima due to 

those sentiments and the memories of the war.108 It cautioned that such an action would 

only result in “reducing the overall political gains to be obtained” from reversion.109 Nevertheless, the aide-mémoire suggested ways of meeting U.S. sentiment on the question of Iwo 

Jima, such as erecting a memorial or building a memorial park commemorating the “courage 

and dedication” of the United States Marine Corps, and perhaps doing so as a “joint project 

of some form” by the two countries.110 “Such [a] memorial,” the paper went on, “should in 

our view be meant to commemorate the bravery of not only American but also Japanese 

soldiers, as well as to symbolize the present and future peace and friendship between our two 

countries.”111 With regard to military use of the islands, the document explained that the 

Japanese government was prepared to have the United States retain the necessary military 

facilities in the Bonins area “under the terms” of the mutual security treaty and to enter into 

consultations on “detailed arrangements.”112 With regard to the question of Japan’s assumption of a greater defense role, the communication noted the government’s intention to use 

the islands as air and sea bases for the Maritime Self-Defense Forces (MSDF) to maintain 

the security of the sea transportation route to and from Japan. Doing so, it explained, “will 

help strengthen the defense posture of the free world in this part of the world.” The paper 

said the United States would be informed of the detailed plan “in due course.”113

Purnell asked if all of Iwo Jima could be retained as an air base. Togo, admitting that the 

government had not considered it and thus he did not dismiss the idea, responded that such 

a situation would have to be justified on security needs and doubted that a convincing case 

could be made to the public. Togo privately felt that continued administration of the islands 

itself was “strange” and would only lead to the problem growing.114 Johnson, in commenting 

on Togo’s explanation and on the aide-mémoire in his telegram to the State Department, 

said he was inclined to agree that retaining Iwo Jima would “significantly detract here from 

value of the Bonins reversion.”115 Togo also elaborated on the idea of a joint memorial park 

for Iwo Jima, explaining that the government was willing to include all of Mt. Suribachi 

and indicating that an arrangement similar to the John F. Kennedy Memorial, dedicated 

in 1965 in the United Kingdom at Runnymede, could be worked out by which land was 

deeded to binational trustees. Togo also mentioned the possibility of turning over a portion of the park, if necessary, to the American Battle Monuments Commission, a federal 

agency established in 1923 after World War I to help maintain U.S. military cemeteries in 

foreign countries, among other duties. Johnson liked the idea of a joint memorial park as 

well, and thought it would be “most welcome” in Japan.116 Perhaps, for the same reason, he 

wrote that he did not like the alternative plan for the granting of land exclusively for the 

battle monuments commission, desiring to keep the project joint. He was also encouraged 

to see the “clear statement” of Japanese intentions to use the MSDF to help protect the sea 

lanes. This was exactly the type of more proactive role he had been encouraging Japan to 

take over the past year.

Another type of memorial or, better put, tribute was being discussed this same day. 

Sadly, former Prime Minister Yoshida Shigeru had passed away the day before, on 20 Oc-
390

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

tober, and Ambassador Johnson wrote to Secretary Rusk about attending the state funeral. 

Johnson saw the secretary of state as the “logical candidate,” particularly due to Rusk’s 

“personal association” with Yoshida from the time of the San Francisco peace treaty when 

Rusk was assistant secretary of state for Far Eastern affairs and helped negotiate the administrative agreement related to the bilateral security treaty.117 Johnson, however, noting 

the secretary’s “crushing schedule,” was concerned that if Rusk was to come to Japan at 

this point, he would “inevitably become involved in conversations with Sato and Miki on 

Okinawa and the Ogasawara issue.”118 In the end, Rusk, for different reasons, decided not 

to go to Japan, but the thought they put into it suggests the U.S. government did not want 

to show its cards prematurely and instead wished to see how far Japan was willing to go in 

getting the islands back.

Johnson had hoped for an answer early but Bundy wrote on the 24th that they were 

unable to provide guidance at this point on the Ryukyus and Bonins, and would have to do 

so later in the week.119

In the meantime, Miki asked the ambassador to meet on Saturday morning, 28 October, for approximately one hour to discuss Washington’s reaction to their meeting on 11 

October, and to share with Johnson a new aide-mémoire on Japan’s defense plans for the 

Bonin Islands. Johnson felt the document would be “very useful” and promised to forward 

it to Washington.120 Prefacing his comments that he was without instructions,121 Johnson 

then took up the question of Iwo Jima in an attempt to explain that it was a “matter of real 

concern” in Washington, as Rusk had indicated to Miki.122 The foreign minister, in turn, 

stated that he felt the joint memorial park would be a “good symbol of the new cooperative 

U.S.-Japan relationship,” and urged Johnson to inform the department of the importance 

of including Iwo Jima in the reversion of the Bonins as the Japanese government needed 

such “evidence of U.S. good will to demonstrate to the Japanese people U.S. good intentions 

in order to bring them along for solution of the Okinawa problem.”123 After Johnson explained in more detail American concerns about Iwo Jima, Miki repeated his government’s 

views and then asked that the United States “try to see the Japanese point of view and he 

would try to understand ours.”124 Regarding the question of the airfield on Iwo Jima, Togo, 

who was also in attendance, interjected that the United States would retain control of it 

under the security treaty, with the Japanese being given joint use. Eventually the airstrip 

would be turned over to the Japanese government, with U.S. forces being given joint use.

Johnson also asked if the Japanese government would be willing to be more forthcoming 

in the joint communiqué on economic assistance to Southeast Asia. Miki said it would be 

able to “improve and clarify” this portion, but would be unable to give an exact figure.125

In commenting on their talk and on the aide-mémoire sent that same day,126 Johnson 

said the document went “a long way” in advancing efforts to take greater responsibilities 

for their own defense and that of the area.127 The ambassador reaffirmed his view that insistence on retaining Iwo Jima “obviously detracts from [the] value of [the] package,” and 

because he doubted the “package would have any meaning for Japanese without Iwo Jima,” 

he urged that “this aspect be given full weight in our consideration of the Iwo Jima problem.”128 In concluding his telegram, he observed that Sato was “floundering” over how to 

handle the press, public opinion, and the opposition on the Okinawa question, which was 
391

The Reversion, 1967–68

due in part to his uncertainty as to how far the United States was willing to address his desires, including for the Bonins reversion.129 The ambassador emphasized that the problem 

was important not only for Sato’s own political future, but in his ability to be “responsive” 

to matters of “immediate and future interest” to the United States.130

By this point, it was still unclear if Miki would join the premier on his trip to the United 

States, but on 31 October, Sato informally decided on his participation, along with that of 

Chief Cabinet Secretary Kimura Toshio.131 According to Sato’s secretary, the prime minister had probably already decided on the people he planned to include in the reshuffled 

cabinet he was to form (on 25 November) after his trip, and chose some who would continue in the cabinet to accompany him.132 Miki’s political rivalry with Sato was already well 

known, and so the press and pundits speculated that his inclusion meant Sato wished for 

him to accept “collective responsibility” for the bilateral negotiations if they did not produce 

results.133 The official decision was made at the cabinet meeting on 2 November.134

The ambassador’s telegrams and other reporting were of strong interest not only to Rusk 

and McNamara, but also to senior officials in the Johnson White House, such as the president’s national security advisor, Rostow.135 Importantly, Rostow also had his own sources 

of information to supplement those from the State and Defense Departments. He was in 

contact with Wakaizumi Kei, a young professor of international relations at Kyoto Sangyo 

University whom Sato employed as a personal emissary to the White House because of his 

lack of confidence and trust in the Foreign Ministry. Wakaizumi, then just 37 years old, 

had an extensive network in the United States among academics and policy makers that 

Sato wanted to tap into to help push the Okinawa and Bonins negotiations. One of those 

contacts was Rostow, formerly a professor of economics and history at the Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology and an individual with a rich history in policy matters. Wakaizumi 

was not originally connected to the Okinawa question; he was a specialist on arms control 

and security policy. In 1966, he had the opportunity to brief Sato on the type of response 

Japan should take to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons proposed by 

the United States and the Soviet Union. Sato, who regularly consulted with scholars and 

experts, appeared to take a liking to Wakaizumi.136 In July, Fukuda Takeo, the secretary 

general of the LDP and a close confidante of Sato, asked Wakaizumi to sound out Washington on the Okinawa and Bonins question.137

Rostow, who had served as deputy special assistant to the president for National Security Affairs and chairman of the Policy Planning Council at the State Department, had 

succeeded McGeorge Bundy as national security advisor in early 1966. He had known 

Wakaizumi “well” since April 1965.138 Indeed, Rostow was the godfather of Wakaizumi’s 

son. With this special relationship, Wakaizumi called on Rostow on the morning of Friday, 

27 October, to tell him that he was “one of a small group of advisors” to Sato, and he wanted 

to speak about Okinawa and the Bonin Islands, “which are absolutely critical to the future 

of Japanese political life and the U.S.-Japan alliance.”139 While he agreed that the case for 

retention of administrative rights was “strong,” and explained why he felt so, he also argued 

that “there was a good case for early reversion,” and proceeded to explain his rationale.140

“The Japanese-U.S. alliance,” Wakaizumi stated, according to Rostow’s memorandum 

of conversation, “was more important to the security structure of the Pacific than the base 
392

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

itself.”141 He stated that Sato hoped agreement could be reached concerning the return of 

the islands, and mentioned that the prime minister was faced with several questions, including whether to “separate the issue of the Bonins from Okinawa, or treat the problem 

as a whole.”142 Rostow did not directly answer this question, but told Wakaizumi of the 

U.S. awareness of Sato’s desire for progress in the reversion questions, and explained that 

staff work was proceeding on the issue, but that the president had not yet made a decision. 

In response to a question about what Sato could bring as a “gift,” assuming he were not 

returning home “empty-handed,” Rostow replied that the United States would like to see 

stronger political support for the Vietnam War, greater economic assistance to the region 

and the Asian Development Bank, and any ideas the prime minister had about a peaceful 

settlement in Vietnam.143 Wakaizumi promised to tell only Sato of the conversation and 

flew back to Japan.

According to Sato’s diary entry, the two met on 6 November for more than one hour.144

That evening, he added in his diary that he was considering sending Wakaizumi again to 

Washington to help with the negotiations, particularly on the communiqué.145 Eventually, 

he did ask him to go.

In the meantime, Sato’s visit and the related outstanding issues were the subject of the 

weekly Tuesday lunch that President Johnson held with Rusk, McNamara, and other cabinet members, a format similar to that of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, which 

he had once chaired. The lunches, which began in February 1964, were a “deceptively informal” affair, explains the author of a book on Johnson and his approach to foreign policy.146

Despite meeting more than 150 times over the next five years, or twice as often as the 

National Security Council during that same period, “The Tuesday lunch, gave the impression of no agenda and no procedure for follow-up. In fact, it operated with a frugal support 

system: There was an agenda, approved by Johnson, and the National Security advisor . . . 

took notes. The notes were held closely, and most of the follow-up was oral.”147

As the national security advisor, Rostow had to keep Johnson informed of the status of 

the delicate negotiations for the issues to be raised during the Sato visit. In a memorandum 

prepared by Alfred L. Jenkins, a State Department officer then working for the National 

Security Council, Jenkins shared with Rostow copies of the telegram from Ambassador 

Johnson’s latest meeting with Miki, as well as the defense-related aide-mémoire, and noted 

that Japan intended to increase its defense responsibilities as well as its economic aid to 

Southeast Asia.148 The memorandum emphasized the concerns that the ambassador had 

raised, namely that Sato needed guidance on U.S. intentions with regard to the islands so 

that he would be able to shape the debate in Japan, and that the prime minister needed a 

promise that the Bonins would be returned in order to “buy time against pressure for immediate return of the Ryukyus.”149 Paraphrasing Miki, the memo stated that the foreign 

minister had said that an expression of U.S. intent to return the islands, even without specifying when and how they would be returned, would meet Sato’s needs, assuming the Bonin 

Islands were returned soon. Finally, Jenkins informed Rostow that despite the ambassador’s 

“strong pitch” for retaining Iwo Jima, Ambassador Johnson had met “prompt resistance” 

from the foreign minister.150 Jenkins viewed the Iwo Jima issue as more political than 

military in nature, “[I]t seems our position on Iwo Jima is based more on concerns about 
393

The Reversion, 1967–68

[U.S.] domestic public opinion than on strategic grounds. It is hard for me to believe that 

[American] public opinion would not accept the return of Iwo Jima at this stage, provided 

something like a national monuments arrangement were worked out.”151 Importantly, both 

Secretaries Rusk and McNamara believed that it was unnecessary to separate Iwo Jima 

from the rest of the islands to be returned, and supported its inclusion in the reversion of 

the Bonin Islands. Jenkins noted the State Department’s view that, while there should be 

no change in this approach, it needed to be left open to reconsideration pending further 

consultations with the Japanese and Congress.

As planned, the Ryukyus and Bonins were one of the subjects discussed at the luncheon.152 After his meeting with the president and internal discussions, Rusk informed Ambassador Johnson by telegram on 1 November that pending consultations with Congress, 

the department wanted to leave open the question of any special arrangements especially 

for Iwo Jima.153 Rusk also told Johnson that from the military perspective, the facilities on 

Chichi Jima were more important to the United States than those at Iwo Jima.

That same day, Sneider of the State Department’s Japan office began drafting the language of a joint communiqué, which Rusk later shared with the president.

The President and Prime Minister also reviewed the status of the Bonin Islands 

and agreed that the mutual security interests of Japan and the United States could 

be accommodated within the arrangements for the return of administration of 

these islands to the GOJ.

They, therefore, agreed that the two Governments will enter immediately into consultation regarding specific arrangements for accomplishing the early restoration of 

these islands to Japan without detriment to the security of the area. These consultations will take into account the intention of the Japanese Government, expressed 

by the Prime Minister, gradually to assume much of the responsibility for the defense of the area. The President and Prime Minister agreed that the United States 

would retain such military facilities and areas in the Bonin Islands as required in 

the mutual security of both countries.

The Prime Minister stated that the return of the administrative rights over the 

Bonin Islands would not only contribute to solidifying the ties of friendship between the two countries, but would also help to reinforce the conviction of the 

Japanese people that the return of the administrative rights over the Ryukyu Islands will also be solved within the framework of mutual trust between the two 

countries.154

On 3 November, Rusk forwarded to Rostow for the president the above text of the draft 

summit communiqué with Sato, informing Johnson that he (Rusk), Secretary McNamara, 

and the Joint Chiefs of Staff “are fully agreed on the general principle” to begin immediate consultations on the return of the Bonin Islands.155 Rusk noted that the language in 

the text had been “strengthened” since he last discussed the matter with the president at 

their Tuesday luncheon, and said that it “fully protects whatever military needs we wish to 

retain.”156 Rusk explained that it is not necessary “for any foreseeable military purpose” to 

exempt Iwo Jima or Chichi Jima from the return of the islands.157 He concluded the memo 
394

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

by saying the decision to return the islands, as reflected in the attached communiqué,158 was 

“a wise and essential move at this time in the overall framework of our relations with Japan, 

including our desire to obtain more firm Japanese support on Vietnam and favorable action 

by Japan particularly with respect to our balance of payments problems.”159

Despite the agreement of Rusk and McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff continued 

to oppose the actual reversion of the Bonin Islands. According to a “supplementary note” 

prepared by Rostow for the president, the chairman of the JCS, General Wheeler, was 

“personally willing to go along,” but the JCS did not agree.160 Rostow found their argument to be a “marginal position . . . an old view deep in the Pentagon; namely that to make 

any concession to the Japanese with respect to the Ryukyus and Bonins is to put us on a 

slippery slope. The fact is that the old, immediately pre-war relationship is changing and 

must change.”161 Rostow, like Rusk and McNamara, looked to the future of the relationship, not its past. “Our objective can only now be,” he continued, “a gradual and judicious 

transition into a new relationship in which the Japanese take increased responsibility as a 

partner as we alter the essentially occupation status on the islands. At the moment they are 

assuming more partnership responsibility in aide and monetary affairs; and they should do 

more. The transition to military partnership will take longer.”162 Rostow suggested that the 

president meet with Rusk, McNamara, and Wheeler, with the JCS chairman laying out the 

arguments of his colleagues, and if Johnson agreed with Rusk and McNamara for reversion, then to have Wheeler report to the JCS that their argument had been heard prior to 

making a final decision. It was an elaborate ploy, but perhaps something necessary to get 

their acquiescence.163

The meeting was held the following afternoon, Saturday, 4 November. Several issues, 

especially Vietnam, were discussed, but toward the end of the meeting the subject turned 

to the Bonin Islands. Wheeler said that the JCS agreed with the need to consult with Japan 

on the return of the islands but felt that the proposal by Rusk and McNamara went “too far, 

too fast, especially with regard to Chichi Jima and Iwo Jima.”164 Wheeler added that, before 

the president returned administrative control of the islands to Japan, it was important to 

determine what Japan intended to do about their defense. The president then interjected, 

“in other words, you’re saying ‘put your money where your mouth is.’ ”165 McNamara said 

it would be impossible to get “something signed” between then and 18 November, when 

Sato was scheduled to return to Japan, and he believed the president did not wish for Sato 

to return home without “some resolution.”166

Johnson asked why he should not say to Sato, “here is our attitude and we are willing to 

turn over control of the islands when you are ready to sign up,” and then inquired, what “are 

[we] getting from Sato on Vietnam?”167 McNamara, who had earlier noted that Sato had 

done a “good deed for us” by going to Vietnam and “the mere fact that he went there is an 

endorsement for our policies there,” replied, “that guy put his political future in his hands 

when he went to Vietnam.”168 Johnson shut him up by saying, “but what I’m interested in is 

bodies.”169 McNamara repeated that Sato could be helpful by speaking out for our policies.

Johnson asked his advisors once again why he could not say that “we’re ready to move 

when you’re ready to assume your part of the defense?”170 McNamara gave three reasons: 

the administration did not know what it wanted Sato to do; politically, Sato could not do 
395

The Reversion, 1967–68

much at the present time; and the United States wishes to have nuclear bases there later. 

On the question of nuclear weapons, Wheeler suggested that the United States tell the 

Japanese that it reserved the right to negotiate the inclusion of nuclear weapons on the 

Bonin Islands, and explained that as the islands lie on the “great circle route for submarine 

traffic” between the Chinese mainland and the continental United States, the government 

might “in time want to put nuclear weapons on the Bonins.”171 When Rusk pointed out 

that the Bonins would not be needed unless “Guam is knocked out,” Wheeler observed that 

it would impact the negotiations on Okinawa, as Japan would insist on “the same formula 

in Okinawa on nuclear weapons and this will be a precedent.”172 Rusk did not argue but, 

sounding tired, noted that the “appetite on Okinawa will feed itself. All we are doing is 

gaining time.”173

Johnson, like U.S. leaders before him, especially former Secretary of State John Foster 

Dulles, showed his frustration at this point: “We should not give away land just to put a 

man in good humor for 48 hours. The Japanese have been treated darn well. Why can’t we 

say that we don’t want to hold on to the islands, but we cannot secure the world alone? 

Maybe we can’t work out an arrangement in two weeks, but let us know when you’re ready. 

I’m somewhat disappointed with the Japanese and Pakistan and some of these others anyway.”174 McNamara agreed that Japan needed to be pushed, but he said “this is not the 

issue. This will only weaken Sato.”175 Rusk shared the same view as the defense secretary: 

“[Sato’s] been the most pro-American Prime Minister Japan has had since World War II. 

Besides, we are only a squatter on the Bonins.”176 When Johnson asked if the communiqué 

was saying “when you move, we move,” Rostow said it actually was committing the United 

States to enter into consultations on the early return of the islands.177 McNamara countered that it was saying more than that—if Japan lets the United States have bases on Iwo 

Jima and Chichi Jima, then administrative rights would be returned to Japan. Confused, 

Johnson asked McNamara and Rostow to “concisely and clearly put down on paper” what 

the United States was offering in this communiqué and present it to him later.178

In the interim, the president seems to have approved of Rusk’s recommendations for 

the new draft language for the communiqué introduced above, and the secretary of state 

informed Ambassador Johnson of the new draft.179 Rusk noted the “encouraging recognition of the GOJ” of its responsibilities for the region, and its understanding of the relationship “between a Ryukyus settlement and its own broader regional security.”180 Rusk praised 

Sato’s trip through the region, and the prime minister’s and foreign minister’s “helpful 

statements” on Vietnam, and the government’s “public efforts to place the Ryukyu issue 

on a realistic security basis.”181 Rusk hoped Sato would be able to discuss in more concrete 

terms Japan’s increased assistance for Southeast Asia and in addressing the balance of payments problem, including matching U.S. contributions to the Asian Development Bank. 

Based on these “encouraging signs” of Japan’s recognition on the need to share more in the 

responsibilities of the region, Rusk told the ambassador that Washington was prepared to 

“take a meaningful step forward toward resolution of the territorial issues.”182 Specifically, 

Rusk told Johnson that,with regard to the Bonin Islands, the United States was willing to 

enter into negotiations for the return of administrative rights if Japan agreed to U.S. retention of all current military facilities and other areas deemed necessary; provided assurances 

(as Miki had stated) that the GOJ would use return of the Bonins to “stem pressures” for 
396

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

the immediate reversion of the Ryukyus; and agreed to gradually assume responsibilities for 

maintaining current facilities and for expanding antisubmarine warfare and other defense 

operations in area.

At this point, Rusk also told the ambassador that, although the United States saw “no 

immediate need to station nuclear weapons in the Bonins,” he would have to inform Sato 

and Miki that the United States “reserves the right to discuss the question of nuclear weapons facilities in our consultations on the Bonins.”183 Moreover, Johnson was asked to make 

clear that “any resolution of this matter would not be a precedent for the Ryukyus.”184

This instruction, Rusk said, was based on the JCS position that the issue had to be raised 

in some form “against contingency of need for storage of ASW [antisubmarine warfare] 

weapons in the event of prospective enemy submarine threat and unavailability of nuclear 

storage in Ryukyus and Marianas.”185 In other words, to get the JCS to go along, the State 

Department had to agree to raise it with its Japanese counterparts, with the understanding 

that the handling of the issue would be discussed with the government as consultations got 

under way. Rusk mentioned a couple of formulas that might be possible with the Japanese 

side, including “some form of GOJ assurance that it would give sympathetic consideration 

of any such request if need arose” and “a request for waiver of prior consultation provisions 

of [the] Treaty.”186 Rusk added, however, that they believed the Japanese would “react negatively” on the latter point and thus “no assurances had been given [to the JCS] as to what 

outcome can be achieved.”187 In any case, Rusk felt it important that Sato and Miki “be on 

notice” that nuclear facilities were not being excluded.188 Rusk wrote that he was leaving it 

up to the ambassador’s judgment as to whether Sato and Miki should be urged to keep the 

matter entirely to themselves or not, but thought it important in light of any Japanese government assurance “in the end be[ing] itself a very closely held and high-level matter.”189

Johnson met with Miki the following morning, sharing with him a copy of the U.S. 

draft of the communiqué and telling him of the nuclear weapons issue. According to Johnson’s telegram to Rusk informing him of their meeting, Miki was “obviously rocked” by the 

mention of nuclear weapons storage on the Bonin Islands.190 He explained to Miki that the 

United States was not “asking for their agreement in the Bonins prior to, and as a condition 

precedent to, the issuance of communiqué language on the Bonins,” but simply notifying 

the Japanese government that the United States “reserve[s] the right to raise, discuss, and 

hopefully reach agreement” with Japan on this issue “within [the] framework of [the] present security treaty” when detailed negotiations on the Bonin Islands were undertaken.191

Softening the blow, Johnson told Miki that the United States was making no exception for 

Iwo Jima, and the use of the term “Bonins” included all the islands other than the Ryukyus. 

There would be a need, he pointed out, to discuss facilities on Iwo Jima, including the 

Japanese proposal for a memorial park. Miki avoided comment on these issues and said he 

was going to meet with Sato later that day, 6 November. Sato’s diary entry makes mention 

of the receipt of the communiqué and meeting with Foreign Ministry officials.192 Sato also 

met with Miki the following day.

Johnson met again with Miki on 7 November, for what he called a “most rigorous 

session” lasting more than three hours.193 Most of the discussion dealt with the Japanese 

government’s revised draft for the section on Okinawa, which the foreign minister said 
397

The Reversion, 1967–68

was necessary in order to get the public to accept the “delayed reversion” of Okinawa and 

to prevent their interpretation of the Bonins as a “scapegoat for the lack of progress on 

Okinawa.”194 Ambassador Johnson explained that the draft in its present form would be 

hard for Washington to accept, and urged the Japanese to bring it more in line with the U.S. 

position so that it could be seriously considered. At the end of their meeting, the two men 

became philosophical. Miki stated that he

felt there was a gap between Washington and Tokyo concerning Japanese security, 

but . . . in fact there was no basic difference. The GOJ had difficulties concerning 

the Bonins and Okinawa and was trying to find a solution compatible with her 

territorial problems and security requirements. On the occasion of the prime minister’s visit to Washington, he must be given the tools to guide public opinion and 

the U.S. must trust [the] GOJ not to misuse these tools.195

To this, Johnson agreed. There was the “impression in Washington that the GOJ was 

less interested in the security of Japan than was the USG [U.S. government]. Japan seemed 

‘ashamed’ of what it was in fact doing to cooperate in our use of bases in Japan to support 

our effort in Vietnam and elsewhere in East Asia. I hoped that they could shift to talking 

pride in this and the prime minister’s visit offered good opportunity to correct public impression in U.S.”196 As described earlier, these were the same opinions Johnson introduced in his 

memoirs.

The ambassador departed Japan on 8 November to consult with officials in Washington 

before the prime minister’s party arrived.197 Johnson had two surprises waiting for him when 

he arrived in the nation’s capital. First, he was “startled to discover” that no one had raised 

the issue of the reversion of Iwo Jima with key members of the House and Senate Armed 

Services Committees, and thus he was requested to do so the next day. “I thought this should 

have been the responsibility of our people in Washington,” Johnson records in his memoirs, 

“but I had no choice but to agree.”198 The second was his discovery that the legislators were 

in fact “quite sympathetic” to returning Iwo Jima to Japan.199 Johnson and Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Paul C. Warnke visited key legislators to 

explain the plan to return the Bonin Islands while promising that whatever final agreement 

was reached, the Japanese would let the United States “keep our flag flying over our Iwo Jima 

memorial.”200 Ironically, as Johnson admits, he had no idea what he was promising as he had 

never been to Iwo Jima before. “At the time I assumed that the memorial was identical to the 

large impressive bronze statue that sits in the Arlington National Cemetery, commemorating 

the famous picture of the Marines raising the flag atop Mount Suribachi.”201 While he does 

not mention it, the presence of Mansfield, the Senate majority leader and former Marine 

who called for the reversion of the Bonin Islands and whose views were well known on Capitol Hill, had a calming presence on the debate and reactions of his colleagues.202

Nevertheless, in reading the memos circulating in the executive branch the weekend before Sato’s arrival, the tension must have been palpable. His visit was scheduled for early the 

following week, and there were still several things to be worked out with regard to Okinawa 

and the Bonins, including the timeline in the case of the former and the issue of nuclear 

weapons storage in the case of the latter. Officials worked through the weekend, despite it 

being the Veterans’ Day holiday.
398

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Another issue that the administration had to consider was reading how far Japan was 

willing to meet U.S. requests. On 8 November, Rostow was handed a list of Japanese actions in recent years for which the United States was appreciative and a list of those that 

the United States sought help from Japan.203 Among the appreciated actions, which numbered 25 in total, the subcategories included Vietnam, military activities, Asian assistance, 

regional cooperation, balance of payments assistance, and the UN. There were 11 actions 

that the United States sought from Japan on assistance, military matters, balance of payments, and other issues.

In addition to coordinating the papers, Rostow had a meeting lined up with Wakaizumi 

on 11 November. This time, Wakaizumi came as a “confidential personal representative,” a 

title he was given by Sato on 8 November.204 It became clear to Ambassador Johnson at this 

point that Sato’s use of Wakaizumi probably had to do with the prime minister’s distrust 

of his foreign minister. “Sato did not entirely trust Miki, and wanted to make sure that he, 

not Miki, controlled the terms Japan offered in the negotiations.”205 The prime minister, 

according to Wakaizumi, may have also felt that Miki was handling the talks irresponsibly, publicly pushing for a denuclearized reversion not necessarily because Sato may have 

wanted it, but “for what appeared to be self-interested political reasons.”206 In any case, the 

prime minister wanted to keep as many lines of communication as possible open.

Sato’s wide use of his networks was also apparent in the fact that he made a former reporter from the Sankei Shimbun, Kusuda Minoru, his personal secretary in March 1967.207

Kusuda had long covered Sato as a political reporter and was widely respected in the field. 

In addition, before becoming his secretary, he regularly provided Sato with advice on Japan’s politics and foreign relations. One example of Sato’s use of Kusuda’s network related 

to the Bonins. During a visit to Washington in late 1965, for example, as part of the U.S. 

Information Agency/State Department’s International Visitors Program, Kusuda, then still 

with Sankei, had the chance to speak with veteran Sankei reporter Sakai Yoneo, who was 

based in Washington.208 Sakai told him that he thought Sato was mistaken to call for the 

early reversion of Okinawa as the international situation would not realistically permit that. 

“Instead,” he continued, “the U.S. would probably go along with the reversion of Ogasawara. 

When you meet with Deputy Undersecretary [U. Alexis] Johnson [on this trip], why don’t 

you ask him? He might provide some hints.”209 When Kusuda met with Johnson a few days 

later, he did ask him through Wickel, the State Department’s leading Japanese language 

interpreter. “The deputy undersecretary did not endorse what I said,” Kusuda wrote later, 

“but he did not deny it either.”210 Because it was an off-the-record interview, Kusuda could 

not write a story about Johnson’s comments or the interview, but he did tell Sato as soon as 

he could after returning to Japan.211 It is unclear what Sato thought about this, but in the 

end, the “Ogasawara first” approach was the one adopted, although political pressures made 

it such that Okinawa would also be high on the agenda, as the meeting between another of 

Sato’s contacts, Wakaizumi, and Rostow suggests.

Rostow expected the Ryukyus and the Bonins to be on the top of Wakaizumi’s list, 

because of some outstanding issues. A memo prepared for Rostow warned that Wakaizumi 

would probably “fish around for reasons why we may want nuclear storage in the Bonins.”212

Rostow should, the memo suggested, simply reiterate what Ambassador Johnson told Miki, 
399

The Reversion, 1967–68

i.e., that the United States reserved the right to discuss the issue during the negotiations 

on the islands’ return. As it happened, the focus of Wakaizumi’s meeting with Rostow was 

primarily on the perception that there was forward movement with Okinawa. As a result, 

Wakaizumi proposed a formula “within a few years” for inclusion in the joint communiqué 

about when agreement would be had on a satisfactory date for the reversion of Okinawa.

Later that day, Wakaizumi visited Rostow’s home for dinner.213 Asking for 10 minutes 

of privacy, Wakaizumi explained that when they met earlier, he had just gotten off the 

plane and was suffering jet lag, and not sure if his comments had been clearly understood. 

He read his comments to Rostow from a typed list. He said that “Mr. Sato is very grateful 

to the Johnson Administration for the favourable consideration to the early reversion of 

the Bonins. He is well aware of the difficult problems involved on your side.”214 He then 

added that he did not think Sato “has any objections to your reservations with regards to 

the Bonins’ reversion.”215 At the same time, Wakaizumi explained that the political pressure 

in Japan had grown so large over the issue of Okinawa’s return that “few Japanese evaluate 

the return of the Bonins as a great achievement. On the contrary,” he continued, “the great 

many people now fear that the return of the Bonins might be used as relief in exchange for 

the reversion of Okinawa.”216 Rather than being discouraged that Japan was simply going 

to ask for more, Rostow was encouraged by the comments, telling Rusk, “it is clear that 

Sato is prepared for a high price in aid and balance-of-payments help if we can meet him 

on this.”217

Wakaizumi’s evening appeals were too late to find their way in to the memo Rostow 

prepared for President Johnson on 10 November, but the young professor’s points certainly 

underscored the themes already in the memo. Rostow began by telling the president that 

the talks with Sato would be “very important in influencing how quickly” Japan was prepared to “come of age as a major league power and our full partner in Asia.”218

Preparations for the meeting continued during the week in Washington. In Japan, planning also continued, where Sato was under great pressure for a successful trip and response 

to his petitions. One petitioner was Tokyo Governor Minobe Ryokichi, who called on the 

prime minister on 6 November to seek the return of the islands.219 Sato finally departed 

Tokyo’s Haneda Airport in the afternoon of 12 November, and, after spending the night 

in Seattle, arrived in the afternoon of the 13th in Washington for the party’s stay at Blair 

House.220 Ambassador Johnson arrived with the group, having flown out in the president’s 

plane to Seattle to meet up with Sato’s delegation.221 On the plane ride to Washington, 

Johnson spoke privately with Sato about the arrangements and compromise formulas being 

discussed, but made it clear that only the president could make the final decision.222

Back in Washington, Rusk wrote to President Johnson on the 13th to inform him of 

his instructions to Ambassador Johnson to have Sato change the Japanese reference to the 

“earliest possible date” for reversion to alternative phrasing.223 Rusk also told the president 

about the status of consultations with congressional leaders, explaining that he personally 

spoke with Senator Mansfield and Congressman (and future President) Gerald R. Ford 

(R-MI). He added that Ambassador Johnson and Assistant Secretary Warnke had also met 

with Senators Everett M. Dirksen (R-IL), Richard B. Russell Jr. (D-GA), and Margaret 

Chase Smith (R-ME), as well as with Representatives L. Mendel Rivers (D-SC), Charles 
400

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

M. Price (D-IL), George H. Mahon (D-TX), and Glenard P. Lipscomb (R-CA). Similarly, 

Bundy had spoken with House Speaker John W. McCormack (D-MA), Majority Leader 

Carl B. Albert (D-OK), Senators J. William Fulbright (D-AR) and Bourke B. Hickenlooper (R-IA), and Representatives Thomas E. Morgan (D-PA), Clement J. Zablocki (DWI), E. Ross Adair (R-IN), and Frances P. Bolton (R-OH).

Overall, the consultations had gone “very smoothly” Rusk reported, and the reactions 

had generally been those of “clear approval [for] the proposed course,” which Rusk identified as “involving no change for the present in the Ryukyus but a decision to proceed with 

consultations for the reversion of the Bonins, subject to our reserving appropriate military 

and naval facilities including some special arrangements to deal with our national feeling 

about Iwo Jima.”224 No dissent, Rusk noted, had been expressed by any of those consulted, 

although Hickenlooper, a World War I Army veteran, said he would respond to Rusk if he 

had a problem with it after the chance to give it further thought.225 Rusk told the president 

that Hickenlooper had not contacted him. He also informed the president that they would 

consult with a few more congressional leaders and that the Department of Defense would 

inform the leadership of major veterans’ organizations later in the week. Reiterating, Rusk 

said that it seemed “clear” that the plan to return Iwo Jima and the remainder of the Bonin 

Islands conditionally had “entirely satisfactory congressional understanding and support.”226

The first meetings took place on 14 November, followed by final sessions the next day. 

The biggest difficulty was agreeing on the compromise wording of “within a few years” for 

setting the date for reversion of Okinawa. This caused part of the delay in the meetings on 

the 15th.227

The next morning, Sato met with Secretary Rusk to hammer out some details.228 The 

focus of the discussions, like most bilateral negotiations, was “find[ing] communiqué language tolerable both to U.S. political problems and to Sato’s political problems.”229

At 1100, Sato went to Arlington National Cemetery to lay wreaths at the graves of 

John F. Kennedy and John Foster Dulles.230 The prime minister became emotional thinking what Yoshida, his mentor who had died just a few weeks before, and Dulles were saying 

to each other now up in heaven about the agreement between him and President Johnson 

concerning the return of the remainder of the Article 3 territories.231 He was aware that 

there would be criticism back in Japan about the inability at this point to get the immediate 

and unconditional return of Okinawa, and acknowledged in his diary that it would be up to 

future historians to judge the merits of the agreement.232

The meeting on the afternoon of 15 November between the president and Sato was 

attended only by their interpreters, but fortunately a detailed record of conversation exists 

on the U.S. side.233 Going into the meeting, Sato thought it would be a brief one, as the 

joint communiqué had already been readied, but Johnson did not let up on the economic 

issues.234 The 90-minute exchange between the two men showed Johnson at his “armtwisting” finest and proved that he would not hesitate to employ his famous “treatment” 

even with foreign leaders. When Sato promised to study an issue the president raised with 

regard to balance-of-payments, Johnson said “don’t study it, do it.”235 Flattery and persuasion were other tactics Johnson used. Telling Sato that he should be “congratulated for the 
401

The Reversion, 1967–68

great victory” represented by the joint communiqué they were reviewing, he called it a “step 

forward” and something that should help the prime minister deal with public opinion in 

Japan. The president then added that the “Bonin Islands involved strong American sentiments and a deep emotional issue,” and praised Sato by explaining that it was “only Japan’s 

willingness to assume additional responsibilities that would enable him [the president] to 

defend the decision to return the islands [to Congress and the American people].”236 The 

fact that the U.S. deficit would reach almost $30 billion that year made Japan’s contributions all the more important, he said.

The day had been a long one for Sato, but the communiqué was finalized and released, 

and he had gotten a couple of important concessions from the United States. Not only 

were the Bonin Islands to be returned, but the Americans had agreed to make a decision 

about when it would return administrative rights over Okinawa within the next few years. 

Okinawa was no longer a question of “if ” but “when.” In a sense, it had always been so, but 

now the United States was publicly committed to returning the islands by a soon-to-be-set 

date. The Rubicon had been crossed.

The President and the Prime Minister also reviewed the status of the Bonin Islands 

and agreed that the mutual security interests of Japan and the United States could 

be accommodated within arrangements for the return of administration of these 

islands to Japan. They therefore agreed that the two governments will enter immediately into consultations regarding the specific arrangements for accomplishing 

the early restoration of these islands to Japan without detriment to the security 

of the area. These consultations will take into account the intention of the Government of Japan, expressed by the Prime Minister, gradually to assume much of 

the responsibility for defense of the area. The President and the Prime Minister 

agreed that the United States would retain under the terms of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan such military 

facilities and areas in the Bonin Islands as required in the mutual security of both 

countries. The Prime Minister stated that the return of the administrative rights 

over the Bonin Islands would not only contribute to solidifying the ties of friendship between the two countries but would also help to reinforce the conviction of 

the Japanese people that the return of the administrative rights over the Ryukyu 

Islands will also be solved within the framework of mutual trust between the two 

countries.237

Preparing for the Negotiations

On the way back from Washington, Ambassador Johnson stopped off in Honolulu again 

to brief the CINCPAC and requested his staff to prepare the materials the Japan Defense 

Agency ( JDA) would need to assume defense responsibilities for the islands.238 The JDA 

would not be officially tasked by Sato until February the following year, too late for the 

following fiscal year’s budget.239 The JDA would have to make do with the planned budget.

To prepare for the start of negotiations, Togo requested in late November the United 

States provide “as much preliminary information as possible” concerning U.S. military installations on the islands, laws and regulations now applied to local inhabitants, facilities 
402

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

being used by local inhabitants, and the U.S. thinking on the Suribachi memorial.240 According to Togo, the Japanese government hoped that the bilateral agreement could be 

completed to submit to the Diet by the end of January 1968, and as such, the Foreign 

Ministry wished to acquire as much data as possible. Togo, who desired discussions within 

the U.S.-Japan Joint Committee (established in 1960 after the revision of the bilateral security treaty) as early as possible, appeared particularly concerned about moving quickly on 

the issue of military installations “before numerous government agencies began visiting the 

islands and develop schemes of their own.”241 The Japan Defense Agency, Johnson noted 

in his telegram to the department, had also requested similar information on U.S. facilities.

Responding to the ambassador, the State Department reiterated the Johnson-Sato 

communiqué, which expressed the hope that the negotiations could be concluded quickly, 

and instructed him to remind Miki that the United States was committed to doing so.242

It explained that the department would work to gather and forward to the embassy as 

much factual material as available by mid-December, to be followed by formal negotiating 

instructions. Despite the desire for a quick conclusion, Rusk suggested that the ambassador 

tell Miki that the Japanese government’s wish to submit the agreement to the Diet by the 

end of January was “excessively optimistic,” as the “timing appears much too tight in view 

of the many details to be worked out.”243 Rusk also asked Johnson to request from the Japanese government information and maps showing the land usage and military base areas in 

the Bonins, particularly Chichi Jima, for the pre-1944 period.244

In the meantime, Johnson wrote to CINCPAC and COMNAVMARIANAS to request specific information, both for the embassy and the Japanese government, explaining 

that the “bits and pieces” it had received in the past were now “dated and of uncertain validity.”245 He emphasized in the interest of time, quickness over “completeness,” with more 

up-to-date information to be forwarded later.246 It was important to “let the GOJ get started on its homework,” Johnson explained, in order to allow them to plan for the integration 

of the Bonin Islanders back into the Japanese legal system.247 Among the materials that the 

embassy thought would be helpful were the code of military government regulations and 

proclamations in effect in the Bonin Islands, the Bonin Island Council legislation in effect, 

and semi-annual reports of the military government.248

Miki subsequently asked Johnson to come to the Foreign Ministry to discuss the Bonins agreement and the continuing review of the status of Okinawa, among other things. 

Because it was their first meeting following the summit, Miki began by expressing his “deep 

appreciation” for the efforts of the president and Secretary Rusk in making Sato’s visit to 

Washington such a success.249 After discussing other matters, Johnson told Miki that he 

was gathering the informational materials and expected to have his negotiating instructions 

“by the end of the year,” but thought it would be difficult to meet the Japanese government’s 

timetable.250 Miki and Togo told Johnson that the timetable had since been revised, and 

they were now hoping to complete the agreement by the end of February, with submission 

to the Diet in March. The foreign minister reiterated his desire to see the agreement kept 

as simple as possible, with the details being worked out in the bilateral joint committee or 

other staff-level meetings. He added that the government desired to send a survey mission 

on an MSDF ship sometime in mid-January 1968.
403

The Reversion, 1967–68

Johnson agreed in principle, mentioning the only concern being timing, and then raised 

the issue of the Mount Suribachi memorial. He told Miki of his commitment to congressional leaders during his meetings with them to the effect that the United States would retain the “statue and American flag.”251 Johnson said he would welcome the GOJ views as to 

how this could be accomplished, and according to documents declassified on the Japanese 

side at the author’s request, the ambassador said “there was no need to decide right now but 

it would be ideal if the U.S. could retain as is the memorial on the top of Iwo Jima (i.e., on 

Mt. Suribachi) following the return of the islands.”252

Miki was stunned, it seems, and had to ask Johnson, “Mr. Ambassador, you promised to 

leave the memorial as is?”253 Johnson replied in the affirmative, to which the foreign minister said he would like to think about it more, keeping in mind the ambassador’s promise. 

Miki then went on to give his personal opinion, stating that he thought it would be good 

to build a kinen koen (memorial park).254 Johnson explained that he doubted whether the 

top of Suribachi was big enough to accommodate a memorial park “as the U.S. memorial is 

already up there.”255 Miki said he “had thought the top of the mountain was big enough, in 

light of having a sort of basin or valley where the U.S. memorial was located,” and added, 

“in any case, I would like to study it, but it will be problematic if the memorial is really 

big.”256 Johnson’s account of the conversation, however, depicts less of an exchange, noting 

that Miki had said he felt “a joint memorial park was desirable”257 and that the two agreed 

to discuss the issue again when they had maps and photographs to work with.

Despite this brief account of their talks, the reality is, however, that there were clear differences in approaches with regard to the memorial that would lead to misunderstandings 

until the very end of the negotiations and even on the day of the signing of the agreement. 

Johnson alludes to that tension in his memoirs when he wrote, “At our November 29 meeting, I told Miki that I had committed myself with the Armed Services Committees [of 

both the Senate and House] to retaining our memorial atop Mount Suribachi, including 

its twenty-four-hour flag and statue. This clearly did not please him, since he had not previously known about the statue. He said somewhat sarcastically that he hoped it was not a 

large one, ‘like those of Stalin in Eastern Europe.’ ”258

Johnson raised another issue with Miki, the situation of the islanders and the desire of 

the U.S. government to protect their interests. The foreign minister responded that he “appreciated” the concern and agreed to consult “carefully” on the problem.259 He then stated 

that the government planned on submitting a draft agreement (see below) on the Bonin 

Islands for the U.S. reaction. Johnson replied that the U.S. government planned on doing 

the same. He added, “I saw no reason why both governments could not submit drafts for 

comparison.”260

In the meantime, the State Department began working on a fact sheet for transmittal 

to the Foreign Ministry, and completed it on 12 December.261 Much of it was initially classified “secret.” Ambassador Johnson complained that doing so would make it “practically 

useless” as the Japanese government desired to disseminate it to other agencies within the 

government.262 The State Department wrote back immediately and decided to lower the 

classification levels to “unclassified” for personnel numbers and “confidential” for descriptions of facilities.263
Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Fact Sheet on Military and Non-Military Aspects of Bonins264

1. U.S. Military Facilities and Personnel:

A. Chichi:

(1) Navy—Harbor facilities for limited logistic support and safehaven; munitions storage facilities; fourteen permanent quarters, community center, dispensary, commissary; shore lights and buoys.

(2) Personnel—31 Navy, 3 U.S. civilians, 57 foreign national civilians; total 91.

B. Iwo:

(1) Air Force—Emergency recovery airfield, 9,800 ft. long capable of accommodating 

C-130s and 727s. Field in fair condition and requires constant maintenance due to 

volcanic conditions. Limited refueling capacity for AVGAS.

(2) Coast Guard—Loran A and C stations.

(3) Personnel—39 Air Force, 35 Coast Guard, total 74.

C. Marcus:

(1) Coast Guard—Airfield 4,000 ft. long capable of accommodating C-130s; Loran C 

station; aviation radio beacon.

(2) Weather Bureau—Weather reporting station.

(3) Personnel: 34 Coast Guard, 5 U.S. civilians (weather), total 39.

D. Personnel Totals:

Military 139, U.S. civilians 8, foreign nationals 57, grand total 204.

2. Chichi Non-Military:

A. Population (indigenous)—Total 205 (34 households)

Males 60 years and over—9;

Males 18–60 years old—54;

Males under 18—44;

Females 60 years and over—14;

Females 18–60 years old—44;

Females under 18—40.

B. Administration:

CINCPACFLT, Military Governor;

COMNAVMARIANAS, Deputy Military Governor; resident Military Governor 

Representative in Chichi. Under supervision of Military Governor limited self-government is exercised by Bonin Island Council whose members are duly elected by 

permanent residents.

C. Law:

Bonin Islands Judicial and Criminal Code is promulgated by Military Governor. In 

addition there are local ordinances enacted by Bonin Island Council and approved by 

Military Government representative in Chichi. Presently no convicted criminals and 

no outstanding civil cases.

The Reversion, 1967–68

404
D. Economy:

Major income derived from Navy which employs 57 with $75 thousand annual payroll. 

Fishing most important local industry, with exports to Guam through Bonin Island 

Trading Co. totaling $7.8 thousand for January–June 1967. Export of fish has declined 

due in part to uncertainty of transportation now provided gratis by Navy LST.

E. Currency:

U.S. dollar; amount in circulation is not known exactly but is not large. Total dollar assets which would have to be converted to yen would probably be $100–200 thousand. 

(F[or] Y[our] I[nformation]: CINCPAC is in process of obtaining closest possible 

estimate of dollar holdings. End FYI.)

F. Housing:

Three local housing areas, two clustered near U.S. base areas, one of about 8–10 homes 

near bay. Homes were constructed with building materials provided at no cost by Navy. 

Exact status of land titles unclear. (FYI: CINCPAC is developing more detailed information on land title problem. End FYI.)

G. Education:

Sixty-seven in Primary-Junior High (English language) school in Chichi which also 

serves nine dependents. Costs minimal. Nineteen in Guam High School at no cost.

H. Medical care:

Provided by Navy at no cost.

I. Facilities:

Electric power, water, and sewage facilities provided by Navy at minimal cost.

J. Postal Service:

Provided by Navy.

K. Special Entities:

(1) Bonin Islands Trust Fund: Managed by CINCPACFLT for benefit of islanders; 

assets of $36 thousand of which $22 thousand cash and $14 thousand loaned to Bonin 

Island Trading Co. at no cost.

(2) Bonin Island Trading Co: Chartered by CINCPAC, owned by individual islanders. (Ownership is not universal.) Operates general store and handles fish exports to 

Guam. Net worth June 30, 1967 $26.6 thousand.

3. Iwo Jima Memorial:

Memorial occupies an area of 40,000 sq. feet. Included is a 5–6 ft. statue with flag 

flown on 24-hour basis and an aircraft warning light. Access road and flag require 

periodic maintenance.

405
406

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Shortly after receiving (and then forwarding) the information, the State Department 

sent Ambassador Johnson a list of the guiding principles and a set of negotiating instructions.265 The negotiating instructions, introduced below, dealt with the memorial,266 civilian 

aspects of the reversion,267 military facilities and nuclear weapons storage issue (this document unfortunately remains classified at the time of this writing),268 and financial aspects 

of reversion.269

Overall, the State Department desired that the discussions over the return of the Bonin 

Islands should be based on several principles, and argued that early agreement to them by 

the Japanese government would “facilitate and expedite agreement” on the details in the 

negotiations.270 The first principle was that the Bonins agreement should follow the general 

approach of the Amami Reversion Agreement, with a basic agreement supplemented by 

side arrangements if necessary. The State Department realized, however, that there would 

not be “complete parallelism” between the two agreements because of the military and 

civilian differences with the islands.271 The second principle, that of the Bonins agreement 

not “constitute[ing] a precedent for [eventual] Ryukyuan settlement,” was believed to be 

necessary to “maintain completely a free hand in eventual” negotiations for the return of 

Okinawa on such issues as dollar conversion.272 The department argued this “no precedent” 

formula was justifiable due to the “obvious differences” between the two island groups with 

regard to military facilities and civil government, and desired a “clear understanding” with 

the Japanese government on this point.273 The third principle was that the return of the 

Bonin Islands would not give the Japanese government a “balance of payments windfall.”274

While the department acknowledged the amounts would be small in the case of the Bonins, it was still “important,” particularly if it was seen as a precedent for the case of the eventual return of Okinawa. The fourth was that the Japanese government would be expected 

to accord the present residents of Chichi Jima “equitable treatment, comparable to that afforded other Japanese nationals returning to the islands.”275 The fifth was that Japan issue a 

“comprehensive waiver of claims” and “recognize the validity of all acts and omissions done 

during period of U.S. administration” along the lines of a similar provision in the Amami 

agreement.276 The final principle was that Japan would assume responsibility for the provision of all public services for the islands upon the return of administrative rights or as soon 

as possible thereafter.

Regarding the Iwo Jima memorial, Johnson was told that the U.S. government desired 

“appropriate measures” for maintenance of and access to the existing memorial, including 

the flying of the U.S. flag.277 In practice, it continued, this would mean Japan’s facilitating 

of upkeep to be undertaken by U.S. forces (U.S. Marines). The State Department instruction next explained that it would have “no objection to the present U.S. memorial being included in a larger binational Peace Park with appropriate binational symbolism at gate, etc.” 

nor would the U.S. government object to a separate Japanese memorial to their dead within 

the binational Peace Park, proposed by Miki at the 29 November meeting with Johnson.278

However, the State Department instruction stated it would be “unacceptable in light of 

Congressional and public opinion” to make the Suribachi memorial itself binational.279

Regarding the civilian aspects of reversion, the State Department was particularly concerned about the status of the current residents, which it felt “could pose some of the 
407

The Reversion, 1967–68

most difficult problems.”280 Specifically, it was concerned about the “reintegration” of the 

residents into Japanese society.281 The problems, it felt, stemmed primarily from the high 

level of subsidization and support by the Navy for the living standards of the islanders, the 

residents no longer being “culturally and socially Japanese-oriented” despite their possessing Japanese nationality, and the lack of preparation of the islanders and its local institutions for reversion.282 As a result of these issues, the department felt that even under the 

“best of circumstances,” reversion would “impose a clear loss of economic benefits and 

other difficulties” for the islanders.283 While the United States had “no legal obligation” to 

the residents, it wanted to “soften the impact of this transition for obvious humanitarian 

reasons” and thus desired to work out with the Japanese government “certain joint and 

unilateral arrangements to give current residents reasonable prospects for transition period 

and equitable treatment in [the] future.”284 The framework the State Department had in 

mind included the United States would not assert any claims to assets transferred to individuals or to community bodies, the United States would distribute to individuals or to 

community bodies the remaining assets in the Bonin Islands Trust Fund, the United States 

would examine the possibility of employment and/or immigration into U.S. territories for 

“selected eligible islanders [so] desiring,”285 Japan would issue a general statement of assurance of equitable treatment welcoming back residents to Japanese administration, and 

the Japanese government would make provisions to “regularize land status” of the current 

residents “either by providing at no cost clear title to land presently occupied by them, or by 

relocating dwelling or providing equivalent housing on former land holdings or elsewhere 

in vicinity.”286

Finally, regarding the financial aspects, the State Department pointed out that reversion would “adversely affect the U.S. balance of payments on official settlements” when 

currency or bank balances were converted to yen.287 To prevent a balance of payments 

windfall, as well as to dispose of movable equipment currently in the islands but not needed 

to meet American requirements elsewhere, the U.S. government intended to offer for sale 

at “present fair market value” such items as consumables, shop and office equipment, public 

quarters furnishings, automotive and construction equipment, and other assets that provide 

public services to the civilian community as well as to maintain military installations.288 The 

State Department wrote that it expected the proceeds to be as much as $800,000 computed 

at 40 percent of acquisition cost, although it was waiting for a full report from CINCPAC. 

Prior to specific sales, CINCPAC and the related military departments would have to give 

their approval, it stated, and once agreement in principle by the Japanese government was 

given, then CINCPAC would be requested to ascertain through the joint committee what 

categories of removables the Japanese government would be interested in purchasing.

Ambassador Johnson was given his instructions a few days later.

GOJ Actions for the Islands

Despite the harsh criticism in the media following the summit, interest in the return of the 

islands grew, symbolized by participation of a large group of Japanese media representatives 

on a trip to Chichi Jima beginning on 5 December. With the exception of a few stories at 

the time of the earlier ancestral grave visits, it was the first opportunity for the Japanese 
408

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

press to cover the situation on the islands in any detail. Stephen P. Dawkins, a State Department official and former Marine who traveled with the group on board the USS San 

Joaquin County (LST 1122), noticed that while the islanders had “used the interval between 

15 November and the visit to get their thoughts in order about what they would want from 

the Japanese government,” they were nevertheless “cautious in talking with the Japanese 

newsmen.”289 Dawkins felt the press coverage “by and large, was a rather faithful reproduction of their apprehensions and desires.”290 For this trip, the Japanese government had 

asked to send representatives from the Foreign Ministry, prime minister’s office, and Japan 

Defense Agency. The three joined the media’s trip.291

A couple of weeks later, on 20 December, Prime Minister Sato met with Tokyo Governor Minobe. A Leftist, Minobe was opposed to the Maritime Self-Defense Forces (MSDF) 

assuming defense functions over the islands. He also demanded as much autonomy for the 

metropolitan government when deciding policies over the islands. While no immediate solution was reached on the problems involved in returning the islands, a newspaper story of 

the meeting said that the government had promised to take the appropriate steps to protect 

the land and homes of the islanders in the event that the former inhabitants decided to 

return.292 The Japan desk at the State Department noted that such statements were “very 

much along lines of what we had in mind re[garding] unilateral GOJ actions with respect 

to present Chichi population.”293 Sato’s diary acknowledged, however, there was still much 

work to do, and would have to wait until further investigation locally.294

That local investigation was done a month later when the Japanese government sent a 

larger group of almost 30 people representing 20 agencies, Tokyo metropolitan government, 

and the local residents. The groups represented were the prime minister’s office; the home, 

justice, foreign, finance, education, health and welfare, agriculture and forestry, international trade and industry, transportation, post and telecommunications, labor, construction, 

and local autonomy ministries; the police; Defense Facilities Administration; and fisheries, 

forestry, and weather agencies.295 (Curiously, the Defense Agency was not represented nor 

were any of the SDF services in this group with the exception of facilities administration 

members Tsushima Yoshitaka and Yagi Hide. Two MSDF Lockheed P2V-7 Neptune patrol planes flew over Iwo Jima, Chichi Jima, and Haha Jima on 5 January 1968 for about 

four hours to take photos.)296 In any case, the group traveled on board the Japanese Coast 

Guard large patrol vessel Izu and MSDF destroyer Takatsuki to Chichi Jima on 18 January, 

arriving on the 20th. During their three days on Chichi, they spent much time interviewing the islanders and meeting with military personnel.297 On the 23d, they left for Haha 

Jima, and on the 25th went to Iwo Jima, where they toured the island. While there, they 

met an investigative team from the Japan Defense Agency, which included agency Director 

General Masuda Kaneshichi.298 After the 10-day trip, the group completed its 143-page 

report on 20 February.

At least one opposition party—the Komeito, or Clean Government Party—expressed 

interest in visiting the islands. The party had been formed officially some four years earlier, 

and had a Diet strength of 25 seats, which it had gained in its first general election effort, 

the January 1967 elections.299 Strong in the Tokyo area, it had asked the embassy on several 

occasions to permit a small party delegation to the Bonins, via seaplane from Guam.300

The embassy, aware that debate on the reversion of administrative rights over the islands 
409

The Reversion, 1967–68

would soon “become an important topic for the political process in Japan,” consulted with 

the Foreign Ministry, which replied that while the Japanese government would not favor 

an opposition party visiting the islands prior to the official mission (mentioned above), the 

government would find it “hard to argue that a responsible opposition [party] should not 

visit the islands” prior to their reversion.301 The following week, the GOJ announced that it 

would make available a MSDF vessel for a visit to the islands by an all-party Diet delegation, 

although the planning was far from advanced according to the embassy.302 The embassy told 

the State Department it would find it “impossible to authorize entry of any JCP [ Japanese 

Communist] member that might be nominated for any such visit,” and estimated that the 

GOJ’s idea probably would not “cool” Komeito’s requests to visit the islands on its own using 

U.S. military transportation.303 Indeed, later that month, Komeito’s lower house member Ito 

Sosukemaru, representing Tokyo’s 5th District, laid out his party’s views on the issue, calling 

for the welfare of the islanders to be protected and the islands made into places of peace, and 

listing specific issues to be addressed and proposals for those problems.304

Just before the delegation returned from its trip, the government dispatched Vice Minister Ushiba and director-general Togo to Chichi Jima and Iwo on 26 January.305 Ambassador 

Johnson, who had wanted to go to the islands to get “a better feel for what I was negotiating about,”306 joined them, having postponed an earlier opportunity to go with Assistant 

Secretary Warnke.307 “First-hand observation,” Johnson wrote of his visit to Iwo, “put quite 

a different complexion on the problem.”308 On Chichi, the two nations’ diplomats met with 

the Bonin Island Council, which made a “very able presentation of the problems that reversion will present” for the islanders, and Ushiba and Togo were “obviously impressed with the 

presentation and constructive attitude of the council.”309 The GOJ decided the following 

month to invite the chairman of the council and one or two additional representatives for a 

week of discussions on alleviating the islanders’ concerns, including employment and education.310 It offered to pay for their round-trip airfare from Guam and per diem for the two, 

but if the United States could provide air travel to and from Tokyo, then it offered to invite 

a third representative, perhaps someone not on the council but selected by it for special 

reasons. The embassy deemed such a trip as “highly desirable” and asked that CINCPAC 

undertake the coordination.311 Eventually, the Japanese government paid for all three representatives to fly from Guam and they arrived in the middle of February.312

While the islanders were still in Tokyo, the cabinet, on 23 February, approved a compromise that “appears to have settled the conflict” between the Tokyo Metropolitan Government and the central government regarding the future administration of the Bonin 

Islands.313 Under the compromise, formal legal responsibility for administration was to 

return to the metropolitan government, while the central government would have overall 

control of redevelopment. With this cabinet approval, the embassy felt the central government should now be “able to move forward expeditiously” on coordination of the important 

interim measures for the islands.314

Negotiating the Return of the Bonins

On 26 December, Rusk authorized the ambassador to open formal negotiations with Japan 

on the return of the Bonin Islands.315 Johnson was given discretion to introduce the general 
410

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

package, but Rusk promised to try to get him in early January the draft texts of the specific 

issues to be addressed.

Negotiations subsequently began on 28 December, when Johnson presented Miki with 

an unofficial memorandum that covered several issues.316 Miki stressed his government’s 

desire to keep the agreement, which had to have Diet approval, as “simple and uncontroversial as possible.”317 In fact, it would become quite complicated, with most of it Miki’s doing. 

Johnson’s memo covered in general terms the instructions he had received from Rusk in the 

latter part of December. On the question of balance of payments, Miki “tended to play down 

its importance” but “gave the impression” that the Japanese government would “find enough 

‘bargain sale’ items of movables” to purchase, thus offset the dollar losses.318 The ambassador told Miki that the issue could be “worked out to satisfaction of both” without having 

to incorporate it in the exchange of notes. The foreign minister then told Johnson that he 

preferred the agreement to have no specific date for the transfer of administrative rights, but 

instead, it would come into effect one or two months after the Diet approved it.

After some discussion, in which Johnson seems to have explained that the United States 

would prefer to have the transfer of authority done by 1 July, which was the start of the 

new U.S. fiscal year, Miki stated he did not think the Japanese government would have a 

problem with the turnover of facilities by that date. Although Johnson did not say so to 

Miki, he “considerably doubt[s]” the ability of the Japan Defense Agency to be prepared 

to take over the facilities. Further, he told the State Department it needed to be prepared 

that the Foreign Ministry might come back and inform the embassy that the timetable is 

too tight after speaking with their Japan Defense Agency counterparts.319 Regarding the 

“no precedent” clause, Miki had trouble accepting it, apparently fearing that the eventual 

return of Okinawa “might not be within the framework of Article 3.”320 Johnson explained 

that was not the case—the United States had in mind only military and financial aspects of 

reversion in mind. This seemed to “calm his concern.”321

The next issue discussed was the Iwo Jima memorial. Miki stated that he did not want 

it mentioned in the agreement, but thought “there would be no difficulty in satisfying” U.S. 

requirements, such as a unilateral statement by the Japanese government giving the United 

States the assurances it sought. In any case, he wanted his survey mission to see the monument itself, which was done in mid-January. The foreign minister next raised the issue of 

the waiver of claims article, saying that it might be omitted since it was covered in Article 

19 of the Peace Treaty. Johnson explained, however, that that article covered the period up 

until the peace treaty went into effect (April 1952) and that the United States would need 

a waiver for the period up to the date of reversion. The two representatives discussed the 

problems of the islanders at length, with Johnson recommending that the Japanese survey 

mission, scheduled for mid-January, be prepared to meet with the islanders. Johnson stated 

that the United States hoped to have the problems of the islanders “satisfactorily resolved” 

before the other negotiations were completed.322 Miki promised to study the U.S. proposals 

on the issue and to get back to the ambassador.

Overall, Johnson felt the session went “rather well” but told the State Department he 

expected “some difficulties in translating principles to pieces of paper.” Johnson also mentioned that he hoped to keep the “Bonins package” as small as possible. Rather than the 
411

The Reversion, 1967–68

four documents suggested in one of State’s follow-up telegrams,323 Johnson hoped to do it 

in three: the basic agreement, the official minutes, and the draft minutes for joint committee. He promised to send the embassy’s drafts for those documents the following week, and 

also recommended that in order to examine the question of military facilities and areas, a 

“Subcommittee on the Bonins” be established within the joint committee.324

After the two-and-a-half-hour meeting, Johnson and Miki met privately, with only 

their interpreters present, to discuss the possible future use of the Bonins for nuclear storage.325 Johnson reminded Miki of their conversation on 6 November and suggested a remedy. American concerns could be accommodated at this time by the ambassador presenting 

a top-secret note advising the Japanese government that, in a contingency requiring nuclear 

storage, the United States “would wish to raise the matter and would hope the request 

would be regarded in a different light than for in Japan proper and would anticipate favorable reaction since the request would not be made unless essential for vital security interests 

of [the] area including those of Japan.”326 The ambassador mentioned an antisubmarine 

warfare contingency as an example of the type of emergency in mind, and added that the 

United States “would not expect any GOJ reply to my note.”327

Miki was not enthusiastic about a note. Even though “no reply was necessary or expected,” 

he hoped that no transmittal would be necessary.328 Miki explained that, in a contingency 

whereby the United States would contemplate the use of nuclear weapons in the Far East, 

Japan’s interests would also be deeply involved and that a request for nuclear storage would be 

considered in a “vastly different atmosphere” than that now prevailing. “At such a crisis,” he 

continued, “the question of nuclear storage would have to be considered with respect to all of 

Japanese territory and not just a particular part such as the Bonins. It would be very difficult 

to draw a distinction of principle between various parts of the country.”329 Miki then noted 

that the issue was political. He and the prime minister had said in the Diet that the

nuclear issue is not now involved in [the] return of the Bonins but had been careful 

to keep their freedom of action with respect to Okinawa. The greatest diplomatic 

political problem the GOJ faces over next few years is that of the Okinawa nuclear 

issue. Miki would greatly regret anything that could possibly leak out and muddy 

waters on [the] fundamental Okinawa issue which GOJ had to face.

When Johnson said the issue was one of “formal official record to which reference could 

be made in the future” and thus a note was probably the “best method,” Miki responded 

that, nevertheless, he saw a problem with a note and wanted to think about it and discuss 

it with Johnson again. In his telegram to the department, Johnson acknowledged that Miki 

“of course has a point. If knowledge of such a note and lack of any reaction from GOJ came 

into wrong hands, it could be used by [the] opposition to belabor and embarrass Sato and 

Miki.”330 Johnson added that he doubted, therefore, the value of such a note, and suggested 

instead a “record embodied in my accounts of our official conversations on the subject.”331

The following week, early in the new year, Rusk wrote back to Johnson to explain that 

the U.S. government was “not necessarily tied to [the formula] of a written note” to the 

Japanese government.332 “If there is serious danger of a leak of such note,” Rusk continued, 

“then other procedures for recording notification to GOJ would be acceptable.”333 Rusk 
412

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

said the State Department would welcome any suggestions the embassy had on that score. 

He clarified, however, that the “basic intent is to assure that successive Japanese governments can be advised of the U.S. position.”334 Rusk agreed that it could probably be done, 

as Johnson suggested in his telegram, “by recording [the ambassador’s] account of official 

conversations on subject,” with a copy of such a record being held in the Foreign Ministry 

“perhaps under the same ground rules as [the] special arrangement made in 1960 which 

has never leaked.”335 Rusk also told Johnson that the department would have no objection 

if the only copy of record was held in the embassy, as long as it was certified in some form 

by a senior Foreign Ministry official, such as Togo, that it represented the true record of the 

U.S. statement. “Then,” he continued, “there would be far less risk of future GOJ governments questioning whether we had in past advised the Foreign [Ministry] of our views on 

contingency of nuclear weapons storage in the Bonins.”336

The final document sent to the State Department by the embassy at this point was a 

copy of the Foreign Ministry’s working-level draft. According to Johnson, however, there 

were two “defects” with it: the Japanese side’s assumption that the United States would be 

retaining most of the facilities and areas in the islands, and the fact that it omitted any of 

the “hold harmless” language that the embassy felt necessary.337

Draft for Agreement between Japan and the United States of America concerning 

Nanpo Shoto and Other Islands (Foreign Ministry working-level draft)338

Japan and the United States of America, desiring to accomplish the restoration of 

the Bonin and Other Islands to Japan, have decided to conclude this agreement, 

and have accordingly appointed their respective representatives for this purpose, 

who have agreed as follows:

Article I

1. With respect to Nanpo Shoto and other islands, as defined in paragraph 2 below, 

the United States of America relinquishes in favor of Japan all rights and interests under Article 3 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San 

Francisco on September 8, 1951, effective from the date of entry into force of this 

Agreement. Japan, as of such date, assumes full responsibility and authority for the 

exercise of all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over 

the territory and inhabitants of the said islands.

2. For the purpose of this Agreement, the term “Nanpo Shoto and other islands” 

means Nanpo Shoto south of Sofu Gan (including the Bonin Islands, Rosario Island, and the Volcano Islands) and Parece Vela and Marcus Island, including their 

territorial waters.

Article II

1. The installations and sites presently utilized by the United States of America in 

Nanpo Shoto and other islands, except for those mentioned in paragraph 2 below, 

will be used by the United States armed forces in accordance with the procedures 

set forth in the agreement under Article VI of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation 
413

The Reversion, 1967–68

and Security between Japan and the United States of America, regarding facilities 

and areas and the status of United States armed forces in Japan, signed at Washington, January 19, 1960. However, in the event that due to unavoidable delays, it is 

impossible to comply with the above procedures by the date of entry into force of 

this agreement, Japan grants to the United States of America the continued use of 

these installations and sites, pending the completion of the said procedures.

2. The Government of Japan will take over the operation of the weather stations 

in Chichi Jima and Marcus Island and the —— in ——. In the event that, due to 

unavoidable delays, it is impossible for the Government of Japan to take over the 

operation on the date of entry into force of this agreement, it is agreed that the 

present operation will be continued until such time as the Government of Japan is 

prepared to assume this responsibility.

Article III

Property, including papers and archives, of the government of the United States of 

America, except for those in use at the installations and sites mentioned in Article 

II, Paragraph 1 of this Agreement, existing in Nanpo Shoto and other islands on 

the date of entry into force of this agreement, shall be transferred to the Government of Japan on that date without compensation.

Article IV

This Agreement shall enter into force —— days after the date of receipt by the 

Government of the United States of America of a note from the Government of 

Japan stating that Japan has approved the Agreement in accordance with its legal 

procedures.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being duly authorized by their respective Governments, have signed this Agreement.

DONE at ——, this —— day of ——, 1968, in duplicate in the Japanese and 

English languages, both equally authentic.

For Japan:

For the United States of America:

In its place, the American embassy had prepared its working draft:339

WHEREAS the Prime Minister of Japan and the President of the United States 

of America reviewed together on November 14 and 15, 1967, the status of Nanpo 

Shoto south of Sofu Gan (and other islands in Article 1 below), presently under 

the administration of the United States of America, and agreed that the mutual 

security interests of these two countries could be accommodated within arrangements for the return of administration of these islands to Japan;

WHEREAS the governments of the United States of America and Japan have 

consulted together within the context of expressions by the Government of Japan 
414

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

of its intention to assume the responsibility for defense of this area and within 

the context of agreement between the two governments that the United States 

of America will retain under the terms of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and 

Security between the United States and Japan only such military installations and 

sites in the islands as are required by the security interests of the two countries;

WHEREAS the Government of Japan is willing to assume full responsibility and 

authority for the exercise of all powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of the islands listed in Article 1 below;

THEREFORE, the Government of Japan and the Government of the United 

States of America have determined to conclude this Agreement, and have accordingly appointed their respective representatives for this purpose, who have agreed 

as follows:

Article I

The United States of America relinquishes in favor of Japan all rights and interests under Article III of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San 

Francisco on September 8, 1951, with respect to Nanpo Shoto south of Sofu Gan 

(including the Bonin Islands, Rosario Island, and the Volcano Islands) and Parece 

Vela and Marcus Island as of the date of the entry into force of this agreement. 

Japan, as of such date, assumes full responsibility and authority for the exercise of 

all and any powers of administration, legislation, and jurisdiction over the territory 

and inhabitants of the islands named above.

Article II

1. Except as may otherwise be mutually agreed, the United States will release, and 

Japan will assume responsibility for, those installations and sites now being utilized 

by the armed forces of the United States in the islands named in Article 1. Until 

such time as the necessary steps can be completed in order to comply with the 

procedural arrangements which implement the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and 

Security, Japan grants to the United States the continued use of present installations and sites.

2. Those facilities and areas which are to be retained by the United States will be 

utilized in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation 

and Security between the United States of America and Japan, the agreement under Article VI of that treaty, the agreed minutes of these two agreements and all 

other arrangements made by the two governments under the terms of the Treaty of 

Mutual Cooperation and Security.

Article III

1. Japan waives all claims of Japan and its nationals against the United States and 

its nationals arising from the presence, operations or actions of forces or authorities 

of the United States of America in these islands, or from the presence, operations 

or actions of forces or authorities of the United States of America which shall have 

occurred in or had any effect upon these islands listed in Article 1 prior to the 
415

The Reversion, 1967–68

entry into force of this agreement. Japan agrees to hold harmless the United States 

against any claims arising as a result of the coming into force of this agreement.

2. Japan recognizes the validity of all acts and omissions done during the period 

in which the subject islands were under the occupation and administration of the 

United States of America as a consequence of directives of the occupying authorities or of the military government as authorized by existing law at that time, and 

will take no take no action subjecting United States nationals or the residents of 

these islands to civil or criminal liability arising out of such acts or omissions.

Article IV

This Agreement shall enter into force —— days after the date of receipt by the 

Government of the United States of America of a note from the Government of 

Japan stating that Japan has approved the Agreement in accordance with its legal 

procedures.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being duly authorized by their respective Governments, have signed this Agreement.

DONE at Tokyo, this —— day of ——, 1968, in duplicate in the Japanese and 

English languages, both equally authentic.

For Japan:

For the United States of America:

The above draft had been coordinated “in close cooperation” with representatives of U.S. 

Forces Japan, which replaced the Far East Command in 1957 and was then located at Fuchu Air Station.340 Johnson told the State Department that the preamble had “borrow[ed]” 

language from the joint communiqué to “set context” for the return of the islands in which 

Japan would assume responsibility for defense of the Bonins area.341 He also admitted that 

the embassy doubted whether the Japanese government would accept the wording, as Miki 

had made “clear he is anxious to present a low silhouette in the Diet” and would probably 

argue that it was not necessary to reiterate the language in the communiqué. (The embassy’s 

guess was correct, as the final agreement would show.) At the same time, Johnson stated 

that including the language in the draft would be a “useful negotiating tactic.”342

Article I was described as a “straight crib from the Amami Agreement.”343 Article II 

was written, Johnson explained, to “emphasize our generosity in releasing facilities and our 

intent to utilize retained installations in accordance with the security treaty.” It would also 

improve the negotiating stance of the U.S. representative in the Facilities and Areas Subcommittee of the U.S.–Japan Joint Committee. He would have to ensure that in turning 

over facilities, the Japanese government would make provision for access roads and other 

arrangements that would “give substance” to rights of use and continued maintenance by 

Japan (as outlined in the draft joint committee minutes).344 Article III, Johnson’s telegram 

explains, removes “in line with Miki’s comments” any unnecessary duplication of peace 

treaty language regarding war claims as found in the fourth article of the Amami agreement while retaining the minimum level of protection the embassy believed necessary. Ar-
416

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

ticle IV was identical to the Japanese draft. Johnson added that the embassy examined the 

Amami agreement to see if there was any other language that needed to be extracted, but 

found it unnecessary.

After referring to the facilities and labor issues, Johnson mentioned that he found the 

State Department’s suggestion of “the reservation of the right to install new facilities or 

equipment on areas returned to GOJ,” which had been done at the time of the Amami 

reversion in 1953, to be “unproductive” as the United States does not have that right under the 1960 revised security treaty.345 Johnson also doubted that a “joint use” formula for 

the facilities on the Bonins would be good as the “political benefits of turnover would be 

lost.”346 As the United States is entitled to ask the Japanese government “for anything we 

may need any place in Japan” under the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) of 1960, Johnson felt it was better to depend on the “usual SOFA procedures for acquisition of facilities 

which might be required in the future.”347

On 8 January, Togo, who according to Johnson, as director-general of the North American Affairs Bureau, was “the man in charge of the Foreign Office’s day-to-day work on the 

Bonins,”348 asked the embassy political counselor, Purnell, to come to the ministry to review 

the respective positions on the return of the islands.349 Togo explained that the Japanese 

government desired to have a “brief and simple basic agreement with no side exchanges,” 

as they might cause problems in the Diet.350 According to Purnell, Togo “appeared sympathetic,” however, to the idea of dealing with military problems in terms of the draft joint 

committee minutes.351 Regarding the minutes, Togo stated that the GOJ’s “basic principle” 

regarding facilities and areas would be the “strict compliance” with the terms of the security 

treaty and SOFA. He argued that it could not legally accept any commitment that it would 

continue to operate facilities or that the United States could automatically have the right 

to establish new facilities without complying with the normal SOFA procedures.352 Togo 

suggested that the United States carefully review its present and projected needs and either 

continue to operate the facilities about which it was particularly concerned, or enter into 

joint use arrangements for facilities it felt future requirements necessitated.

Purnell countered by saying that the United States believed that “special conditions 

relating to mutual effort” on the Bonins required a “reaffirmation and sharpening of general 

language” found in SOFA.353 Togo indicated he would be open to discussions of ways in 

which the joint committee could be helpful in managing said problems, but that he would 

have to see the specifics of any text on special arrangements. Chiba Kazuo, who attended 

the meeting and explained the provisions of SOFA again for the participants, noted that 

the government’s lawyers were “very nervous” about the rewording of existing commitments and would be “watching carefully” for divergence from the language of the security treaty arrangements.354 Moreover, he said, the Diet would be expected to examine the 

package more closely than at the time of the Amami reversion. In forwarding the meeting 

comments to the State Department, Johnson asked for a draft as soon as possible of the 

specific language the United States hoped to use to cover practical problems in order to 

demonstrate that it was not attempting to write a new SOFA.

On the question of the Bonins agreement not being a precedent for Okinawa, the Foreign Ministry representatives showed their “distaste for putting into black and white” such 
417

The Reversion, 1967–68

a commitment because it was “too obvious a toned statement.”355 However, they said if 

the United States insisted upon such language, it could be done in the preamble portion 

of the basic agreement. Purnell requested suggestions on what type of wording the GOJ 

considered appropriate.

Richard Sneider from the State Department and Philip E. Barringer, director of Foreign Military Rights Affairs, who would serve almost 50 years in government as an expert 

on overseas basing arrangements, met with officials from the North America Bureau in 

separate sessions on 22 January during a visit to Japan. The Foreign Ministry representatives stated that they believed the government would be able to meet the 1 July target date 

for the turnover of facilities as desired by the U.S. side, but due to budgetary and other 

reasons might not be able to get all of its personnel to Chichi in time. As a result, they said 

the government would give “first priority” to defense-related functions to ensure there is no 

gap in the maintenance of the airfields and other functions.356 On the question of the bases, 

they repeated that the government would like to see the commitments more in line with 

SOFA and said that the lawyers did not like the idea of “taking responsibility” for facilities under terms in which the language implied “perpetual and permanent obligations.”357

Several other issues were also discussed in the respective meetings.

Over the following month, negotiations continued on a host of issues, but with regard 

to the “special needs” of the United States in the Bonins, the Foreign Ministry presented a 

revised draft that the embassy described as a “real effort” by the ministry to give the United 

States the “handle we need to ensure the maintenance of airfields and Chichi Harbor and 

a Japanese presence in the islands.” He also explained that the embassy doubted the GOJ 

would be able to go much further in committing itself to future actions regarding the facilities the United States returned.358 The Foreign Ministry said the U.S. concern of the 

availability on short notice of portions of GOJ installations, such as the munitions storage 

caves, including those for nuclear weapons in a contingency, on Chichi “could be met by 

agreements under provision of existing SOFA (Paragraph 4B, Article II), which had been 

“for the most part dormant” since the SOFA signature.359 The State Department later responded it had no objection to relating United States use of GOJ facilities to the SOFA 

paragraph as long as it was clear it was not to be a “precedent for the Ryukyus.”360

A few days later, the Japanese resubmitted their draft paragraph on facilities to be maintained with the word “substantial” added to read “the U.S. will be kept informed, in advance, 

of possible future Japanese plans for substantial modifications of those installations and sites 

referred to in paragraph 3 above.” The GOJ felt it would be “impossible legally to accept” 

the broad commitment that its earlier counter draft had suggested that lacked the word 

“substantial.”361 Toward the end of the meeting, Chiba Kazuo, chief of the North American 

Section who attended the meeting with Deputy Director of the Northern American Bureau Okawara Yoshio, stressed that there was a “full meeting of minds” on the Japanese side 

that the Japanese government would assume responsibility for all facilities to be turned over 

to it in the Bonins. He added that the government had the following timetable in mind: 

signing of the agreement in mid-March, Diet ratification in mid- or late April, takeover of 

civil administration 30 days thereafter, with a one-month phase-out of the U.S. naval facility by 30 June.362 The session ended with a discussion by the U.S. military planners on their 
418

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

concerns about uninterrupted availability of services to LORAN sites on Iwo and Marcus, 

which were valuable for navigation and vessel/aircraft identification purposes.363

In early March, a Maritime Self-Defense Force official, Captain Kunishima Kiyosashi, 

provided a briefing to U.S. Navy Captain Lawrence A. Kurtz, the embassy defense attaché, 

and other officials about the Japan Defense Agency’s plans for the Bonins. According to 

the briefing, the major planned installations for the MSDF, which one former joint staff 

official described as the most active in preparing for the assumption of responsibilities,364

would include a heliport and seaplane base, a destroyer pier, and a guard point for the 

harbor entrance.365 The MSDF also plans to “modernize and macadamize” the old airfield 

and use it in cooperation with other agencies as a landing field for light planes, such as 

the seven-passenger turboprop Mitsubishi MU-2 or smaller aircraft.366 The embassy was 

quite happy with the briefing. “While modest and gradual,” it wrote, “the JDA’s plans for 

the introduction of a Japanese defense capability into the Bonins-Volcano area promise 

to exceed the present US in-place capability within the near future and thus appear well 

in line with the commitment to that effect given in the course of the U.S.-GOJ negotiations of last fall which led to an agreement that the islands would be returned to Japanese 

administration.”367

The following day, Johnson wrote to thank the State Department for helping to expedite 

the negotiations by providing feedback and guidance and to inform it that the basic agreement was “coming along in good shape.”368 On the question of islanders’ concerns, Johnson 

said he “thought we have done all possible and that the islanders themselves feel this is the 

case,”369 although some islanders would probably have disagreed with this assessment. He 

mentioned that the Japanese government was drafting the domestic legislation to accommodate the needs of the islanders, and he was “now entirely satisfied with the GOJ’s good 

faith and, in fact, GOJ is probably going to go further than I expected.”370 On the question 

of the agreement not being a precedent for Okinawa, it was agreed that Miki would make 

an oral statement, the text of which the Japanese government was to draft and show to 

Johnson. On the nuclear storage issue, both sides agreed that Johnson would make a statement, which the Japanese government would “accept and file a written copy.”371 Regarding 

the Suribachi memorial, Johnson wrote that he had yet to see the specific proposal. The 

latter two issues would prove to be difficult ones, with the script tampered with at the last 

minute. As described later, Johnson had trouble hiding his frustrations in his memoirs.

Later that week, the Japanese government requested permission to send advance parties 

to the islands for survey and other purposes. They proposed the following schedule: in early 

to late April, a 15-man survey team travelling by ship to Iwo Jima would assess removable 

property; in mid-April, a 6-man team would go to Chichi to prepare for takeover; in late 

April, a similar 6-man team would do the same at Iwo Jima; and within two weeks of takeover, 16-man teams would go to both Chichi and Iwo.372

Negotiators continued into the following week narrowing the differences in both wording and substance on the basic agreement. On the evening of 17 March, Johnson and Togo 

met alone in a “long session” to work out a formula satisfactory to both sides regarding 

the “other aspects of the package,” including the texts on the Suribachi memorial and the 

nuclear weapons storage statements.373 The next day, negotiators met again to agree on the 
419

The Reversion, 1967–68

texts while Togo shared the formulas worked out with Johnson with Foreign Minister Miki 

to confirm his satisfaction with them. That same day, Johnson forwarded to the State Department the bulk of the texts.374 Plans were subsequently made to conduct the signing on 

28 March, but the State Department found that date not practical to allow for a full review 

of the documents.375 Instead, it proposed 2 April.

In the meantime, Ambassador Johnson and the foreign minister had to finalize the additional bilateral understandings. On 21 March, Miki and Johnson reached agreement on 

the text of the oral statements they were to make at the Joint Committee/signing ceremony, 

which read:

A. Prior to the signing of the agreement today on the return of the Bonin and other 

islands, the following conversation took place between the Foreign Minister and 

the American Ambassador.

B. The American Ambassador stated: In the event of a contingency requiring the 

use of the Bonin and/or the Volcano Islands for nuclear weapon storage, the 

United States would wish to raise this matter with the Government of Japan 

and would anticipate a favorable reaction from the Government of Japan since 

such a request would not be made unless it were essential for the mutual security 

interests of the area, including Japan.

C. The Foreign Minister stated: Major changes in the equipment of United States 

forces in Japan, including those in the event of emergency are the subject of prior consultation with the Government of Japan in accordance with the exchange 

of notes of January 19, 1960, concerning the implementation of Article Five of 

the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security. The case you have indicated is 

precisely one which is subject to the said prior consultation, and at this time I 

can only say that under the circumstances you cite the government of Japan will 

enter into such consultation.376

Because the above agreement had been in place, Ambassador Johnson was taken aback 

when Miki proposed on 2 April, the day the agreement was to be signed, that he would 

make a statement that contradicted the above agreement. The embassy had been notified 

on 1 April that “for reasons not entirely clear” the Foreign Ministry would not be able to 

obtain cabinet approval for the agreement, and thus the signing would have to take place 

at the end of the week on the 5th.377 The problem over the nuclear weapons issue may 

have been the major delaying factor, but President Johnson’s sudden announcement on 

31 March (1 April Japan time) of his decision not to stand for re-election certainly added 

to the confusion at the time.378 After further discussion, an understanding was reached in 

which Miki would orally state Japan’s intention to allow no nuclear weapons on its territory and Ambassador Johnson would reply with a statement confirming the terms of the 

agreement. Both statements were made on the condition that they would not become part 

of the official written record of the signing ceremony.379 A later memorandum stated that 

the Japanese acknowledged the U.S. position, which saved them from having to specifically 

say they agreed.380
420

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

This and Miki’s “last minute efforts” to alter the wording of the letter regarding the 

Iwo Jima memorial greatly angered Johnson and the State Department and left a “sour 

taste.”381 While writing that the department would have “preferred no such exchange,” 

it nevertheless said it “appears to protect [the] integrity of our arrangement on nucs” and 

praised Johnson when it wrote that “we think that exchange of oral statements you have 

worked out is certainly most that we could hope for given Miki’s insistence on reference to 

Sato’s January 27 speech.”382 (This was a reference to Sato’s speech before the Diet in which 

he explained that Japan would not possess nor permit the introduction of nuclear weapons 

into Japan.) Assistant Secretary Bundy continued, “you can be assured that if Miki does try 

to tamper with this formulation at [the] last minute, you will have our full support in not 

going through with the signing.”383 Bundy told Johnson that Sneider spoke to Ambassador 

Shimoda—who himself was “astonished by Miki’s ploy”—the evening before to register 

the department’s unhappiness with Miki’s “last-minute operations, particularly on nucs,” 

and that Shimoda in turn passed the message to Vice Minister Ushiba.384 In addition to 

registering the complaint, the State Department hoped it would “bolster top level Foreign 

[Ministry] efforts to block any further tampering by Miki.”385

The Iwo Jima monument was another issue that Miki had personally tampered with at 

the last minute when Togo, on 29 March (the same day that Johnson had received authorization to sign the agreement after the Defense and Treasury Departments and Congress 

had all approved the terms of the agreement),386 handed Purnell a redraft of the letter on 

the Suribachi memorial “which [Togo] said had been done personally by Miki.”387 Purnell 

(as would Ambassador Johnson to Vice Minister Ushiba) expressed the U.S. side’s “astonishment and unhappiness at now seeking to change, even non-substantive aspects of 

documents.” Fortunately, the redraft “in no way changes the assurances of the GOJ with 

respect to the Marine memorial” and “in some respects [was] an improvement over the 

original draft.” However, from the U.S. side’s point of view, which had already received approval for the contents of the agreement and related additional documents as is, this last 

minute change was yet another friction point over the way the Iwo Jima memorial was 

being handled.

The discussions in late 1967 between Johnson and Miki, their different views for the 

memorial, and their agreement to hold off further discussion until the related maps and 

pictures had been studied and a trip made to the island have been presented earlier. In 

January, Johnson traveled to Iwo Jima to survey the memorial (being only the second U.S. 

ambassador to visit the island) “to get a better feel for what I was negotiating about.”388 He 

was joined by Ushiba and Togo. There, Johnson belatedly discovered

Atop Mount Suribachi, with its twenty-four hour-Stars and Stripes, there was 

no grand statue a la Arlington, but only a small bronze bas-relief, erected not by 

the Marine Corps itself but by the First Marine Division.389 The Official Marine 

Corps memorial was down on the flats, on the site of the now-vacant and overgrown Marine cemetery.390 First-hand observation put quite a different complexion on this problem, but I still had to deliver the promised twenty-four-hour flag 

to the Congress.391
421

The Reversion, 1967–68

According to Johnson, following the visit to the island by the Foreign Ministry officials, 

Miki “mounted a determined campaign against our retaining the twenty-four-hour flag” 

and the necessary Marine access to maintain it.392 On 10 February, Togo called on Johnson 

to tell him that Miki believed that continuing to fly the flag would be highly controversial, 

likely requiring a government-to-government agreement and Diet ratification, as the Japanese government “could not appear to be relinquishing control of its territory to the United 

States.”393 Togo asked if the United States could replace the flag with a bronze one “or do 

something else that might mitigate the problem.”394 Johnson, according to his memoirs, 

said the United States would do anything it could to make the solution “politically palatable,” but it “could not relent on the flag” and explained that his commitment to Congress 

“precluded any dilution of our right to fly the flag as we saw fit.”395 Johnson notes in his 

memoirs that he did not think the flag issue was a problem impossible to resolve: “If Japan 

went through with its announced intention of creating a memorial park of its own on Iwo, 

it could invite us to maintain our memorial there, too, and fly its flag alongside ours.”396

Nevertheless, Ushiba reported to Johnson at the end of the next week that Japan could not 

permit the Stars and Stripes to fly on Iwo Jima once it was returned. “It was the flag that 

shocked their sensibilities,” one former U.S. Air Force official wrote.397 “If it remained, the 

whole nation would lose face.”

Ushiba and Togo were not the only ones who had complained about the flag. According to Burket E. Tyler—who worked in the office of the deputy commander for services at 

Tachikawa Air Base at the time and regularly visited Iwo Jima as part of his responsibilities 

and has authored the manuscript Iwo Jima—the “first hint of Japanese sensitivity about the 

flag” came from the president of the Iwo Jima Association, Wachi Tsunezo, who asked the 

embassy how the United States intended to maintain the monument.398 He volunteered 

the services of his association, but wondered who would be responsible for changing the 

flag every several weeks (due to the destruction of the cloth material as a result of the high 

winds and rough weather). Tyler explained, “For the Japanese, a people acutely aware [and] 

attuned to symbolism, the monument represented one of her greatest defeats and the supreme sacrifice of 22,000 of her young men. It was bad enough they were not permitted to 

remove the remains of their fallen soldiers, but to force those soldiers to lie forever beneath 

the flag of the enemy was asking too much.”399

According to Johnson, Ushiba complained that the ambassador had never mentioned 

the flag specifically in earlier discussions, to which Johnson reportedly replied that “the flag 

was such an integral part of the memorial that there was never any question of excluding 

it,” and warned that he had “gained congressional assent to returning the Bonins as part of a 

package that included the Iwo Jima memorial, and to back out on it now would open doors 

that might best be left shut.”400 This exchange took place amid the backdrop of quite a few 

tensions in the bilateral relationship and in regional affairs, including the capture of the 

USS Pueblo (AGER 2) and its crew by North Korean forces and the basing of Boeing B-52 

Stratofortresses in Okinawa, in which Japan was seen as not being publicly supportive or 

helpful.401 On 16 February, for example, the usually mild Rusk personally drafted and fired 

off a “literally eyes only” telegram for Johnson that would have made even Dulles blush:

Surely the time has come for us to begin to resist attempts by the Japanese to erode 

our base in Okinawa on the grounds of “sensibilities.” We have some sensibilities 
422

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

too. We have some six hundred thousand men in uniform in the Far Pacific engaged in security tasks which are of vital concern to the future security of Japan. 

We have taken over a quarter of a million casualties since 1945—most of them in 

the Far East with Japan as a major beneficiary. So far as I know Japan has not lost 

a single man in confronting those who are the major threat to Japan itself . . . It is 

almost more than flesh and spirit can bear to have Japan whining about Okinawa 

while we are losing several hundred killed each month in behalf of our common 

security in the Pacific . . . I feel strongly that we must turn around this intolerable 

Japanese attitude.402

Ushiba apparently persisted, however, so Johnson “reluctantly agreed” to look into replacing the flag with a brass one, as suggested by Togo since “the Japanese were making 

such a big issue of this flag.”403 Fortunately, Johnson had felt there was “obvious merit in the 

long run” to replacing a cloth flag with a bronze one for maintenance and other reasons, and 

the following week called Lieutenant General Victor H. “Brute” Krulak, the commander of 

Fleet Marine Forces Pacific, the predecessor to Marine Corps Forces Pacific, based at Camp 

Smith in Hawaii, whom Johnson had known from the Counterinsurgency Special Group 

and “who was ultimately responsible for the memorial.”404 The ambassador “described the 

flak we had been getting from the Japanese government” and Krulak “immediately saw the 

problem.”405 The general agreed that a bronze flag would be much preferable to cloth from 

the point of view of maintenance. He told Johnson he would order a bronze replacement 

be cast. Although Johnson wrote in his memoirs, “That was enough to satisfy the Japanese 

government,”406 he did not immediately inform the Japanese side of the bronze flag.407

Unfortunately, several problems emerged that Johnson did not include in his memoirs. 

First, in early March, the Japanese press reported that bilateral negotiations on the return 

of the islands were “stalled over U.S. insistence that [the] American flag fly day and night 

over [the] memorial on Suribachi,” but that Togo was quoted as saying a solution was being 

worked out that would accommodate the sensitivities of both countries.408 While Johnson, 

who found the story “not sympathetic” to the U.S. point of view, was not “too concerned 

about the reaction” in Japan. His worry was if the story played in the United States to “make 

it appear [Krulak] or we have reacted to Japanese pressures.”409 A few days before this, 

Krulak had written to Johnson to inform him that the bronze flag was being fabricated and 

would be installed in about a month. The general also informed Johnson that he did not 

intend to make any announcement or comment, but simply would “report to Washington 

that we have completed long-term care of the memorial.”410

A second problem, also temporary, emerged as a result of the replacement flag. On 25 

March, a group of Marine engineers arrived on Iwo to erect the replacement. The result was 

an actual “monstrous” replica of a flag and flagpole atop the existing monument, replacing 

the cloth flag and flag pole.411 “When the Japanese first saw the news photos of the ‘replica,’ ” 

Tyler, who was on Iwo at the time, writes, “they were shocked. Technically their demands had 

been satisfied, but the nation’s sensibilities were still strained. If anything, this new flag, cast 

in the full flying position, was more distasteful than the original cloth flag. But what could 

they do? The Americans had removed the flag as requested.”412 It was at this point that fate 

struck, or better put, the kamikaze winds that have mythically saved Japan from earlier threats. 
423

The Reversion, 1967–68

Four days after the new flag was built and installed, strong winds atop Mount Suribachi “had 

ripped the offensive flag from its moorings and sent it crashing into the sea.”413 Eventually, 

the Marines had to return and install a 5-by-8 foot bas-relief atop the monument, which 

remains in place to this day.

A third issue was securing the support of veteran’s groups in the United States. Johnson 

wrote, “with Krulak on my side, I knew there would be no grumbling from the Marines 

to Congress that we had sold out.”414 As a matter of fact, whether Johnson knew it or not, 

Krulak would have some explaining to do. After 34 years of active duty service, the highly 

respected Krulak would retire on 1 June 1968, a few weeks before the islands were actually 

reverted to Japan. But before his retirement, he spoke before the 3d Marine Division Association reunion. At the start of his address, he announced “I have some good news. The 

Japanese have agreed to allow the American flag to fly over Iwo Jima in perpetuity. In order 

to win this concession, we have agreed to allow the Japanese to fly their nation’s flag over 

Pearl Harbor.” The applause that had greeted his first sentence suddenly died down. Now 

the Marines understood—no sovereign nation, not even a once defeated one, could allow 

their former enemy to fly its flag.415

In the meantime, the Suribachi memorial issue, which was not included in the actual 

text of the agreement but was instead covered in a letter that would accompany it, was resolved on 21 March when Miki’s staff presented the negotiated text of the letter from the 

foreign minister to the ambassador that gave assurances the memorial would remain and 

that the United States would have continued access to it. Miki did not propose the creation 

of a memorial park, joint or otherwise, after all, but did mention that he hoped a Japanese 

memorial, “one in memory of the Japanese soldiers who fought for their country in the 

Battle of Iwo Jima,” would be erected and that the two memorials “will long remain as a 

symbol of friendship between our two countries achieved after many hard experiences.”416

This note, along with the other texts, was sent off to Washington for its review. It had already been approved when Johnson was approached with Miki’s changes.

Miki’s actions greatly annoyed and confused Johnson. “Throughout [the negotiations on 

the Bonins],” Johnson said in his oral history, “I found Foreign Minister Miki very difficult. 

I had liked him very much and still like him very much as a person.”417 Johnson’s memoirs 

get more to the point.

Though the substantive issues were settled by March, stitching up the final agreement took quite a bit longer. For this delay Foreign Minister Miki was responsible. 

He was very quick and personally agreeable, but he had trouble making up his 

mind, or perhaps he estimated that the return of the Bonins would redound more 

to the political benefit of Sato than to his own. Whatever the reason, he just would 

not commit his government reliably. I sent what I thought was a finished package 

to Washington in March for the NSC and President to approve, which they did. 

But then Miki insisted on changing some clauses, and after some fairly lengthy 

negotiations I had to resubmit everything to Washington.418

Eventually, on 5 April, the Bonins reversion agreement was signed, and on 10 April—

not 5 April as originally scheduled—the “secret annex” with regard to nuclear weapons was 
424

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

sent to Secretary Rusk.419 The actual contents remain classified at the time of this writing out of respect for the Japanese government, but a later memorandum discusses them. 

Another memorandum, dated 26 August 1968, discusses the return of Okinawa and the 

question of nuclear weapons storage rights:

If the JCS study reveals that storage rights only in time of crisis would not tolerably 

degrade our capability, I foresee a proposal which would permit reversion with such 

an arrangement rather than one which insists on storage rights at all times. This 

is similar to what was worked out for the Bonins. We said in a classified exchange 

that we expected that the Japanese would understand if we had to use the Bonins 

for nuclear operations in a crisis. The Japanese acknowledged that position—which 

saved them from having to “agree.”420

Furthermore, the existence of the secret agreement or understanding is not doubted, as 

an airgram prepared later in the year specifically references it.421 That message was prepared 

because Sato had formed a new cabinet, with a new foreign minister, Aichi Kiichi, the 

month before and it was necessary to ensure that Aichi knew of the understanding. On 30 

December 1968, Ambassador Johnson reported, “I today confirmed with Togo that Foreign 

Minister Aichi has been briefed on the understanding contained in refgram, Tokyo’s A 

1331, April 10, 1968, on Bonin Agreement Nuclear Storage.”422

The Signing Ceremony

In the meantime, Ushiba called Johnson on 2 April to tell him that the cabinet was expected to approve the Bonins agreement on the morning of 5 April.423 He and Johnson 

agreed to hold the signing ceremony at 1600 that day.424 Unfortunately, even at this late 

stage, there were other problems emerging.

The press release, negotiated bilaterally, was ready on 2 April, but the embassy was “not 

pleased” with the text that had “little press appeal.”425 Feeling it “too bland to be useful,” 

the embassy described it as the “result of tedious negotiations with [the Foreign Ministry] 

which could not prevent Treaties Bureau intrusion and lawyer’s language.”426 The embassy 

cautioned that it would be “useless” to try to negotiate any changes and recommended that 

the department “make [its] own release.”427 The department declined to do so, but explained 

that it would have a desk officer provide background information at the 5 April press conference to make up for the “extreme blandness” of the joint release.428 The text read,

Foreign Minister Miki and Ambassador Johnson signed today in Tokyo an agreement for the return to Japanese administration of the Bonin and Volcano Island 

groups (together with Rosario Island, Parece Vela, and Marcus Island), which had 

been administered by the United States under the provisions of Article 3 of the 

Peace Treaty with Japan. Upon completion by Japan of its legal procedures necessary for the entry into force of the agreement, the actual turnover of administration 

will take place after a thirty-day transitional period. President Johnson and Prime 

Minister Sato agreed in November of 1967 in Washington that the two governments should enter immediately into consultations regarding the specific arrange-
425

The Reversion, 1967–68

ments for accomplishing the early restoration of these islands to Japan without 

detriment to the security of the area. Today’s agreement is the result of negotiations 

conducted within the framework of the President’s and Prime Minister’s understanding. After the entry into force of today’s agreement, the United States will 

continue the use of LORAN navigational stations on Iwo Jima and Marcus under 

the terms of the Status of Forces Agreement between the two countries, but all 

other installations and sites will be transferred to Japan. The Government of Japan 

has under consideration measures to facilitate the reintegration of the slightly over 

two hundred Japanese nationals who are now living on Chichi Jima into Japanese 

life, as well as the return of the former residents of the islands evacuated during 

the war.

In early April, the Foreign Ministry also shared with Ambassador Johnson a copy of 

the draft personal statement of Miki to be made at the time of the signing ceremony. Both 

the embassy and the staff of the ministry felt it to be “negatively worded” and not “strik[ing 

a] tone which is desirable.”429 Subsequently, the embassy was able to suggest improvements and the ministry staff eliminated some of the more “negative language,” but noted 

that Miki “stuck by his rather somber overall approach.”430 It explained that the statement sounded better in Japanese than in English, and informed Washington that it would 

be “counterproductive” for the United States to try to alter the language.431 Miki, on his 

own, however, did make further revisions on the morning he was scheduled to make the 

statement. The embassy deplored the “eleventh-hour changes” but felt they improved the 

tone.432 Miki stated:

The fact that we are signing the agreement for the reversion of the Ogasawaras 

here today is truly a deep pleasure. Dealing with the aftermath of war is no less 

difficult than war itself. Given the mood of our people at the end of the war, there 

were circumstances which could be accepted. However, with the passage of more 

than twenty years there are those which ultimately became unacceptable. When 

it comes to changing a situation which has existed for twenty years, it is easy to 

imagine that it is difficult for those who must make the change. The reconciliation 

of these two aspects and the search for a resolution which deepen Japanese-United 

States cooperation is the difficult task of our diplomats. I am deeply pleased that 

this reversion of the Ogasawaras could be settled through the understanding and 

cooperation of the American side, and especially Ambassador Johnson. I earnestly 

hope that other questions which remain can also be resolved in the same spirit.433

At the signing ceremony, Johnson, somewhat anticlimactically, stated,

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for your welcome and for your thoughtful words on the 

significance of this historic occasion. President Johnson and Prime Minister Sato 

agreed in Washington last November that it would be possible to accommodate 

the mutual security interests of Japan and the United States within the context of 

a return of the Bonin and related islands to Japanese administration. I was pleased, 

Mr. Minister, that you and I were able so quickly to reach an understanding on the 

principles to be embodied in this agreement. Since then, our representatives have 

worked out together all of the multitudinous and detailed questions which arise 
426

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

when the administration of territory changes hands. In this task we have enjoyed 

the splendid cooperation of your very able staff. We have also been gratified to see 

the considerate way in which your government is approaching the complicated 

problem of reintegrating into Japanese society the two hundred Japanese nationals 

who have been living on Chichi Jima. I was also very pleased to learn from you the 

plans of the Japanese government with respect to the preservation of the Marine 

Corps memorial on Iwo Jima. I believe that the results of our labors are good, and 

meet the criteria which were outlined for us by the leaders of our two nations. 

What we are doing today demonstrates, as did the return of Amami Oshima, the 

good faith of the United States, in relinquishing stewardship of Japanese territory 

when both our governments agree that circumstances permit. Mr. Minister, the 

ease and speed with which this agreement was worked out is to me further evidence of that confidence and understanding which forms such a firm basis for the 

relations between our two countries and peoples.434

In fact, Ambassador Johnson had been clearly bothered by Miki’s speech and told Sato 

as much a couple of days later when the two met at Sato’s retreat in Kamakura. Johnson 

said he was “disappointed with the implication of the foreign minister’s statement made at 

the time of the signing,” and added that “he had hoped that the foreign minister would take 

that opportunity to speak about American good will and good faith to ease the pressures 

on Okinawa.”435

As part of the reversion process, a meeting of the joint committee took place at which 

the following statements were made based on minutes drawn up and negotiated earlier in 

the year.436 These minutes, too, remain classified, but this is the draft:

1. The United States representative stated:

Under the terms of the Agreement between the United States of America and 

Japan concerning Nanpo Shoto South of Sofu Gan (including the Bonin Islands, 

Rosario Island and the Volcano Islands), and Parece Vela and Marcus Island, the 

United States wishes to retain for its use and operation the following facilities and 

areas in these islands:

A. Iwo Jima. The Loran A and C stations, including antenna fields.

B. Marcus Island. The Loran C station, the radio station, which is an integral part of this facility, and the appurtenant antenna fields covering 

substantially all of the island except the Air Base.

2. The Japanese representative stated:

The Government of Japan agrees with the requests just made by the representative of the United States for the retention of certain facilities on Iwo and Marcus 

Islands and suggests that the Subcommittee on Facilities and Areas proceed to 

delineate the boundaries of and the arrangements for the facilities in question.

3. The United States representative stated:

In accordance with the expressed intention of the Government of Japan to assume 

responsibility for the defense of the Bonins area as set forth in the Joint Com-
427

The Reversion, 1967–68

muniqué issued following Prime Minister Sato’s meeting with President Johnson 

November 15, 1967, the United States is prepared to release to the Government of 

Japan the following facilities when the agreement concerning these islands comes 

into force or as soon thereafter as the Government of Japan is prepared to assume 

responsibility for their maintenance and operation.

A. Chichi Jima.

1. The United States naval facility.

2. The United States Navy weather station.

3. The munition storage sites.

B. Iwo Jima.

1. The airfield and other fixed facilities within the Air Base.

2. The aviation fuel farm.

3. The aircraft warning light facility on Mount Suribachi.

4. The low frequency navigational beacon facility.

5. The TACAN facility.

C. Marcus Island.

1. The airfield and other fixed facilities within the Air Base.

2. The aviation fuel farm.

3. The radio beacon facility.

4. The Japanese representative replied:

The Government of Japan is prepared to accept responsibility for the maintenance 

and operation of the facilities just enumerated by the United States representative.

5. The U.S. representative replied:

The appropriate authorities of the two Governments should now consult as to the 

moveable equipment located within the enumerated facilities which the Government of Japan may consider it convenient to purchase from the United States 

Armed Forces.

6. The Japanese representative replied:

This is agreeable to the Government of Japan. The Government of Japan also understands that, as provided in Article IV of the Agreement under Article VI of 

the Treaty of Mutual Security Cooperation and Security, it is not obligated to 

compensate the United States for any improvements within these facilities which 

are not removable.

7. The United States representative stated:
428

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

The United States proposes the following understandings with reference to the 

islands referred to above:

A. Except as otherwise agreed, the Government of Japan will continue to 

operate and maintain the installations, airfields and sites turned over to it 

by the United States in the concerned islands. In view of the limited areas 

of the islands concerned, both Governments will give special attention and 

consideration to the possibilities for exchange of reimbursable services. The 

United States forces will have the right to access to and use of the facilities 

maintained by the Government of Japan in these islands as required by the 

United States, subject only to payment for fuel and services rendered. The 

two Governments will consult about the development of new facilities, 

or the modification of those facilities, referred to in Paragraph 3 above, 

including changes in the function or purpose of such facilities.

The important relations of Nanpo Shoto, South of Sofu Gan (including 

the Bonin Islands, Rosario Island, the Volcano Islands) and Parece Vela 

and Marcus Island to the defense and security of both Japan and the United States of America may require that additional facilities and areas in the 

Islands be granted to the United States of America on an urgent basis. 

The Government of the United States understands that the Government 

of Japan will give as prompt and favorable consideration as possible if and 

when such requests are made specifically and case by case through the 

Subcommittee for Facilities and Areas.

B. The United States understands that the United States forces will have 

freedom of air space in all areas over the land and territorial water, ports 

and harbors, of these islands in accordance with Article V of the Agreement under Article VI of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security 

between the United States of America and the Status of United States 

Armed Forces in Japan.

C. The United States understands that the existing rights, privileges and 

exemptions enjoyed by all contractors and their personnel presently performing existing contracts with the United States forces will continue in 

effect until the termination of the contract.

D. The United States understands that the Government of Japan will prohibit or, upon detection or upon the request of the United States forces, 

will take immediate and adequate measures in the area of the concerned 

islands for removing, destroying, neutralizing or screening any devices or 

equipment incompatible with the effective security and protection of, or 

causing electronic or mechanical interference with, the communication 

and navigational equipment employed by United States forces in the area.

8. The Japanese representative replied:

These understandings are acceptable to my Government.
429

The Reversion, 1967–68

Despite the tight schedule created for the return—a mere 11 weeks—the final arrangements proceeded without any major issues, unlike the many minor and major problems 

introduced in this chapter. Indeed, it was during the year covered in this chapter where the 

perceived national interests of both countries truly clashed—this time diplomatically rather 

than militarily—over Iwo Jima and its neighboring islands. Fortunately, their interests were 

able to mesh and merge for the common good of bilateral and regional stability.

While there many who were and are upset in the United States with the idea of returning Iwo Jima, many others gracefully accepted it. Similarly, the Japanese, rather than boasting about the return, sought to make it an opportunity to bring the two countries closer 

together. On 9 November 1968, for example, the Iwo Jima Kensho Kinenhi Kenritsu Kiseikai

(Association for the Construction of a Memorial on Iwo Jima) was formed at a meeting 

in the Foreign Ministry’s auditorium with the help of the ministry and other government 

agencies, as well as the Nanpo Doho Engokai (Assistance Association for Okinawa and 

Ogasawara and Northern Islands Nanpo), Ogasawara Kyokai (Ogasawara Association), Iwo 

Jima Kyokai (Iwo Jima Association), Nichibei Kyokai ( Japan-America Society), Nihon Kyoyu 

Renmei ( Japan Veterans Association), and the Ogasawara Yushi no Kai (Ogasawara Brave 

Warriors Association). Under the leadership of former Prime Minister Kishi Nobusuke, 

who was Sato’s older brother, the association had a memorial to the Japanese who served 

on Iwo Jima built of stone from each of Japan’s 47 prefectures.437 It was completed on 25 

June 1969, and a dedication ceremony took place on the 27th.438

Embassy political officer Anthony Arnold attended on behalf of the new ambassador, 

Armin H. Meyer. On an early summer day, Arnold read the ambassador’s statement and 

then told the audience that he had lost his brother on Iwo Jima during the battle. He was 

certain, however, that his brother shared with him the same feeling of reverence for the 

bravery shown by both sides in the battle and the hopes that the bonds between the peoples 

of both countries would continue to grow in the future.439 This, after all, was what the reversion of Iwo Jima and its neighboring islands was all about.
430

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Notes

1

Caruso, Nightmare on Iwo, 160.

2

Miki used this term to describe the preparatory work for reversion. Johnson uses a very similar 

phrase: “preparing the soil.” This latter quote comes from Johnson, The Right Hand of Power, 470. 

Johnson was the U.S. ambassador to Japan at the time of the reversion of the Bonin Islands.

3

Johnson, who was serving as deputy ambassador in Saigon, Republic of South Vietnam, was appointed ambassador to Japan on 25 July 1966, and following Senate confirmations in August and a 

vacation in Hawaii, arrived in Japan on 29 October. See ibid., 441–42.

4

Ibid., 441.

5

Ibid., 467.

6

Ibid., 468.

7

“Telegram 8698 from Johnson to Department of State, June 1, 1967,” Folder: Pol 19 Bonin Islands, 

Box 1898, Central Files (hereafter CF) 1967–1969, RG 59, also see author’s interview with Edamura Sumio, 17 July 2007, Tokyo.

8

“Telegram 8536 from Johnson to Department of State, May 23, 1967,” Folder: Pol 19 Bonin Islands, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59. The transcripts of the subcommittee’s hearing can be found 

at http://kokkai.ndl.go.jp/SENTAKU/sangiin/055/0522/main.html.

9

For more on Ohama and the trip, see Robert D. Eldridge, “ ‘Mr. Okinawa’: Ohama Nobumoto, the 

Reversion of Okinawa, and an Inner History of U.S.-Japan Relations,” Doshisha Amerika Kenkyu

(Doshisha American Studies), no. 39 (2003), 61–80.

10“Memorandum for the Record on Foreign Minster Miki Discusses the Bonins with the Japanese 

Press, 1967,” file unidentified.

11“Telegram 201414 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, May 24, 1967,” Folder: Pol 19 Bonin Islands, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59. Also see, “U.S. Would Reject Japanese Bid for Isles,” 

The Evening Star, 25 May 1967; “U.S. Won’t Return Bonins,” Pacific Stars and Stripes, 26 May 1967.

12“Telegram 8698 from Johnson to Department of State, May 31, 1967,” Folder: Pol 19 Bonin Islands, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

13The transcripts of the meeting can be found at http://kokkai.ndl.go.jp/SENTAKU/sangiin/055/0082/ main.html. An English version that offers the gist of Miki’s comments can be found 

in “Telegram 8659.”

14“Telegram 8659.”

15The editorial (“Bonin Islands,” The Washington Post, 26 May 1967) stated,

For the first time Japan has asked the United States to discuss the return of the Bonin 

Islands. The United States should promptly agree. The point of the discussions should 

be how quickest to return the islands to Japanese administration and, then, to undiluted 

Japanese control. The Bonins sit south of Japan and far east of the strategic Ryukyus. The 

United States took them in World War II and now maintains a weather station and small 

naval facility manned by a couple hundred men; their strategic value is, at best, questionable. Politically, the risks of staying and the rewards of leaving are minor, compared to the 
431

The Reversion, 1967–68

Ryukyus. Barely 150 islanders live there, descendents of the American and European colonists who arrived in the 1830s. In Tokyo live a large number of temporary prewar residents 

of Japanese descent; they supply what modest political pressure there is on the Japanese 

government to recover the islands. But it is myopic to look at foreign bases only in such 

narrow terms of current convenience and cost. Sooner or later, American control of foreign territory is bound to become a political liability. However appreciated for its military 

reassurance, the American presence is quite sure to become a target of local nationalism. 

Particularly with Japan, as firm and significant a friend as the United States has in Asia, 

the test should not be whether there is a legal basis for the American position but whether 

this country could and would establish such a position now. The political realities of today 

must be the guide, not the legal technicalities of the past. This test is all the more important 

in view of the United States’ continuing world role. As long as military commitments are 

made and kept in points so distant as to require foreign installations be sustained in terms 

responsive to the pride and policy of American allies. A “peace treaty,” which is the basis of 

the American position in the Bonins (and the Ryukyus), can hardly be relied on as a solid 

and worthy foundation, when the old relationship of victor and vanquished changes into 

the more mature and becoming relationship of equal and sovereign states.

The Washington Post followed with a second editorial on 23 July that argued,

As an earnest of its good faith, the United States should offer on the spot to relinquish the 

other Japanese island chain it holds as a result of World War II, the Bonins. Unlike the 

Ryukyus, which include the great base of Okinawa and arch strategically toward China, the 

Bonins sit far to the east and have a strategic value so slight the Pentagon is unwilling to 

make a public case for it. Indeed, the diplomatic case for retaining the Bonins is only that a 

change in their status would necessarily lead to a change in the Ryukyu’s status. That is why, 

in our view, we should start with the Bonins.

A subsequent editorial on 20 September argued along the same lines: “In our view, [the United 

States] should offer immediately to return the Bonins. Their strategic value appears to be close to nil. 

Their return might invite more pressure on the Ryukyus but it would demonstrate American good 

faith. The obvious occasion for a Bonins offer is the forthcoming visit of Premier Sato of Japan.”

A fourth editorial on the subject, appearing on 21 October, and entitled “Island Time Bombs,” 

argued that the “longer the United States holds [the islands] without specifically preparing to turn 

them back to Japan, the greater the danger of an explosion that will jeopardize this country’s relations with its most important Asian ally . . . In this situation, the United States must start by giving 

Japan tangible evidence of its intent to return the islands. We have thought for some time that one 

good way would be for President Johnson to offer to hand back the Bonins at once; their military 

value appears negligible. The moment will be at hand when Premier Sato arrives in Washington next 

month.” The author asked Richard Halloran, The Washington Post’s correspondent in Tokyo as to why 

that newspaper took such a strong interest in the Bonins problem. Halloran guessed it had to do 

with the importance the editor placed on relations with Japan. Interview with Richard Halloran, 1 

November 2007, Honolulu, Hawaii.

16Johnson, The Right Hand of Power, 457.

17In a September meeting with Miki called at the foreign minister’s request, Johnson told Miki 

how problematic it was for U.S. leaders that conversations with their Japanese counterparts were 

regularly leaked to the press. As a result, it was difficult to have “private” talks. Undated, untitled 

memo in Japanese Foreign Ministry Files (Eldridge JFOIA). Johnson elaborated on this theme in 

a self-recorded oral history located in the papers of U. Alexis Johnson at the Lyndon B. Johnson 

Presidential Library in Austin, TX.
432

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

18U. Alexis Johnson, Tape 16a, 1, papers of U. Alexis Johnson, Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, Austin, TX.

19Johnson, The Right Hand of Power, 468.

20Ibid.

21Ibid.

22Ibid., 469–70.

23Johnson, The Right Hand of Power, 452.

24“Aide-Memoire, Tokyo, July 15, 1967, English translation of 7 Gatsu 15 Nichi, Okinawa, Ogasawara Mondai ni Kansuru Gaimu Daijin, Bei Taishi Kaidan ni Saishi Senpo ni Tewataseru Oboegaki, 7/15/1967,” Eldridge JFOIA. The author was unable to locate the aide-mémoire in the files of 

the State Department, but was able to locate it through an FOIA request to the Japanese Foreign 

Ministry. The previous section on Okinawa is completely censored.

25Johnson, The Right Hand of Power, 470.

26“Telegram 271 from Johnson to State Department, July 15, 1967,” Folder: Pol 19 Bonin Islands, 

Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

27Johnson, The Right Hand of Power, 470.

28Ibid.

29Ibid.

30Ibid.

31“Airgram A-1747 from Johnson to State Department on Report on Private Luncheon with Vice 

Foreign Minister Ushiba, June 21, 1967,” Folder: Pol 19 RYU IS, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

32“Telegram 9182 from Johnson to State Department, June 27, 1967,” ibid.

33“Airgram A-1747.”

34Minobe Ryokichi, Tochiji 12 Nen [12 Years as Tokyo Metropolitan Governor] (Tokyo: Asahi 

Shimbunsha, 1979), 194.

35“Airgram A-144, Diet Committee Resolutions on Okinawa and the Bonins, July 28, 1967,” Folder: 

POL 19 Bonin Islands, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

36“Memorandum from William B. Bundy to Mr. Kohler on Your Meeting with Ambassador Shimoda, July 17, 1967,” ibid. Also see “Telegram 5236 from State Department to Tokyo Embassy, July 

13, 1967,”ibid.

37“Telegram 5236.”

38Ibid. Also see “Memorandum from William B. Bundy to Mr. Kohler on Your Meeting with Ambassador Shimoda, July 17, 1967.” In interpellations before the lower house Special Okinawa Committee on 28 June, Miki said it was natural to consider the Shimoda concept when preparing for 

negotiations for reversion, but said the type under the Shimoda concept was “incomplete reversion.” 

See “Telegram 25551 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, June 29 1967,” Folder: POL 19 

Bonin Islands, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.
433

The Reversion, 1967–68

39“Telegram 5236.”

40Shimoda also raised the Bonins issue a week later on 18 July when he called on Bundy again.

41“Memorandum on the Policy Planning Staff: Current and Future Plans, June 14, 1967,” NSF 

DSDUF Halperin Papers, Chronological File, Jan–June 1967, Box 1, Lyndon B. Johnson Library.

42“Memorandum for Mr. McNaughton on Scenario on Negotiations with Japan on Okinawa and 

the Bonins, May 30, 1967,” NSF DSDUF Halperin Papers, chronological file, Jan–June 1967, Box 

1, Lyndon B. Johnson Library. Author’s interview with Morton Halperin, 18 October 2000, Washington, DC.

43Morton Halperin, “American Decision Making on Reversion of Okinawa: A Memoir,” in Committee for the Commemoration of the 20th Anniversary of the Reversion of Okinawa, ed., Okinawa 

Reversion: Its Long-Term Significance in U.S.-Japan Relations, Past and Future (Tokyo: Japan Foundation Center for Global Partnership, 1994), 54. Sadly, McNaughton, whom Secretary of Defense 

McNamara had viewed as his likely successor, was killed in a plane crash on 19 July. He had already 

been appointed secretary of the Navy at this time and was to assume his position on 1 August.

44“Memorandum for Mr. McNaughton.”

45“Memorandum on the Policy Planning Staff.”

46Ibid. Also see “Letter from Robert S. McNamara to author, September 28, 2000.”

47“JCSM-376-67, Military Utility of the Bonins (U), June 19, 1967,” cited in “JCSM-568-67, Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense on Reversion of the Bonin and Ryukyu Islands Issue, Undated,” Folder: Pol 7, Japan 10/1/67, Box 2243, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

48“Telegram 20561, from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, August 14, 1967,” Folder: Pol 19 

Bonin Islands, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

49“Telegram 21877, from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, August 16, 1967,”ibid.

50“Memorandum for the Record, NSC Meeting August 30, 1967, Subject: Reversion to Japan of 

the Ryukyus, Bonins, and Other Western Pacific Islands, August 31, 1967,” Folder: NSC Meetings, 

8/30/67, Relations with Japan, Box 2, National Security Files, NSC Meeting File, Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, Austin, TX.

51“List of Attendees, NSC Meeting, August 30, 1967,” ibid.

52“Memorandum for the Record, NSC Meeting August 30, 1967.”

53“Telegram 0928 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, August 14, 1967,” Folder: Pol 19 

Bonin Islands, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

54Suetsugu Ichiro, ‘Sengo’ e no Chosen [Challenging the “Postwar”] (Tokyo: Ooru Shuppan, 1981), 

226. Also see author’s interview with Suetsugu Ichiro, 18 April 2000, Tokyo.

55“Telegram 22865 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, August 17, 1967,” ibid. According to 

a recently published diary, it appears that his personal secretary, Kusuda Minoru, a former reporter 

with the Sankei Shimbun, had a hand in writing the text of Sato’s speech. See Kusuda Minoru, Kusuda Minoru Nikki: Sato Eisaku Sori Shuseki Hishokan no 2000 Nichi [The Diary of Kusuda Minoru: 

2000 Days as the Personal Secretary of Prime Minister Sato Eisaku] (Tokyo: Chuo Koron Shinsha, 

2001), 71–72.
434

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

56Sato Eisaku, Sato Eisaku Nikki [The Diary of Sato Eisaku, vol. 3] (Tokyo: Asahi Shimbun, 1998), 

119.

57Ibid., 166. Also see Kusuda, Kusuda Minoru Nikki, 71–72.

58Sato, Sato Eisaku Nikki, vol. 3, 132.

59“Memorandum of Conversation on the Ryukyu and Bonin Islands, September 14, 1967,” Folder: 

Political Affairs and Relations, Japan-U.S., 1/1/68, Box 2249, CF 1967–1969, RG 59. The Japanese memorandum of conversation, “Miki Daijin, Rasuku Chokan Kaidanroku, 9/14,” was accessed 

through the author’s FOIA request.

60“Memorandum from Bundy to Secretary Rusk, August 31, 1967,” ibid.

61Mansfield papers, “Military importance of Bonin Islands: Talking Points for Senator Mansfield, 

8/31/67,” papers of Michael J. Mansfield, K. Ross Toole Archives and Special Collections, Maureen 

and Mike Mansfield Library, University of Montana, Missoula, MT. Also see Don Oberdorfer, 

Senator Mansfield: The Extraordinary Life of a Great American Statesman and Diplomat (Washington, 

DC: Smithsonian Books, 2003), 460.

62“Address by Michael J. Mansfield,” Japan-American Assembly, 14–17 September 1967, Shimoda, 

Japan. Also see author’s interview with Michael J. Mansfield, 27 March 2000, Washington, DC. The 

author would like to thank Weston Konishi of the Mansfield Foundation for helping to arrange the 

interview.

63“The United States Senate, Report of Proceedings held before Committee on Foreign Relations, 

Asia, Pacific, and the United States, Tuesday, January 31, 1967,” Folder: Reischauer, Edwin O., special files, JFK-LBJ Administration, Box 498, W. Averell Harriman Papers, Manuscript Division, 

Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Mansfield thought highly of Reischauer, and Reischauer 

equally so of Mansfield. See Packard, Edwin O. Reischauer, 149.

64“Return of Pacific Islands Needs Time: Mansfield,” Japan Times, 3 June 1967.

65“Telegram 03823 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo on Ryukyu and Bonin Islands, September 15, 1967,” Folder: Pol 19 Bonin Islands, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

66“Miki Daijin, Makunamara Kokubo Chokan Kaidanroku” [Memorandum of Conversation between Minister Miki and Secretary of Defense McNamara], Eldridge FOIA.

67Staff of the Asahi Shimbun, The Pacific Rivals: A Japanese View of Japanese-American Relations (New 

York: Weatherhill/Asahi, 1972), 238.

68Ibid., 238.

69“Handwritten Notes of Conversation between Vice President and Foreign Minister Miki (September 15, 1967),” Vice President’s Meeting with Japanese Foreign Minister Takeo Miki, Box 935, 

Vice President Files, Foreign Affairs, Hubert H. Humphrey Papers, Minnesota Historical Society, 

St. Paul, MN.

70“Memorandum of Conversation on Ryukyu Islands (Part I of II), September 16, 1967,” Folder: 

Pol 19 Bonin Islands, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59. A Japanese version of the memorandum, 

“Miki Daijin, Rasuku Chokan Kaidan Roku (II), 9/16, Do, Gogo,” was declassified as part of the 

author’s FOIA request.

71“Memorandum of Conversation on Ryukyu Islands (Part I of II), September 16, 1967.”
435

The Reversion, 1967–68

72“Memorandum of Conversation with Tadao Kuraishi, September 13, 1967,” Folder: Political Affairs and Relations, Japan-U.S., 1/1/68, Box 2249, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

73Johnson, The Right Hand of Power, 476.

74Ibid., 477. Johnson wrote that he briefed Harry D. Felt, which may be true, but Felt had finished 

his time as CINCPAC in June 1964. The author, thus, chose to insert the name of the commander 

at the time, Sharp, for Felt’s.

75Author’s interview with Robert A. Fearey, 10 June 2001, Washington, DC.

76“Telegram 046082 from State to Embassy, September 29, 1967,” Japan Cables, vol. VI, 2/67–10/67, 

Box 251, NSF Country Files, Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, Austin, TX.

77For more on Hoshina’s relationship with Burke, see Hoshina Zenshiro Sensei no Hakuju o Iwaukai, ed., Shisei Keio [Loyal and Respected] (Tokyo: Kokubo Kyokai, 1989), and Agawa Naoyuki, 

Umi no Yujo: Beikoku Kaigun to Kaijo Jieitai [Friendship Across the Sea: The United States Navy and 

the Maritime Self-Defense Forces] (Tokyo: Chuko Shinsho, 2001). Also see E. B. Potter, Admiral 

Arleigh Burke (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1990). The author would like to thank James 

Auer for his insights into Burke’s relations with former Japanese Imperial Navy officers.

78For more on Moorer, see J. Kenneth McDonald, “Thomas Hinman Moorer, 1 August 1967–1 July 

1970,” in Robert William Love Jr., The Chiefs of Naval Operations (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute 

Press, 1980), 350–63.

79Ibid., 353, 354, 359.

80Ibid., 363.

81“Memorandum of Conversation on Extension of Security Treaty and Okinawa and the Bonins, 

October 2, 1967,” Memorandum of Conversation Sr. H. Sr. Official, Box 1, DSDUF, Halperin Papers, NSF, Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, Austin, TX.

82Ibid.

83Ibid.

84“Memorandum of Conversation on the Return of the Bonin Islands to Japan, October 5, 1967,” 

Folder: Pol 19 Bonin Islands, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

85“Intelligence Note on Japanese Foreign Minister Discusses Vietnam and Okinawa, October 6, 

1967,” Folder: Pol 19 Bonin Islands, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

86“Address by Miki Takeo,” Bulletin of the America-Japan Society, Tokyo, vol. 16, no. 2 (August–October 1967), 11.

87“Telegram 2298, Johnson to Secretary of State (October 5, 1967),” Box 2249, Political Affairs and 

Relations, Japan-U.S. 1/168, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

88“Intelligence Note on Japanese Foreign Minister Discusses Vietnam and Okinawa, October 6, 

1967.”

89“Telegram 2298.”

90Ibid.

91A Japanese version of the memorandum of conversation exists: “Miki Daijin Jonson Taishi Kaidanroku, 10/11/67,” Eldridge JFOIA.
436

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

92“Telegram 2422, Johnson to Secretary of State (October 11, 1967),” Box 2249, Political Affairs and 

Relations, Japan-U.S. 1/168, CF 1967–1969, RG 59; also see “Telegram 2414, Johnson to Secretary 

of State (October 11, 1967),” ibid.

93“Telegram 2422.”

94Ibid. Also see “Telegram 2415, Johnson to Secretary of State (October 11, 1967),” ibid.

95“Telegram 2422.”

96Ibid.

97Ibid.

98Ibid.

99The U.S.-Japan Security Subcommittee is one of the bilateral fora to discuss alliance issues and was 

created as part of the new arrangements under the security treaty revised in 1960.

100“Telegram 2422.”

101“Telegram 2585 from Johnson to Rusk, October 17, 1967,” Folder: Pol 7 Japan 10/1/67, Box 2243, 

CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

102Ibid.

103Ibid.

104“Telegram 54981, Secretary of State to American Embassy, Tokyo (October 17, 1967),” vol. VI 

Cables, 2/57–10/67, National Security File, Country File Japan, Box 251, Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, Austin, TX.

105“Telegram 55551, Secretary of State to American Embassy, Tokyo (October 18, 1967),” ibid. The 

Japanese memorandum of conversation was sent as telegram no. 2908 to the foreign minister and 

was made available by the author’s FOIA request to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

106“Telegram 2698, Johnson to Secretary of State (October 21, 1967),” Folder: Pol 19 Bonin Islands, 

Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59. Johnson’s 11 October telegram makes no mention of Miki promising a paper on the Bonins, but his 21 October telegram said Miki had made such a promise.

107The aide-mémoire was sent as “Telegram 2697, Johnson to Secretary of State (October 21, 1967),” 

ibid. The English and Japanese versions were made available as part of the author’s declassification 

request to the Foreign Ministry. The paragraph quoted here is from page 4 of the aide-mémoire 

from the Japanese files.

108“Aide-Mémoire, October 21, 1967.”

109Ibid.

110Ibid.

111Ibid.

112Ibid.

113Ibid.

114Togo Fumihiko, Nichibei Gaiko 30 Nen [Thirty Years of Japan-U.S. Diplomacy] (Tokyo: Tokyo 

Kansho Fukyu, 1981), 128.
437

The Reversion, 1967–68

115“Telegram 2698.”

116Ibid.

117“Telegram 2691 from Johnson to Rusk (October 21, 1967),” Folder: Pol 6 Japan, 1/1/67, Box 

2243, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

118Ibid.

119“Telegram 56953 from Bundy to Ambassador, October 24, 1967,” ibid.

120“Telegram 2913 from Johnson to State Department, October 28, 1967,” Folder: Political and 

Defense, Pol 19 Bonin Islands, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59. The Japanese version of the memo 

appeared as telegram 1910 from Foreign Ministry to Washington Embassy, 28 October 1967, and 

was declassified as part of the Eldridge FOIA request.

121Newspaper reports of the meeting suggested that Miki was unhappy Johnson had not been given 

instructions for his talks with the foreign minister.

122“Telegram 2913.”

123Ibid.

124Ibid.

125Ibid.

126The aide-mémoire was prepared on 26 October, and the English and Japanese versions were 

declassified through the author’s request in the Japanese Foreign Ministry files. The English version, not quoted here, is six pages long. It was sent as “Telegram 2907 from Embassy to State Department, October 28, 1967,” Folder: Political and Defense, Pol 19 Bonin Islands, Box 1898, CF 

1967–1969, RG 59.

127“Telegram 2913.”

128Ibid.

129Ibid.

130Ibid.

131Kusuda, Shuseki Hishokan: Sato Sori to no 10 Nenkan [Personal Secretary: 10 Years with Prime 

Minister Sato] (Tokyo: Bungei Shunju, 1975), 160.

132Ibid.

133“Telegram 3042 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, November 3, 1967,” Folder: Pol 19 

Bonin Islands, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

134Sato, Sato Eisaku Nikki, vol. 3, 166.

135Author’s interview with Walt R. Rostow, 12 July 2000, Rostow Office, Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, Austin, TX.

136John Swenson-Wright, “Editor’s Introduction,” in Wakaizumi Kei, The Best Course Available: A 

Personal Account of the Secret U.S.-Japan Okinawa Reversion Negotiations (Honolulu: University of 

Hawaii Press, 2002), 12.
438

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

137Ibid.

138“Memorandum of Conversation, October 27, 1967,” Folder: Japan Memos, vol. VI, 2/67-10/67, 

Box 252, National Security Files Country, Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, Austin, TX.

139Ibid.

140Ibid.

141Ibid.

142Ibid.

143Ibid.

144Sato, Sato Eisaku Nikki, vol. 3, 168.

145Ibid.

146Paul Y. Hammond, LBJ and the Presidential Management of Foreign Relations (Austin: University 

of Texas Press, 1992), 9.

147Ibid., 10.

148“Memorandum for Mr. Rostow on Tuesday Luncheon Item: Ryukyus and Bonins, October 31, 

1967,” Folder: Meetings with President, July–Dec 1967, Box 1, National Security Files of Walt R. 

Rostow, Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, Austin, TX. Jenkins was tapped by Rostow, “an old 

friend whom I respected,” to join the senior staff of the National Security Council in September. 

Jenkins was a critic of the Vietnam War and found Rostow to be “just as hawkish as President Johnson.” See Alfred L. Jenkins, Country, Conscience, and Caviar: A Diplomat’s Journey in the Company of 

History (Seattle: Book Partners, 1993), 225–40.

149“Memorandum for Mr. Rostow on Tuesday Luncheon Item.”

150Ibid.

151Ibid.

152“Lunch Meeting with the President, Tuesday, October 31, 1967, 1:00 p.m.,” Folder: Meetings 

with President, July–Dec 1967, Box 1, National Security Files of Walt R. Rostow, Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, Austin, TX.

153“Telegram (unnumbered) from Rusk to Johnson, November 1, 1967,” Folder: Pol 7 Japan, 10/1/67, 

Box 2243, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

154“Telegram 65118 from State Department to Tokyo Embassy, November 5, 1967,” Folder: Political 

Affairs and Relations, Japan-U.S., 1/168, Box 2249, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

155“Memorandum for the President on United States Position on Reversion of the Bonins, November 3, 1967,” Folder: Meetings with President, July–Dec 1967, Box 1, National Security Files of Walt 

R. Rostow, Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, Austin, TX.

156Ibid.

157Ibid.

158“Draft Language for Sato Communiqué on the Bonin Islands, undated,” attachment to ibid.
439

The Reversion, 1967–68

159Ibid.

160“Untitled memo for President, November 3, 1967,” Folder: Meetings with President, July–Dec 

1967, Box 1, National Security Files of Walt R. Rostow, Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, 

Austin, TX.

161Ibid.

162Ibid.

163Of course, the argument can be made that the JCS was too acquiescent toward the White House 

at this time on military strategy. See H. R. McMaster, Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies that Led to Vietnam (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1997). 

On Wheeler, see Jack Raymond, Power at the Pentagon (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 

1964), 22.

164“Memorandum to the President on Luncheon Meeting with Secretaries Rusk and McNamara, 

Walt Rostow, CIA Director Richard Helms, George Christian, and Jim Jones, Saturday, November 

4, 1967,” Folder: Meeting with Foreign Policy Advisors, 4 November 1967, 2:20 p.m., Meeting 

Notes File, Box 2, LBJ Papers, Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, Austin, TX.

165Ibid.

166Ibid.

167Ibid.

168Ibid.

169Ibid.

170Ibid.

171Ibid.

172Ibid.

173Ibid.

174Ibid.

175Ibid.

176Ibid.

177Ibid.

178Ibid.

179“Telegram 65118.”

180“Telegram 65117 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, November 5, 1967,” Folder: Political Affairs and Relations, Japan-U.S. 1/1/68, Box 2249, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

181Ibid.

182Ibid.

183Ibid. Also see “Telegram 65120, Rusk to Johnson (November 5, 1967),” Folder: Political Affairs 

and Relations, Bonin Islands 1-1-67, Box 1897, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.
440

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

184“Telegram 65117.”

185“Telegram 65120.”

186Ibid.

187Ibid.

188Ibid.

189Ibid.

190“Telegram 3060, Johnson to Secretary of State (November 6, 1967),” Folder: Political Affairs and 

Relations, Japan-U.S. 1/1/68, Box 2249, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

191Ibid.

192Sato, Sato Eisaku Nikki, 168.

193“Telegram 3142 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, November 7, 1967,” Folder: Political 

and Defense, Pol 19 Bonin Islands, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59, and “Telegram 3183 from 

Tokyo Embassy to State Department, November 8, 1967,” ibid.

194“Telegram 3142.”

195“Telegram 3147 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, November 7, 1967,” ibid.

196Ibid.

197Johnson, The Right Hand of Power, 478.

198Ibid. According to Johnson, the consultation had not been done, but a plan had been worked out 

between Rusk and McNamara. The two had waited until Ambassador Johnson had informed the 

Japanese of the “total position [of the United States] in the draft communiqué,” which was done 

when Johnson told Sato and Miki that the United States reserved the right to discuss nuclear weapons storage in the Bonins. Rusk and McNamara agreed to arrange consultation with the leadership 

of both houses, the chairman and ranking minority member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the chairman and ranking minority member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the 

chairman and ranking minority member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the chairman 

and ranking minority member of the House Armed Services Committee, and individually for Senator Carl T. Hayden (D-AZ) and Representative George H. Mahon (D-TX). See “Memorandum for 

the President on Consultation with Congressional Leaders on our Handling of the Ryukyus and 

Bonins during Sato Visit, November 5, 1967,” Folder: Political and Defense, Pol 19 Bonin Islands, 

Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

199Ibid. Johnson expressed his surprise at this, but he may have had some hints that Congress would 

not be too opposed through his talks with two influential senators while still in Japan. The ambassador had met on or about 1 November with Senators John J. Sparkman (D-AL) and John G. Tower 

(R-TX), along with Gen Matthew C. Ridgway, who were in Japan for the state funeral of Yoshida. 

Johnson told them of the general direction of the discussions regarding Okinawa and the Bonins, 

and of Japan’s views with regard to Iwo Jima. All three said that the movement on the return of the 

islands was “entirely appropriate” and none saw any “significant political problems.” Johnson paid 

extra attention to the views of Tower—who had served in the Pacific on an amphibious gunboat and 

was a member of the Armed Services Committee—about Iwo Jima. Tower, according to Johnson, 

did not believe there would be any “significant political opposition” to inclusion of Iwo Jima in the 

return of the Bonins. Johnson explained that he was only asking on an “informal and personal basis” 
441

The Reversion, 1967–68

and was not “seeking to tie them to their off-the-cuff answers.” See “Telegram 2972 from Embassy 

Tokyo to State Department, November 1, 1967,” Folder: Political and Defense, Pol 19 Bonin Islands, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

200Johnson, The Right Hand of Power, 478.

201Ibid.

202Author’s interview with Mansfield.

203“Memorandum for Mr. Walt W. Rostow, the White House, on Check List of Helpful Japanese 

Actions, November 8, 1967,” Folder: Pol 7 Japan, 11/1/67, Box 2244, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

204Sato, Sato Eisaku Nikki, 169. Sato prepared a letter introducing Wakaizumi in said capacity. See 

“Letter from Eisaku Sato to Dr. Walt W. Rostow, November 9, 1967,” Folder: Non Vietnam, Oct–

Dec. 1967, Box 16, National Security Files, Files of Walt W. Rostow, Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential 

Library, Austin, TX.

205Johnson, The Right Hand of Power, 478–79.

206Wakaizumi, The Best Course Available, 38. Wakaizumi cites the memoirs of a close ally of Sato, 

Hori Shigeru, who was considered one of the Sato faction’s five lieutenants (Satoha Gobugyo). See 

Hori Shigeru, Sengo Seiji no Oboegaki [A Memorandum on Postwar Politics] (Tokyo: Mainichi 

Shimbunsha, 1975), 122–23.

207Author’s interview with Kusuda Minoru, 31 July 2000, Tokyo. Also see Kusuda, Shuseki Hishokan.

208Ibid., 151.

209Ibid. For more on Sakai’s career, see Sakai Yoneo, Watashi no Isho [My Last Will] (Tokyo: Bungei 

Shunju, 1967). Johnson had served as deputy undersecretary from April 1961 to June 1964, when he 

was suddenly asked to serve as the deputy ambassador in Saigon. He returned to Washington in November 1965 and served once again as the deputy undersecretary until he went to Japan in October 

1965 as ambassador to Japan. See Johnson, The Right Hand of Power, chapters 10, 11, and 12.

210Kusuda, Shuseki Hishokan, 152.

211Ibid.

212“Memorandum for Mr. Walt W. Rostow, the White House, on Your Appointment with Professor 

Kei Wakaizumi, November 10, 1967,” Folder: Pol 7 Japan, 11/1/67, Box 2244, CF 1967–1969, RG 

59.

213“Memorandum for the Record, Sunday, November 13, 1967 [sic],” Folder: Non Vietnam, Oct–

Dec. 1967, Box 16, National Security Files, Files of Walt W. Rostow, Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential 

Library, Austin, TX. Rostow’s memo appears to be misdated. It should read “12.” The context of the 

conversation suggests that it took place on Sunday, 12 November.

214“Memorandum for the Record, Sunday, November 13 [sic], 1967.”

215Ibid.

216Ibid.

217“Memorandum from Rostow to Rusk, November 11, 1967,” Folder: Japan Memos, vol. VII, 

10/67-12/68, NSF Country Files, Box 252, Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, Austin, TX.
442

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

218“Memorandum for the President, November 10, 1967.”

219Sato, Sato Eisaku Nikki, 168. Also see “Telegram 3137 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, 

November 7, 1967,” Folder: Political and Defense, Pol 19 Bonin Islands, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, 

RG 59.

220Kusuda, Shuseki Hishokan, 162.

221Johnson, The Right Hand of Power, 479. Also see Johnson’s oral history, Tape 15 a, 16, papers of U. 

Alexis Johnson, Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, Austin, TX .

222Johnson, The Right Hand of Power, 479.

223“Memorandum for the President on Congressional Consultations and Negotiating Status Concerning the Ryukyus and the Bonins, November 13, 1967,” Folder: Political and Defense, Pol 19 

Bonin Islands, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

224Ibid.

225Hickenlooper had been nominated as a candidate to attend the Yoshida state funeral, but declined 

to go. See “Memorandum for the President on U.S. Delegation for Yoshida State Funeral, October 

23, 1967,” Folder: Pol 6 Japan, Box 2244, CF 1967–1969, RG 59, and “Status of Yoshida Funeral 

Delegation as of 1400, October 24.”

226“Memorandum for the President on Congressional Consultations and Negotiating Status Concerning the Ryukyus and the Bonins, November 13, 1967.”

227Johnson, The Right Hand of Power, 480–81.

228Sato, Sato Eisaku Nikki, vol. 3, 175.

229“Memorandum of Conversation, Part I of II, November 15, 1967,” Folder: Political and Defense, 

Pol 19 Bonin Islands, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

230Sato, Sato Eisaku Nikki, vol. 3, 175.

231Ibid., 175–76.

232Ibid., 176.

233“Memorandum of Conversation on U.S.-Japanese Relations and Security Problems, November 

15, 1967,” Foreign Relations of the United States, vol. 19, part 2, Japan (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2006), 235–44. If the Japanese side, interpreted by Shimanouchi Naoshi, kept 

a record, it was not made available to the author in his declassification request.

234Sato, Sato Eisaku Nikki, vol. 3, 176.

235“Memorandum of Conversation on U.S.-Japanese Relations and Security Problems, November 

15, 1967.”

236Ibid.

237“Joint Statement of Japanese Prime Minister Sato and U.S. President Johnson, Washington, DC, 

November 15, 1967.”

238Johnson, The Right Hand of Power, 483. Inexplicably, Johnson’s memoirs again mistake the name 

of the CINCPAC at this point, writing it was Adm John S. McCain Jr. However, McCain did not 

assume his responsibilities until July 1968. Adm Sharp was still in charge at this time.
443

The Reversion, 1967–68

239Author’s correspondence by e-mail with Miki Hideo, 5 January 2008.

240“Telegram 3580 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, November 27, 1967,” Folder: Pol 19 

Bonin Islands, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

241Ibid.

242“Telegram 75936 from State Department to Tokyo Embassy, November 28, 1967,” ibid.

243Ibid.

244Johnson asked Miki for this information at their 29 November 1967 meeting. Miki told him that 

the Tokyo Metropolitan Government probably had such records, and that he would try to obtain 

them for Ambassador Johnson. See “Telegram 3665 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, 

November 29, 1967,” Folder: Pol 7 Japan, Box 2244, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

245“Telegram 3626 from Embassy Tokyo to CINCPACFLT, November 28, 1967,” Folder: Pol 19 

Bonin Islands, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

246Ibid.

247Ibid.

248The State Department wrote to Johnson promising the materials in the public domain but said 

it wanted to review the other materials of an in-house nature, such as military government reports, 

before turning over to the Foreign Ministry. See “Telegram 76614 from State Department to Tokyo 

Embassy, November 29, 1967,” ibid.

249“Telegram 3665.”

250Ibid.

251Ibid.

252“Miki Daijin, Johnson Bei Taishi Kaidan Kiroku” [Memorandum of Conversation between Minister Miki and U.S. Ambassador Johnson], November 30, 1967,” Eldridge JFOIA.

253Ibid.

254Ibid.

255Ibid.

256Ibid.

257“Telegram 3665.”

258Johnson, The Right Hand of Power, 484.

259Ibid.

260Ibid.

261“Telegram 81132 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, December 7, 1967,” Folder: Political 

and Defense, Pol 19 Bonin Islands, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

262“Telegram 3967 from Embassy Tokyo from State Department, December 13, 1967,” ibid.

263“Telegram 84738 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, December 14, 1967,” ibid.
444

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

264“Telegram 83547 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, December 13, 1967,” ibid.

265“Telegram 85704 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, December 16, 1967,” ibid.

266“Telegram 85697 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, December 16, 1967,” ibid.

267Ibid.

268“Telegram 85715 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, December (exact date unknown), 

1967,” ibid. At the time of this writing, the telegram remains classified.

269“Telegram 88836 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, December 22, 1967,” ibid.

270“Telegram 85704.”

271Ibid.

272Ibid.

273Ibid.

274Ibid.

275Ibid.

276The provision in the Amami agreement was Article IV. See Eldridge, The Return of the Amami 

Islands, 159–60.

277“Telegram 85697.”

278Ibid.

279Ibid.

280“Telegram 85704.”

281Ibid.

282Ibid.

283Ibid.

284Ibid.

285On this question, Ambassador Johnson later wrote that he hoped that the government would 

move fast on the option and that it would be open only as long as the United States retained administrative rights over the islands. “Special provision for emigration,” Johnson continued, “after GOJ 

takeover could make integration of islanders into Japanese environment more difficult and might be 

misinterpreted by Japanese public. However, it [was] clear from Miki’s comments [that] immigration into U.S. and/or work in Guam would help ease problem of integration for GOJ which cannot continue high wage jobs for these people.” See “Telegram 4310, Johnson to Secretary of State, 

December 29, 1967,” Folder: Political and Defense, Pol 19 Bonin Islands, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, 

RG 59.

286“Telegram 85704.”

287“Telegram 88836.”

288Ibid.
445

The Reversion, 1967–68

289“Airgram No. A-817 on Media Visit to Bonin Islands, December 5–15, 1967, December 29, 

1967,” Folder: Political and Defense, Pol 19 Bonin Islands, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

290Ibid.

291“Telegram 3767 from Embassy Tokyo from State Department, December 4, 1967,” Folder: Political and Defense, Pol 19 Bonin Islands, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59. For details on the trip, see 

“Airgram A-817 on Media Visit to Bonin Islands December 5–15, 1967.”

292“Telegram 92619 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, January 3, 1968,” Folder: Political 

and Defense, Pol 19 Bonin Islands, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

293Ibid.

294Sato, Sato Eisaku Nikki, vol. 3, 195.

295Seifu Ogasawara Chosadan, “Ogasawara Shoto Genchi Chosa Hokokusho” [Report of the Investigation of the Ogasawara Islands], 20 February 1968, 2–3.

296“Telegram 4428 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, January 4, 1968,” Folder: Pol 19 

Bonin Islands, 1-1-68, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59. Also see “Telegram 4421 from Embassy 

Tokyo to State Department, January 4, 1968,” ibid., on background to the request and “Telegram 

4902 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, January 22, 1968,” ibid.

297For the text of the address by Tanaka Tatsuo of the prime minister’s office, relayed by Moriya 

Michio, who headed the delegation, see “Telegram 4819 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, 

January 18, 1968,” Folder: Pol 19 Bonin Islands, 1-1-68, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

298Seifu Ogasawara Chosadan, “Ogasawara Shoto Genchi Chosa Hokokusho,” 6.

299Masumi Junnosuke, Contemporary Politics in Japan (Berkeley: University of California Press, 

1995), 397–98.

300“Telegram 4423 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, January 4, 1968,” Folder: Pol 19 

Bonin Islands, 1-1-68, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

301Ibid.

302“Telegram 4542 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, January 10, 1968,” Folder: Pol 19 

Bonin Islands, 1-1-68, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

303Ibid.

304Ito Sosukemaru, “Ogasawara Henkan e no Shucho: Jumin no Fukushi o Daiichi ni Henkan no 

Jitsugen o Hakare” [Calling for the Reversion of Ogasawara: Seek the Realization of Making Welfare for the Islanders the First Priority in the Reversion], Komei, no. 65 ( January 1968), 62–69.

305“Telegram 5077 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, January 27, 1968,” Folder: Pol 19 

Bonin Islands, 1-1-68, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

306Johnson, The Right Hand of Power, 484.

307“Telegram 4476 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, January 8, 1968,” Folder: Pol 19 

Bonin Islands, 1-1-68, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

308Johnson, The Right Hand of Power, 484.
446

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

309“Telegram 5507.”

310“Telegram 5506 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, February 9, 1968,” ibid.

311Ibid.

312“Telegram 5596 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, February 13, 1968,” ibid.

313“Telegram 5853 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, February 24, 1968,” ibid.

314Ibid.

315“Telegram 89864 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, December 26, 1967,” ibid.

316“Telegram 4310.”

317Ibid.

318Ibid.

319Ibid.

320Ibid.

321Ibid.

322Ibid.

323“Telegram 90207 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, December (exact date unknown), 

1967,” ibid. At the time of this writing, the telegram remains classified.

324“Telegram 85715 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, December (exact date unknown), 

1967,” ibid. At the time of this writing, the telegram remains classified.

325“Telegram 4333, Johnson to Secretary of State, December 29, 1967,” ibid.

326Ibid.

327Ibid.

328Ibid.

329Ibid.

330Ibid.

331Ibid.

332“Telegram 93485 on Nuclear Weapons and Bonins Negotiations, January 4, 1968,” ibid.

333Ibid.

334Ibid.

335Ibid.

336Ibid.

337“Telegram 4391 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, January 3, 1968,” ibid.

338“Telegram 4394 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, January 3, 1968,” ibid.
447

The Reversion, 1967–68

339“Telegram 4392 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, January 3, 1968,” ibid.

340“Telegram 4391.”

341Ibid.

342Ibid.

343“Telegram 4391.”

344The draft joint committee minutes were sent as “Telegram 4393” on 3 January 1968, but at the 

time of this writing the telegram remains classified. “Telegram 4391.”

345Ibid.

346Ibid.

347Ibid.

348Johnson, The Right Hand of Power, 484.

349“Telegram 4509 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, January 9, 1968,” Folder: Pol 19 

Bonin Islands, 1-1-68, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

350Ibid.

351Ibid.

352Ibid.

353Ibid.

354Ibid.

355Ibid.

356“Telegram 4954 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, January 23, 1968,” ibid.

357Ibid.

358“Telegram 5797 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, February 21, 1968,” ibid.

359Ibid. The relevant paragraph reads, “4. (b) With respect to facilities and areas which are to be used 

by United States armed forces for limited periods of time, the Joint Committee shall specify in the 

agreements covering such facilities and areas the extent to which the provisions of this agreement 

shall apply.”

360“Telegram 123017 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, March 1, 1968,” Folder: Political 

and Defense, Pol 19 Bonin Islands, 3-1-68, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

361“Telegram 5856 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, February 24, 1968,” Folder: Pol 19 

Bonin Islands, 1-1-68, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

362Ibid. See author’s interview with Ambassador Chiba Kazuo, 1 December 2000, Tokyo, and author’s interview with Ambassador Okawara Yoshio, 13 August 2007, Tokyo.

363The first LORAN Station A was located on Kangoku Iwo, a small islet located about 2,000 meters 

west of Iwo Jima, and was built shortly after the battle of Iwo Jima began. The station was relocated to 

Kitano Point in 1949. The Quonset hut station was heavily damaged in the September 1955 typhoon, 
448

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Louise, discussed in chapter 5. The station was rebuilt and, in 1963, LORAN C functions were added 

to the station mission. In March 1964, the 1,350-foot LORAN C tower collapsed, killing several 

people. Construction of the new tower and buildings was completed at the end of the year.

364“Telephone interview with Miki Hideo, January 7, 2008.”

365“Airgram A-1211, from Embassy Tokyo to State Department on Japan Defense Agency Plans 

for the Bonins, March 14, 1968,” Folder: Pol 19 Bonin Islands, 3-1-68, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, 

RG 59.

366Ibid.

367Ibid.

368“Telegram 6197 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, March 5, 1968,” ibid.

369Ibid.

370Ibid.

371Ibid.

372“Telegram 6330 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, March 10, 1968,” ibid. MOFA official Murata Itaru was one of those who traveled to the islands during this time. He provided the 

author with extensive notes and anecdotes about his trip in interviews and correspondence between 

March and July 2002.

373“Telegram 6570 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, March 18, 1968,” ibid.

374“Airgram A-1230, from Embassy Tokyo to State Department on Bonin Negotiations: Negotiators Agree on Texts, March 18, 1968,” ibid.

375“Telegram 135534 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, March 23, 1968,” ibid.

376“Telegram 6698 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, March 21, 1968,” ibid.

377“Telegram 7006 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, April 1, 1968,” Folder: Pol 19 Bonin 

Islands, 4-1-68, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

378Sato, Sato Eisaku Nikki, vol. 3, 265–66.

379“Telegram 7087 from Embassy Tokyo to the State Department, April 2, 1968,” remains classified. 

See 270n5, FRUS, 1964–1968.

380“Memorandum for Mr. Resor from James V. Siena on Nuclear Weapons on Okinawa, August 26, 

1968,” Box 1, History of Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands, Record of Army Staff, RG 319, 

document courtesy of Ota Masakatsu.

381“Telegram 141066 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, April 3, 1968,” Folder: Pol 19 

Bonin Islands, 4-1-68, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

382Ibid.

383Ibid.

384Ibid.

385Ibid.
449

The Reversion, 1967–68

386“Telegram 138456 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, March 29, 1968,” Folder: Pol 19 

Bonin Islands, 3-1-68, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59. Also see n4, FRUS, 1964–1968, vol. 19, 

268.

387“Telegram 7084 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, April 2, 1968,” Folder: Pol 19 Bonin 

Islands, 4-1-68, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

388Johnson, The Right Hand of Power, 484.

389Johnson appears to be incorrect here. The original memorial was built by the 31st Navy Construction Battalion, or Seabees, in late summer 1945 and dedicated in October that year.

390The remains of fallen U.S. personnel in the cemetery were removed between 1948 and 1951. A 

marker, built in the summer of 1945 by the 31st Navy Seabees, remains today at the former site of 

the cemetery.

391Johnson, The Right Hand of Power, 484.

392Ibid.

393Ibid., 484–85.

394Ibid., 485.

395Ibid.

396Ibid.

397Tyler, Iwo Jima, 31.

398Ibid.

399Ibid., 30–31.

400Johnson, The Right Hand of Power, 485.

401“Telegram 5638 from Tokyo Embassy to State Department, February 15, 1968,” Folder: Pol 19 

Bonin Islands, 3-1-68, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

402“Telegram 116921 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, February 16, 1968,” Folder: Pol 19 

Bonin Islands, 1-1-68, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

403Johnson, The Right Hand of Power, 485.

404Ibid.

405Ibid.

406Ibid.

407“Telegram 6316 from Tokyo Embassy to State Department, March 8, 1968,” Folder: Pol 19 Bonin 

Islands, 3-1-68, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

408“Telegram 6316 from Tokyo Embassy to State Department, March 8, 1968,” ibid.

409Ibid.

410Ibid.
450

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

411Tyler, Iwo Jima, 32.

412Ibid., 32–33.

413Ibid., 33.

414Johnson, The Right Hand of Power, 485.

415Tyler, Iwo Jima, 32.

416“Telegram 6697 from Tokyo Embassy to State Department, March 21, 1968,” Folder: Pol 19 

Bonin Islands, 3-1-68, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

417Johnson, Tape 17, 2, papers of U. Alexis Johnson, Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, Austin, 

TX.

418Johnson, The Right Hand of Power, 486.

419“Telegram 1331 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, April 10, 1968,” remains classified.

420“Memorandum for Mr. Resor.”

421“Airgram 2370 on Bonin Agreement Nuclear Storage, December 30, 1968,” Folder: Pol 19 Bonin 

Islands, 4/1/68, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

422Ibid.

423“Telegram 7081 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, April 2, 1968,” Folder: Pol 19 Bonin 

Islands, 4-1-68, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

424Ibid.

425“Telegram 7067 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, April 2, 1968,” Folder: Pol 19 Bonin 

Islands, 4-1-68, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

426Ibid.

427Ibid.

428“Telegram 140599 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, April 3, 1968,” Folder: Pol 19 

Bonin Islands, 4-1-68, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59. The State Department did have Country 

Director for Japan Sneider attend the press briefing and provide background information. See “Telegram 142875 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, April 5, 1968,” ibid.

429“Telegram 7094 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, April 2, 1968,” ibid.

430“Telegram 7143 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, April 4, 1968,” ibid.

431Ibid.

432“Telegram 7180 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, April 5, 1968,” ibid.

433“Telegram 7143.”

434“Telegram 7094.”

435“Memorandum of Conversation with Sato Eisaku on Reversion of the Bonin Islands, April 7, 

1968,” Folder: Political Affairs and Relations, Japan-U.S., 1/1/68, Box 2249, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.
451

The Reversion, 1967–68

436“Telegram 97959 from State Department to Embassy Tokyo, January 12, 1968,” Folder: Pol 19 

Bonin Islands, 1-1-68, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

437It was to be located immediately next to the U.S. monument with the plot of land on which both 

memorials sat, and rented by the Japan-America Society on behalf of the Japanese government.

438The memorial was given to the Japan-America Society, which rented the government property on 

top of Suribachi (at the request of the government) and was charged with the care and maintenance 

of both the U.S. and Japanese memorials (in practice, MSDF base personnel did it for the Japanese 

memorial while the U.S. Coast Guard maintained the U.S. one until its departure in 1993).

439Iwo Jima Kenshohi Kenritsu Kiseikai, ed., Iwo Jima Kenshohi Kenritsu no Kiroku [Record of the 

Construction of a Memorial on Iwo Jima] (Tokyo: Iwo Jima Kenshohi Kenritsu Kiseikai, 1969), 

56–57. For other photos from this ceremony, see Ogasawara Senyukai, ed., Ogasawara Heidan no 

Saigo, and Horie Yoshitaka, Iwojima: Sento no Kiroku (Tokyo: Kobunsha, 1973).
452

Conclusion

End of an Era

I hope that you...will accept the return of the Bonins as a further earnest of the 

fact that . . . we do not “covet a foot of any territory.” The return of the Amamis 

and now of the Bonin and Volcano Islands gives me confidence that the question 

of the remaining Japanese territory for which we still have stewardship can be 

resolved in the same spirit and in the same framework.

—Speech by Ambassador U. Alexis Johnson,

26 June 1968, at celebrations marking the return of Ogasawara Islands

The Official Reversion Ceremonies on Chichi and Iwo

On 26 June 1968, shortly before 1400 (noon in Tokyo), U.S. and Japanese government and 

military officials, local residents, representatives of the former islanders, and dozens of media representatives crowded the assembly area outside the headquarters of the Chichi Jima 

U.S. naval facility, the same white concrete building that somehow survived the air raids 

during the last years of World War II, to participate in an historic event. The gathering was 

the main event of three official ceremonies marking the return of the administrative rights 

over the Bonin Islands; the other two being held on Iwo and Marcus (Minami Torishima) 

Islands.1 A private celebration, sponsored by the Ogasawara Kyokai (Ogasawara Association) with support from the central government, Tokyo Metropolitan government, and the 

Nanpo Doho Engokai (Assistance Association for Okinawa and Ogasawara and Northern 

Islands) was also held in Tokyo.

It had been a busy couple of months for Lieutenant Commander Dale W. Johnson, the 

commander of the Chichi Jima naval facility and military government representative, since 

the agreement was signed in Tokyo in early April. During those two-and-a-half months, 

Johnson, and his new bride,2 hosted almost 300 official visitors who came to survey the 

islands in preparation for the return, including Defense Agency Director General Masuda 

Kaneshichi.3

 Johnson and his small staff had to close the base in time for the transfer of responsibilities and relocate personnel and their dependents, equipment and furniture, records, 

and other items off the island based on a schedule worked out in late April.4

 Moreover, a few 

months after the return was initially announced, he escorted members of the Bonin Islands 

Council to Tokyo in February for discussions on post-reversion measures for the islands.

The commander’s wife, Mary-Lou, described this period: “The following months [after 

the agreement between President Lyndon B. Johnson and Prime Minister Sato Eisaku] of 

January thru June brought a multitude of visitors to our idyllic island. There were [weeks] 

that averaged more than one group a week. Gone were our sun-filled days with nothing 

to do but go swimming, hiking, or bicycle riding. My entertainment schedule increased by 

100%.”5
453

While Commander Johnson found that one of the biggest problems was “maintaining 

a state of normalcy insofar as possible for the Islanders, including maintenance of the existing system” while working on additional projects, including the logistics for supporting 

visits, he was generally satisfied with the way things went. “It is believed that the transition 

was achieved with great success and that friendly relations existing between Japan and the 

United States were strengthened by the cordial receptions given to all visitors during this 

period under ofttimes trying conditions.”6

 By the time one U.S. official arrived from Tokyo, 

his “initial impression was that Japanese administration already prevailed in the islands; 

Japanese police were directing traffic, dollars were already being exchanged for yen, the 

telegraph center was in full operation, workmen were busy with the construction of a new 

police station, and a general hum of activity prevailed.”7

The ceremony on Chichi, attended by some 470 people,8 was “simple, yet dignified, and 

was effected without incident.”9 At 1400, the opening declaration of the ceremonies began 

and Rodney E. Armstrong, the embassy political counselor, stepped up to the speaker’s 

platform to read a message on behalf of President Johnson.10 “This is an historic moment 

for the United States and Japan,” the president’s message began, “and in particular for you, 

the people of the Bonin Islands . . . I take pleasure in the fact that [the] consultations [for 

the return of the islands] have now been successfully concluded . . . As you begin your new 

lives today once again under Japanese administration I extend to you my best wishes for 

the future.”11 Director general of the prime minister’s office Tanaka Tatsuo, who had arrived earlier that morning on the Takatsuki—a MSDF antisubmarine warfare ship built 

in 1966 and commissioned in March 1967—with many of the other dignitaries, then read 

a message on behalf of Prime Minister Sato Eisaku, which described the reversion as “an 

achievement to be long commemorated in the postwar history of Japan.”12 Next, Commander Johnson gave the order to lower the American flag flying above the headquarters 

building. The action was accompanied by the playing of the U.S. national anthem by the 

JMSDF band.13 “The Stars and Stripes were lowered to the always inspiring strains of the 

Star Spangled Banner,” his wife explained and, “I was thankful to have my sunglasses on 

as they not only shielded my eyes but also hid my tears.”14 Next, the Japanese Hinomaru

was raised, accompanied by the playing of the Kimigayo, at 1425. This time it was Tanaka’s 

assistant Yamano Kokichi’s turn to cry. “I did not even try to wipe the tears,” he recalled in 

his memoirs.15

Rear Admiral W. R. McKinney of the CINCPACFLT staff, who represented the U.S. 

government, exchanged ceremonial handshakes with Tanaka, who represented the Japanese 

government. McKinney then spoke, reviewing the history of the Navy’s administration of 

the islands and, after thanking the men of the military government, in an “unscheduled and 

unexpected part of the program,” awarded the Navy Achievement Medal to Commander 

Johnson for his outstanding service while officer in charge of the naval facility and military 

government representative.16 A series of speeches followed, first by Ben Savory and Takewari Masao, representing the present and former islanders,17 addresses by Tokyo assembly 

speaker Ohinata Tsutaji and Governor Minobe Ryoichi, who was making his second visit 

to the island. Minobe expressed his gratitude to the U.S. government and naval authorities 

for their concern for the islanders.18 The Japanese speeches were “uniformly high complimentary to U.S. Naval administration,” Armstrong noted, and Savory’s speech was “noteConclusion
454

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

worthy” for its “touching tribute to U.S. stewardship [over] these islands.”19 According to 

Armstrong, Savory added a plea to the Japanese government to “accept full responsibility 

for bringing the islands into full step with the modern world.”20 At the end, several letters 

of appreciation were then given to Johnson; the Navy doctor, Wayne Crossman; and the 

island government officer based in Guam. To Armstrong, the ceremony was “simple but 

impressive.”21

Following the ceremony, a reception was held on board the Takatsuki, and at 1630, Rear 

Admiral McKinney departed aboard the “Chichi Bird,” followed by the departure of a few 

more seaplanes with some of the dignitaries and dependents.

Finally, after a farewell party at Banner Pier beginning at 1800, and the round of tearful 

goodbyes, the San Joaquin County got underway at 1915 with ribbons and tape fluttering 

through the air and many of the islanders left behind still crying. The departure of Commander Johnson, Armstrong observed, “together with the last vestiges of USN association 

with the islands . . . was a touching scene, with many of the islanders apparently realizing 

for the first time that their long association with the United States was indeed drawing to a 

close.”22 Their American friends had departed 138 years to the day when one of their own, 

Nathaniel Savory, first arrived on the uninhabited Peel Island in 1830 and began building 

the little colony in the Pacific.

There were mixed feelings that day among both the islanders and U.S. personnel. Some 

islanders understandably felt betrayed. Even U.S. personnel were uncertain about the future. Despite the successful reversion, Commander Johnson had some reservations about 

the Japanese government’s relationship with the islanders. Several weeks after the ceremony, he recommended in his final report that “an impartial U.S. observer be sent to the Bonin 

Islands during the readjustment period to evaluate the extent of follow through by the 

Government of Japan on promises made to the Islander population prior to reversion.” He 

further suggested that an “accredited newsman” serve this function since the Japanese government would not likely “tolerate” an official observer.23 As he wrote this recommendation, 

the bill to allow up to 205 islanders to immigrate to the United States was awaiting action 

by a House judiciary subcommittee on immigration, having already passed the Senate.24

On Iwo Jima, a similar ceremony had simultaneously taken place, this time attended by 

only a few, but likely observed by the many ghosts who are said to inhabit the island. The 

attendees, which included newsmen from CBS, NBC, ABC, Reuters, Fuji TV, The New 

York Times and the Press Trust of India, among others, were brought in from Tachikawa Air 

Base outside Tokyo on two U.S. Air Force transport planes.25 Among them were two who 

had been in the battle, Robert Trumbull, a correspondent for the The New York Times who 

had closely followed the Bonins issue for years,26 and NBC correspondent John Rich, who 

was a Marine first lieutenant during the island combat.27

The flight took four hours, and 23 years. After circling Iwo Jima three times to allow 

for pictures to be taken of the island, the planes landed at 1300. At precisely 1400, military 

units of Japan and the United States marched onto the macadam aircraft parking ramp in 

front of the air base headquarters and the ceremony began. Old Glory was carefully lowered, folded, and presented to Air Force Brigadier General Richard L. Ault, who was the 
455

Conclusion

senior American officer present. The U.S. honor guard stepped back and then the Maritime 

Self-Defense Force enlisted men marched forward to hoist the Hinomaru once again over 

the island. “The ceremony was respectful,” a participant in the ceremony stated later, “and 

both sides exhibited a deep measure of understanding exactly what we were witnessing.”28

That was, Iwo Jima—the location of the most fiercely fought battle in the Pacific—“had 

been peacefully returned to Japan.”29

Burket E. Tyler observed a potentially embarrassing incident that was capably avoided 

by the new local Japanese commander. “After the formalities, tours up Suribachi were provided. Three of the American press corps approached the [MSDF] commander. They asked 

him to have some Japanese sailor[s] raise a flag à la the famous photo. The commander gave 

a sharp ‘NO!’ There was no mistaking his feeling about such a disrespectful act. I went over 

to him later and shook his hand.”30 He added, “I was proud of my country that day.”31

Predictably, others were angry about the decision to return the islands and complained 

bitterly to the State Department and Congress after the stories in the press:

We are . . . distressed and outraged at the action of the Executive Branch in returning Iwo Jima to the Japs. Always the politicians give away the military advantages 

won at such dreadful cost to the cream of the crop of our young manhood. How 

can the Department of State boys negotiate away—and probably for nothing in 

return—this and other advantages we have won? How do they get away with it?32

Another letter, this one from a former Navy veteran who participated in the assault on 

Iwo, was less emotional but got to the point by protesting to his congressman and asking 

that the issue be taken up in Congress.33 Yet others, while disappointed, were more philosophical about the island’s return. One veteran told the author, “We were angry and bitter 

about it. We lost a lot of guys here. What can you do?”34

Celebrations in Tokyo

A few minutes after the official ceremonies were completed on Chichi and Iwo, celebrations began in Tokyo. The Ogasawara Association, with the support of the Nanpo Doho 

Engokai (Relief Association for Okinawa and Ogasawara and Northern Islands) and the 

Japanese government, sponsored a commemoration in Tokyo’s Hibiya Hall that was attended by the Crown Prince and Princess, Prime Minister Sato Eisaku, Foreign Minister 

Miki Takeo, Ambassador U. Alexis Johnson, and numerous other dignitaries.35 According 

to the organizers, some 2,500 people attended the celebrations, which began at 1300. Ambassador Johnson described the hall as “packed.”36

Although the Japanese government “had hoped to make it entirely an LDP [Liberal 

Democratic Party] show,” it was necessary “to invite some of the opposition parties in order 

to obtain the presence of the Crown Prince and Princess.”37 The Japan Communist Party, 

which had voted against ratification of the reversion agreement,38 was not invited, but the 

Japan Socialist Party, Democratic Socialist Party, and Komeito were. In the end, Johnson 

felt the ruling LDP did “not lose anything” by the presence of the opposition as, overall, the 

ceremony itself was “competently organized.”39
456

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

After the start of the ceremony, the crown prince spoke expressing his “pleasure that the 

return had come about through Japan-U.S. cooperation and understanding.”40 He was followed by Prime Minister Sato, who had done much to realize the return of the islands, reviewing the history of the problem and the promises of the Japanese government to work to 

rehabilitate the islands in the future.41 The ambassador then gave one of the best speeches 

of the day—and perhaps in the history of U.S.-Japan relations. One portion declared, “I am 

happy to join with you in your celebration today of the return of the Bonin and Volcano 

Islands to Japanese administration. In this troubled modern world, peaceful changes in 

the administration of territory are indeed a rare and unusual occurrence. In the case of the 

change we celebrate today no armies marched, no shots were fired, no threats were issued 

and no demonstrations were involved.”42

Johnson’s speech was well received. Kusuda Minoru, the prime minister’s secretary who 

also attended the celebrations, felt he struck the right chord, “and knew what Japanese 

feelings were.”43 In contrast, both Johnson and Kusuda were disappointed by the speech 

of Japan Socialist Party Chairman Yamamoto Koichi. Johnson described it as “boorish” 

and full of “political bias.”44 ( Johnson was happy to note that “Yamamoto’s mawkish pouting over the remaining ‘bases’ in the Bonins and Okinawa got no press play.”45) Kusuda, a 

former Sankei Shimbun reporter, described Yamamoto’s comments as “just like an election 

stump speech with its usual ‘anti-Japan–U.S. Security Treaty, Return Okinawa’ rhetoric. It 

was out of place. He simply does not realize that it would be so much better to make a more 

appropriate speech here.” Kusuda then went on to compare it with the simple congratulatory speech of the Democratic Socialist Party’s Nishimura Eiichi, which was “so much 

smarter and made everyone feel good.”46 Other speeches included that by Komeito, which 

was represented by lower house member Matsumoto Chusuke (elected from Tokyo the 

year before and serving on the special committee for Okinawa, Ogasawara, and Northern 

Island affairs). Deputy Governor Kondo Ryuichi, in place of Governor Minobe who was 

attending the ceremonies on Chichi, spoke on behalf of the Tokyo Metropolitan Government. After the speeches, Sato and Johnson were both presented with bouquets of flowers 

by girls representing the Bonin Islanders. After further remarks from representatives of the 

Ogasawara Association and three “banzai” cheers from Foreign Minister Miki Takeo, the 

ceremony was concluded.

Johnson, who had been so “irritated” with Miki’s “ungraciousness” at the early April 

signing ceremony that he had mentioned his “displeasure” to Sato, later believed his “complaint may have been responsible for the large public celebration held in Tokyo.”47 This is 

unlikely, as the Ogasawara Association had probably been planning the event for some 

time. In any case, Johnson felt the commemorations that day at Hibiya Hall and subsequent 

activities were a “most pleasant and refreshing occasion that should do much to improve 

the ‘atmosphere’ . . . after the recent series of unpleasant incidents involving U.S.-Japan relations,” a reference to recent port visits gone amiss.48

The ceremony was followed at 1400 by a parade with some 3,000 participants from the 

hall to the Yaesu entrance of Tokyo Station, led by the Ground Self-Defense Force Marching Band, the former islanders, school children, and other citizens of the Tokyo metropolitan area. “Both the prime minister and I were liberally applauded,” Johnson informed the 
457

Conclusion

secretary of state, “and throughout there were high good spirits with no untoward incidents 

of any kind.”49 In a subsequent telegram, Johnson added that “from start to finish, reversion 

was celebrated with joy and enthusiasm . . . press coverage was lavish and positive. . . . Japan 

greeted reversion of the Bonin and Volcano Islands . . . as an auspicious event that corrected 

an aberration in the nation’s territorial integrity and consigned one of the remaining episodes from the great and bitter war to history in a dignified way.”50

Later that evening, the proud Ogasawara Association sponsored a reception at the Akasaka Hilton Hotel to welcome the islands’ return with representatives and supporters from 

all walks of life.51 Their hard-fought battle had finally been won after many years of appeals 

and perseverance. Tomorrow, the long and difficult work to reintegrate the islands back into 

Japanese administration would have to begin.

In one of his last acts that day, Sato wrote to President Johnson:

Dear Mr. President,

On this day of the return of the Ogasawara Islands to Japan, it is my greatest 

pleasure to convey to you the feelings of satisfaction that the statesmanship of our 

two countries has succeeded in bringing about the peaceful settlement of this longstanding issue. May the relations between our two countries be ever guided by such 

wisdom and foresight.

Sincerely,

Eisaku Sato

Prime Minister of Japan

The Return of Japanese Administration

Japanese administration, cut off for almost 23 years, restarted this day. The Tokyo Metropolitan Government established the Ogasawara Shicho (Ogasawara Branch Office), and for 

the next 11 years (until the Ministry of Home Affairs, or Jichisho, approved the creation of 

a mayor’s position and assembly in April 1979), the director of the branch office also performed the functions of a mayor. A Village Administration Deliberative Council (Sonsei 

Shingikai) operated as the village assembly.52 The central government also established the 

Ogasawara General Office (Ogasawara Sogo Jimusho) on reversion day.

The work of the officials began by trying to address the needs of the islanders based 

on input from the Ogasawara Association and Nanpo Doho Engokai as well as six months 

of study by both the central government and the Tokyo Prefectural Government, and the 

Special Provision Law (Zantei Sochiho) that had been passed on 1 June. The LDP, moreover, 

created an Ogasawara Shinko Taisaku Tokubetsu Iinkai (Special Committee on Countermeasures for Ogasawara Development) headed by Fukuda to develop a law, initially named the 

Ogasawara Fukkoho (Ogasawara Reconstruction Plan), for Ogasawara’s development.53

One of the key components of the islands’ development, as historically had been the 

case, was the resettlement of the former inhabitants. According to a poll conducted by the 

prime minister’s office, more than 4,000 of the former islanders desired to return, but in 
458

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

the end fewer than one-third that number returned. The repatriation had to be limited, and 

initially was structured to prevent chaos from breaking out over the islands’ resources and 

property rights. Fishermen took the lead in making the return.

In August the following year, a scholarly committee headed by Tokyo University’s 

Professor Ouchi Tsutomu submitted a report Ogasawara Kaihatsu no Kihon Koso (Basic 

Concept on Ogasawara’s Development) to Governor Minobe suggesting ways to plan for 

Ogasawara’s development in the years ahead.54 Later that year, on 8 December, the Ogasawara Shoto Fukko Tokubetsu Sochiho (Special Law for Ogasawara’s Redevelopment) was 

passed in order to efficiently promote planned island development. On 31 July 1970—more 

than two years after the islands’ reversion to Japan—the cabinet approved the plans.

The former islanders began to return in larger numbers at this point but, with more 

than a quarter of century having passed since their initial evacuation, most decided not to 

return and the numbers never reached their prewar high. Today, the population (as of 1 

January 2012) of the two civilian inhabited islands, Chichi Jima and Haha Jima, total 2,239 

and 516, respectively, although it rises during the tourist season when temporary workers, 

tourists, and others invade the islands. The former islanders of Iwo Jima have yet to be permitted to return by the Japanese government because of the inability to support them, the 

existence of unexploded ordinance, the need to recover the remains of war dead, the lack of 

a port, and the conduct (over the last 20 years) of field carrier landing practice by the U.S. 

military. None of these reasons are convincing enough to exclude the islanders from their 

former land. In an attempt to be at least a little closer to their lost homes on Iwo, several 

households have instead chosen to reside on Haha Jima. However, they and the other islanders continue to press their case with the Japanese government.

Final Thoughts

The return of the Bonin Islands did not resolve all the problems that faced the bilateral relationship at the time. Indeed, the same day that the reversion ceremonies and celebrations 

took place, the governor of Fukuoka Prefecture, Kamei Hikaru, was meeting with Prime 

Minister Sato to protest the recent crash of a U.S. military jet into Kyushu University and 

to call for the closure of Itazuke Air Base.55 And, of course, the problem of Okinawa’s return remained. But, as the return of the Bonins, and the Amami Islands before that, both 

showed, it was not a question of “if ” but “when.”

That “when” was closer than most observers probably realized. About a year-and-a-half 

later, Sato and the newly elected American president, Richard M. Nixon, met at the White 

House and announced their agreement to return administrative rights over Okinawa in 

1972. In this sense, the reversion of the Bonins, like that of the Amami Islands, was a 

prelude to Okinawa’s return. As participants at the time knew, the arrangements they were 

discussing would form precedents for the reversion of the larger island. Getting the return 

of the Bonins right—in tone, spirit, and details—was extremely important. This author 

believes for the most part, they got it right, despite the unusual circumstances of the naval 

administration and Japan’s long hesitance to play a larger role in the alliance—a hesitance 

that is still with us today.
459

Conclusion

More important, the historical significance of one country peacefully returning territory 

seized in war—and an extremely bloody and vicious war at that—cannot be overlooked. 

America’s decisions, both at the time of the peace treaty when Japan was allowed to have 

“residual sovereignty” and in the agreement to return the islands, should be appreciated for 

what it really was—a generous act.

Notes

1

“Ogasawara under Japan’s Rule after 23-Year U.S. Reign,” Japan Times, 27 June 1968. Because of 

its small size, the author does not cover the ceremony on Marcus Island in this concluding chapter. 

The only report of the Marcus Island ceremony in the State Department files stated, “Reversion on 

the distant dot of Marcus Island was, of course, unobserved by the outer world and took place in a 

simple ceremony held between the USCG and JMSDF representatives.” See “Airgram A-1786 from 

Embassy Tokyo to State Department on the Reversion of the Bonin Islands, July 19, 1968,” Folder: 

Pol 19 Bonin Islands 4-1-68, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

2

The two were married only four months prior to arriving at Chichi Jima on 15 December 1965. See 

Mary-Lou Johnson, A Honeymoon Island, unpublished and undated manuscript, 1.

3

“Chronological Summary of Official Visitors from December 1967 to 26 June 1968,” Operational 

Archives. If the number of visitors from December (1967), after the decision to return the islands 

was announced, until April (1968) was included, the number of visitors would increase to more than 

350. Reflecting just how busy the days prior to reversion were, the “Summary” notes that the “listings for period 20–26 June are incomplete.” Moreover, more than 120 members of the press visited 

between 20 November 1967 and 26 June 1968. See “Chronological Summary of News Media Representatives from November 1967 to 26 June 1968,” ibid.

4

“Tentative Disestablishment Schedule, April 23, 1968,” Records Regarding the Bonin-Volcano Islands.

5

Johnson, A Honeymoon Island, 8.

6

“Report of Base Closure,” enclosure (1) to “Memorandum from Military Government Representative, Bonin-Volcano Islands, to Military Governor, Bonin-Volcano Islands on Termination of Military Government Administration of the Bonin-Volcano Islands and Closure of U.S. Naval Facility, 

Chichi Jima, BI, Report of June 26, 1968,” Records Regarding the Bonin-Volcano Islands.

7

“Airgram A-1786 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department on the Reversion of the Bonin Islands, July 19, 1968,” Folder: Pol 19 Bonin Islands 4-1-68, Box 1898, CF, 1967–1969, RG 59.

8

See Ogasawara Kyokai, ed., “Ogasawara Shoto no Nihon Fukki o Iwau Shukuten” [Ceremony Celebrating the Return to Japan of the Ogasawara Islands], Ogasawara, vol. 41 (November 1995), 26.

9

“Memorandum from Deputy Military Governor, Bonin-Volcano Islands (Commander Naval 

Forces Marianas) to Military Governor, Bonin-Volcano Islands (Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific 

Fleet) on Termination of Military Government Administration of the Bonin-Volcano Islands and 

Closure of U.S. Naval Facility, Chichi Jima, BI, Report of July 9, 1968,” Records Regarding the 

Bonin-Volcano Islands.

10“Plan of the Day, June 26, 1968,” Records Regarding the Bonin-Volcano Islands. According to 

Armstrong, the Foreign Ministry had wanted a State Department employee (i.e., civilian) to read 
460

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

the president’s message and not someone in uniform, reflecting perhaps an aversion to things military or the image it represented. See “Telegram 9667 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, 

June 27, 1968,” Folder: Pol 19 Bonin Islands 4-1-68, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.This message was sent to Tokyo from the USS San Joaquin County (LST 1122), which was bringing the personnel to Guam. Armstrong wrote a short article about his involvement in the negotiations for the 

return of the islands. See Rodney E. Armstrong, “The Bonins and Iwo Jima,” Foreign Service Journal, 

vol. 29, no. 5 (May 1992): 26–27.

11“Telegram 177607 from State to Embassy Tokyo, June 6, 1968,” Folder: Pol 19 Bonin Islands 4-1-

68, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

12Bob Yamada and Jim Falk, “U.S. Returns Bonin Islands to Japan Rule,” Pacific Stars and Stripes, 

28 June 1967. Tanaka, who was the oldest son of the infamous general and prewar prime minister, 

Tanaka Giichi, was a Diet member hailing from Prime Minister Sato’s home prefecture of Yamaguchi. He also was elected governor of Yamaguchi in 1947 at the age of 36, the youngest ever.

13Kawai Shin, “Return of the Ogasawara Islands,” Japan Quarterly, vol. 15, no. 4 (October 1968): 

462.

14Johnson, A Honeymoon Island, 9.

15Yamano Kokichi, Okinawa Henkan Hitorigoto [Some Words to Myself about the Reversion of 

Okinawa] (Tokyo: Gyosei, 1981), 187.

16Johnson, A Honeymoon Island, 9.

17Takewari, who hailed from Haha Jima, was one of three official representatives of the Ogasawara

Kyokai, or Ogasawara Association, an organization created in 1964 (see chapter 7) to represent the 

interests of the islanders. The other two representatives were Shibata Eiichi of Chichi Jima and Koizumi Genzaburo of Iwo Jima. See Ogasawara Kyokai, ed., “Ogasawara Shoto no Nihon Fukki o Iwau 

Shukuten,” 26.

18“Ogasawara under Japan’s Rule after 23-Year U.S. Reign.”

19“Telegram 9667.”

20Ibid.

21Ibid.

22“Airgram A-1786.”

23“Memorandum from Dale W. Johnson to Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet, on Reversion 

to the Government of Japan of the Administration of the Bonin-Volcano Islands, Lessons Learned 

during July 12, 1968,” Records Regarding the Bonin-Volcano Islands.

24“Bill Aims at Bonin Islanders,” Pacific Stars and Stripes, 13 July 1968. The House bill was named 

“H. R. 4574, A Bill to Provide for the Admission to the United States of Certain Inhabitants of the 

Bonin Islands.” It was introduced on 27 January 1969, by Representative Emanuel Celler (D-NY), 

who had been serving since 1923 and who, because of his Jewish roots, strongly supported flexible 

immigration laws based on humanitarian reasons. The bill was referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary and then referred to the House calendar and ordered to be printed on 20 November 1969. 

Eventually, the Act of 10 July 1970 (Private Law 91-114, 2d Sess.) would make special provision for 

the accumulation of naturalization residence by certain inhabitants of the Bonin Islands who entered 

the United States under the act before 11 July 1972.
461

Conclusion

25Burket E. Tyler, Iwo Jima (Lulu Books, 2006), 35. Tyler attended the reversion ceremony. E-mail 

correspondence with Burket E. Tyler, 17 January 2008.

26Trumbull, for example, was one of the first reporters to visit the islands and report on them. See 

Robert Trumbull, “Bonin Islanders Seek U.S. Tie But Remain International Pawns,” The New York 

Times, 11 March 1956.

27“Bonin Islands Advance for PMS of Wednesday, June 26, 1968, by Bob Poos,” Pacific Stars and 

Stripes files for Bonin Islands.

28“Iwo Comments,” attachment to e-mail correspondence with Burket E. Tyler, 18 January 2008, 

and numerous times afterward.

29Tyler, Iwo Jima, 35.

30“Iwo Comments.”

31Tyler, Iwo Jima, 35.

32“Letter from Mrs. William D. Leetch to Senator Karl E. Mundt, June 28, 1968,” Folder: Pol 19 

Bonin Islands 4-1-68, Box 1898, CF 1967–1969, RG 59.

33“Letter from H. F. Ward to Congressman Don Fuqua, November 24, 1967,” ibid.

34Interview with Jack Colavito, March 12, 2003, Iwo Jima.

35Ogasawara Kyokai, ed., “Ogasawara Shoto no Nihon Fukki o Iwau Shukuten.”

36“Telegram 9629 from Embassy Tokyo to Department of State, June 26, 1968,” Folder: Pol 19 

Bonin Islands 4-1-68, Box 1898.

37Ibid.

38For the views of the JCP, see Matsumoto Mieki, “Okinawa-Ogasawara Henkan Toso no Hatten 

no Tame ni” [On the Development of the Struggle for the Reversion of Okinawa and Ogasawara], 

Zenei, no. 241 (October 1965), 111–18; Takayasu Shigemasa, “Senryoka 20 Nen no Okinawa to 

Ogasawara Jinmin no Tatakai” [The Struggle of the People of Okinawa and Ogasawara Under 20 

Years of Occupation], ibid., 119–32; Kono Masao, “Ogasawara ‘Henkan’ to ‘Nichibei Kyodo Boei 

Taisei’ (Sekai to Nihon)” [The ‘Return’ of Ogasawara and the Joint ‘Japan-U.S. Defense System’(The 

World and Japan)], Zenei, no. 275 ( July 1968), 153–58.

39“Telegram 9629.”

40“Telegram 9690 from Embassy Tokyo to Department of State, June 26, 1968,” ibid.

41“Telegram 9638 from Embassy Tokyo to Department of State, June 26, 1968,” ibid.

42“Telegram 9628 from Embassy Tokyo to Department of State, June 26, 1968,” ibid.

43Kusuda, Kusuda Minoru Nikki, 230.

44“Telegram 9629.”

45“Telegram 9690.”

46Kusuda, Kusuda Minoru Nikki, 230.

47U. Alexis Johnson, The Right Hand of Power, 486.
462

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

48“Telegram 9629.”

49Ibid.

50“Telegram 9690.”

51Ogasawara Kyokai, ed., “Ogasawara Shoto no Nihon Fukki o Iwau Shukuten.”

52Ogasawara Kaiun, Ogasawara Kaiun 20 Nen no Ayumi [Twenty Years of Ogasawara Kaiun] (Tokyo: 

Ogasawara Kaiun, 1991), 6.

53“Ogasawara no Fukko o Isogo” [Hurry with Ogasawara’s Reconstruction], Ogasawara, no. 44 (25 

December 1995), 26. For an article on the status of the islands and construction on the eve of reversion, see Isezaki Yasuhiro, “Beigunseika Kitomin Seikatsu Jokyo ni Tsuite” [Regarding the Lifestyles of the Repatriated Islanders], Tokyo Toritsu Ogasawara Koto Gakko Kenkyu Kiyo, no. 2 (1983), 

46–57.

54Ogasawara Kaiun, Ogasawara Kaiun, 6.

55“Fukuoka Leaders Ask Base Removal,” Japan Times, 27 June 1968; Sato Eisaku Nikki, vol. 3, 298–99.
463

Appendix A

The Ogasawara Reversion Agreement

Agreement between Japan and the United States of America Concerning Nanpo Shoto 

and Other Islands (April 5, 1968)

WHEREAS the Prime Minister of Japan and the President of the United States of 

America reviewed together on November 14 and 15, 1967 the status of Nanpo Shoto 

and other islands, and agreed that the Governments of Japan and the United States of 

America should enter immediately into consultations regarding the specific arrangements 

for accomplishing the early restoration of these islands to Japan without detriment to the 

security of the area; and

WHEREAS the United States of America desires, with respect to Nanpo Shoto and 

other islands, to relinquish in favor of Japan all rights and interests under Article 3 of the 

Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951; and

WHEREAS Japan is willing to assume full responsibility and authority for the exercise 

of all powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of Nanpo Shoto and other islands;

THEREFORE, the Government of Japan and the Government of the United States 

of America have determined to conclude this Agreement, and have accordingly appointed 

their respective representatives for this purpose, who have agreed as follows:

Article I

1. With respect to Nanpo Shoto and other islands, as defined in paragraph 2 below, the 

United States of America relinquishes in favor of Japan all rights and interests under Article 3 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on September 

8, 1951, effective as of the date of entry into force of this Agreement. Japan, as of such date, 

assumes full responsibility and authority for the exercise of all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of the said islands.

2. For the purpose of this Agreement, the term “Nanpo Shoto and other islands” means 

Nanpo Shoto south of Sofu Gan (including the Bonin Islands, Rasairo Island, and the Volcano Islands) and Parece Vela and Marcus Island, including their territorial waters.

Article II

It is confirmed that treaties, conventions and other agreements concluded between Japan 

and the United States of America, including, but without limitation, the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States of America signed 

at Washington on January 19, 1960 and the agreements related thereto and the Treaty of 

Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between Japan and the United States of America 
464

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

signed at Tokyo on April 2, 1953, become applicable to Nanpo Shoto and other islands as 

of the date of entry into force of this Agreement.

Article III

1. The communications sites (LORAN stations) in Iwo Jima and Marcus Island presently utilized by the United States armed forces will be used by them in accordance with 

the procedures set forth in the Agreement under Article VI of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States of America, Regarding Facilities 

and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in Japan, signed at Washington on 

January 19, 1960. However, in the event that, due to unavoidable delays, it is not possible to 

comply with the above procedures by the date of entry into force of this Agreement, Japan 

grants to the United States of America the continued use of those particular sites, pending 

the completion of the said procedures.

2. The installations and sites in Nanpo Shoto and other islands which are presently utilized by the United States armed forces, except for those mentioned in paragraph 1 above, 

will be transferred to Japan upon entry into force of this Agreement. However, in the event 

that, due to unavoidable delays, it is not possible to complete the said transfer by the date 

of entry into force of this Agreement, Japan grants to the United States of America the 

continued use of these installations and sites, pending the completion of the said transfer.

3. The use of the installations and sites, which may be made by the United States armed 

forces under paragraphs 1 and 2 above until such time as the necessary procedures or the 

transfers are completed shall be governed by the arrangements made pursuant to the Treaty 

of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States of America, 

signed at Washington on January 19, 1960.

Article IV

The weather station in Marcus Island now being operated by the United States Weather 

Bureau will be transferred to the Government of Japan upon entry into force of this Agreement. In the event of unavoidable delays in the said transfer, it is agreed that the present 

operation of the weather station will be continued until the completion of the transfer.

Article V

1. Japan waives all claims of Japan and its nationals against the United States of America 

and its nationals and against the local authorities of Nanpo Shoto and other islands, arising from the presence, operations or actions of forces or authorities of the United States of 

America in these islands, or from the presence, operations or actions of forces or authorities of the United States of America having had any effect upon these islands, prior to the 

date of entry into force of this Agreement. The foregoing waiver does not, however, include 

claims of Japanese nationals specifically recognized in the laws of the United States of 

America or the local laws of these islands applicable during the period of United States 

administration of these islands.

2. Japan recognizes the validity of all acts and omissions done during the period of 
465

Appendices

United States administration of Nanpo Shoto and other islands under or in consequence of 

directives of the United States or local authorities, or authorized by existing law during that 

period, and will take no action subjecting United States nationals or the residents of these 

islands to civil or criminal liability arising out of such acts or omissions.

3. It is confirmed that during the period of United States administration of Nanpo 

Shoto and other islands, the United States or local authorities have not taken any official 

action to transfer title to the property rights and ownership interests in these islands belonging to Japan and its nationals who during that period have been unable to enjoy the use, 

benefit or exercise of such property rights or interests due to measures taken by the United 

States of America.

Article VI

This Agreement shall enter into force thirty days after the date of receipt by the Government of the United States of America of a note from the Government of Japan stating that 

Japan has approved the Agreement in accordance with its legal procedures.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being duly authorized by their respective Governments, have signed this Agreement.

DONE at Tokyo, this fifth day of April, 1968, in duplicate in the Japanese and English 

languages, both equally authentic.

For Japan:

(Signed) Takeo Miki

For the United States of America:

(Signed) U. Alexis Johnson
466

Appendix B

Statement on Mt. Suribachi Memorial

Letter from Japanese Government to U.S. Government regarding Mount Suribachi Memorial

(Translation)

Tokyo, April 5, 1968

Dear Mr. Ambassador,

The return to Japan of the administration over the Bonin and other islands which 

the United States Government has exercised under the terms of Article 3 of the 

Treaty of Peace with Japan has filled me with great satisfaction. Amongst the islands that are being returned, one of the hardest battles was fought on the island of 

lwo-jima in the course of the Pacific War.

There is a memorial on top of Suribachi-yama dedicated to the United States Marines who fought with great valor. I understand well the American desire to long 

preserve this memorial. At the same time this battlefield is one where our Japanese 

soldiers fought also with great courage. Thus, it is my hope, on the occasion of 

the return of Iwo-jima, that there will be erected a memorial in memory of the 

Japanese soldiers, and that these two memorials will long remain on this spot as a 

prayer for eternal peace between the two nations, and as a reminder of the valor and 

dedication of the brave men on both sides.

Therefore I wish to inform you that it is the intention of my Government to assure 

the United States that the memorial dedicated to the United States Marines will 

be preserved on Suribachi-yama and that United States personnel may have access 

thereto.

Yours sincerely,

April 5, 1968

(Signed)

Takeo Miki

Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan

His Excellency

U. Alexis Johnson

Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary 

of the United States of America to Japan
467

Appendix C

Draft Text on Nuclear Weapons Storage,

21 March 1968

“Telegram 6698 from Embassy Tokyo to State Department, March 21, 1968,” Folder: Pol 

19 Bonin Islands, 3-1-68, Box 1898, Central Foreign Policy Files, 1967–1969, Record 

Group 59, Records of the Department of State, National Archives II, College Park, MD.

March 21, 1968

From American Embassy, Tokyo

To Secretary of State Washington, DC

Info CINCPAC Priority

COMUS Japan

Secret Tokyo 6698 EXDIS

CINCPAC Exclusive for Sharp

COMUS Japan Exclusive for Mckee

Ref: Tokyo 6696

Subject: Bonins Negotiations—Nuclear Storage

1. Following negotiated text for recording oral statements to be exchanged between 

FonMin Miki and me on contingency requiring nuclear storage in Bonins:

Begin Text:

Prior to the signing of the agreement today on the return of the Bonin and 

other islands, the following conversation took place between the Foreign Minister and the American Ambassador.

The American Ambassador stated: In the event of a contingency requiring the 

use of the Bonin and/or the Volcano Islands for nuclear weapon storage, the 

United States would wish to raise this matter with the Government of Japan 

and would anticipate a favorable reaction from the Government of Japan since 

such a request would not be made unless it were essential for the mutual security interests of the area, including Japan.

The Foreign Minister stated: Major changes in the equipment of United States 

forces in Japan, including those in the event of emergency are the subject of 

prior consultation with the Government of Japan in accordance with the exchange of notes of January 19, 1960, concerning the implementation of Article 

Five of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security. The case you have 

indicated is precisely one which is subject to the said prior consultation, and at 

this time I can only say that under the circumstances you cite the government 

of Japan will enter into such consultation.

Johnson
468

Appendix D

List of Island Appeals and Petitions, 1947–64

Petitions Submitted to U.S. Authorities for Returning to/

of the Bonin Islands by the League of Bonin Evacuees

11 July 1947 General Douglas MacArthur Petition for Repatriation League of Bonin Evacuees

to the Bonin Islands for Hastening Repatriation

8 October 19491 U.S. Navy Commander League

(15 September 1949) of the Mariana Islands,

Vice Admiral C. A. Pownall

25 November 1949 General Douglas MacArthur League

16 January 1950 Mrs. Douglas MacArthur League Women’s Department

3 June 1950 General Douglas MacArthur Petition for restoration to Governor of Tokyo,

Japan of administrative Asai Seiichiro

rights over Bonin Islands

16 October 1950 General Douglas MacArthur League

14 November 1950 Colonel Pierce, SCAP, GHQ Petition for Repatriation to League

the Bonin Islands

16 November 1950 U.S. Department of Defense Plan for returning to League

(Lieutenant Colonel Nicholas) the Bonin Islands

Mrs. Douglas MacArthur Petition for restoration to League Women’s Department

Japan of administrative

rights over Bonin Islands

24 December 1950 General Douglas MacArthur Plan for Returning to League

the Bonin Islands

2 February 1951 General Douglas MacArthur Petition for restoration to Speaker of the Tokyo

Japan of administrative Metropolitan Assembly

rights over Bonin Islands

9 August 1951 Secretary of State Petition for restoration to League

Dean G. Acheson Japan of administrative

rights over Bonin Islands

19 November 1953 Vice President Richard M. Nixon Petition for Repatriation to League? (submitted when

the Bonin Islands Nixon visited Japan)

28 May 1954 Secretary of State Diet Member

John Foster Dulles Fukuda Tokuyasu

26 September 1955 Ambassador John M. Allison League? (Presented during

interview)

17 October 1955 Commander in Chief, Pacific Governor of Tokyo,

Fleet, Admiral Felix D. Stump Asai

Date	 Addressees	 Contents	 Sender/remarks
469

Appendices

19 October 1955 Director, Representatives made

Office of Northeast Asian Affairs, appeal personally when

Department of State, visiting United States

Robert J. G. McClurkin

20 October 1955 Secretary of State Dulles Governor of Tokyo, Asai

President Dwight D. Eisenhower League (?)

Secretary of Defense Governor of Tokyo, Asai

Charles E. Wilson

Secretary of the Navy Governor of Tokyo, Asai

Charles S. Thomas

President of the Senate2 Governor of Tokyo, Asai

Speaker of the Governor of Tokyo, Asai

House of Representatives,

Samuel T. Rayburn

Acting Undersecretary of State Representatives made

Robert D. Murphy personal appeal when visiting

United States

Undersecretary of Defense Governor of Tokyo, Asai

Gordon Gray

Assistant Secretary of State Representatives made

Walter S. Robertson3 personal appeal when visiting

United States

Assistant Director,

Bureau of the Budget,

Ralph W. E. Reid

25 October 1955 Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff,

Admiral Arthur D. Radford

26 October 1955 Chief of Naval Operations Division

4 November 1955 Admiral Chester Nimitz

(retired, residing in Hawaii)

6 November 1955 Admiral Stump

15 December 1955 Department of State Plan for Returning to League

the Bonin Islands

23 December 1955 Secretary Thomas Petition for Repatriation to Petition submitted when

the Bonin Islands Thomas visited Japan

5 January 1956 Acting Undersecretary Murphy Diet Member Fukuda

Undersecretary Gray

Assistant Secretary Robertson

Assistant Director Reid

Japan Desk, Department of State,

Richard B. Finn

Director McClurkin

Date	 Addressees	 Contents	 Sender/remarks
470

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

1

According to Ogasawara Shoto Gaishi, Sono 1, 94, and a brochure entitled “Selections from Evacuees’ 

Petitions and Letters Regarding Their Repatriation” (Ogasawara Association, 1962), the date is 15 

September 1949.

2

The author was unable to locate the actual petition, but an English version of an abbreviated list of 

petitions found in “History of the Problem of the Bonin Islands,” published by the League of Bonin 

Evacuees for Hastening Repatriation in August 1958, says it was sent to the “President of the Senate.” As readers will know, there are two presidents, the president ex officio, filled by the vice president 

of the United States, and the president pro tempore, the highest ranking senator. It is assumed that 

the petition was handled by the latter individual. In this case, it was Walter F. George, a Democrat 

from Georgia, who served temporarily as special ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1957 before becoming ill and passing away.

3

There was some confusion in the title of Robertson’s position in the above documents prepared by 

the league. The title was mistranslated as “asstistant undersecretary” and “undersecretary” but the 

actual title is “assistant secretary.”

4

Judd, a Republican from Minnesota, was not the Speaker of the House at this time, nor was he ever.

5

See n3.

Admiral Nimitz

Admiral Stump

Speaker of the

House of Representatives

Walter H. Judd [sic]4

Admiral Radford Submitted through MOFA

1 March 1956 Secretary of State Dulles Diet Member Fukuda

3 July 1956 Assistant Secretary Robertson

4 July 1956 Assistant Secretary Robertson Request for compensation Requested by League

payment for losses suffered through MOFA

by former inhabitants of

Bonin Islands

5 July 1956 American Embassy Petition for Repatriation to MOFA

the Bonin Islands

4 September 1956 Assistant Secretary Robertson5 Diet Member Fukuda

11 March 1957 U.S. Civil Liberty Union League

(Roger Baldwin) Request for assistance in

obtaining repatriation and

in securing payment of

compensation for loss

11 April 1957 Ambassador Douglas MacArthur II Petition for repatriation and League

for payment of compensation

for loss

5 June 1961 Ambassador Edwin Reischauer Petition for repatriation League and two other

organizations

30 August 1961 League

Date	 Addressees	 Contents	 Sender/remarks
471

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Archival and Document Collections

British National Archives

Douglas MacArthur Memorial Archives and Library, Norfolk, VA

Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library, Abilene, KS

Gaimusho, Gaiko Shiryokan (The Diplomatic Archives of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs), 

Minato Ward, Tokyo

Harry S. Truman Presidential Library, Independence, MO

Harvard University Archives, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

Hoover Institution Archives, Stanford University, Stanford, CA

Iwo Jima Kyokai (Iwo Jima Association), Yokosuka City, Kanagawa, Japan

John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, Boston, MA

K. Ross Toole Archives and Special Collections, Maureen and Mike Mansfield Library, University 

of Montana, Missoula, MT

Kensei Shiryo Shitsu, Kokkai Toshokan (National Diet Library), Chiyoda Ward, Tokyo

Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, University of Texas, Austin, TX

Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC

U.S. Army Military History Institute, U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Carlisle, PA

Minnesota Historical Society, St. Paul, MN

National Security Archive, Gelman Library, George Washington University, Washington, DC

Naval History and Heritage Command, Navy Yard, Washington, DC

Nimitz Library, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD

Ogasawara Kyokai (Ogasawara Association), Minato Ward, Tokyo

Ogasawaramura Kyoiku Iinkai (Ogasawara Village Board of Education), Chichi Jima, Ogasawara, 

Tokyo

Okinawa Bunka Kenkyusho (Institute of Okinawan Studies), Hosei University, Tokyo

Okinawaken Kobunshokan (Okinawa Prefectural Archives), Haebaru-cho, Okinawa

Okinawa Kyokai (Okinawa Association), Tokyo

Pacific War Memorial Association, Honolulu, HI
472

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies, University of Georgia, Athens, GA

Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ

United States National Archives, College Park, MD

Virginia Historical Society, Richmond, VA

Oral Histories

Allison, John M. John Foster Dulles Oral History Project, Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library, 

Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 20 April 1969.

Bond, Niles W. Truman Library Oral History Program, Harry S. Truman Presidential Library, Independence, MO, 28 December 1973.

Bundy, William P. Lyndon B. Johnson Oral History Project, Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, Austin, TX, 26 May 1969.

Butterworth, W. Walton. John Foster Dulles Oral History Project, 8 September 1965.

Butterworth, W. Walton. Truman Library Oral History Program, 6 July 1971.

Halperin, Morton. Center for Global Partnership, Japan Foundation, Reversion of Okinawa Project, 

Washington, DC, 1 October 1991.

Johnson, U. Alexis. John Foster Dulles Oral History Project, 28 May 1966.

Johnson, U. Alexis. Center for Global Partnership, 2 October 1991.

Jorden, William J. Lyndon B. Johnson Oral History Project, 22 March 1969.

Katzenbach, Nicholas. Lyndon B. Johnson Oral History Project, 23 November 1965.

Kishi, Nobusuke. John Foster Dulles Oral History Project, 1964.

MacArthur, Douglas A., II. John Foster Dulles Oral History Project, 18 December 1966.

Mansfield, Michael. Center for Global Partnership, 30 September 1991.

Maruyama, Takashi, conducted by Akihiko Tanaka and Koji Murata. U.S.-Japan Oral History Project, National Security Archive, George Washington University, Washington, DC, 12 April 1996.

McNamara, Robert S. Lyndon B. Johnson Oral History Project, 8 January 1975.

Okazaki, Katsuo. John Foster Dulles Oral History Project, 2 October 1964.

Parsons, J. Graham. Truman Library Oral History Program, 1 July 1974.

Reischauer, Edwin O. Lyndon B. Johnson Oral History Project, 8 April 1969.

Reischauer, Edwin O. John F. Kennedy Library Oral History Project, John F. Kennedy Library, 

Boston, MA, 25 April 1969.

Rostow, Walt W. Lyndon B. Johnson Oral History Project, 21 March 1965.

Rusk, David Dean, conducted by Page E. Mulhollan. Lyndon B. Johnson Oral History Project, 2 

January 1970.
473

Bibliography

Sebald, William J. John Foster Dulles Oral History Project, 1965.

Sebald, William J. Special Collections Division, Nimitz Library, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD, 1977.

Wheeler, Earle G. Lyndon B. Johnson Oral History Project, 21 August 1969.

Yoshida, Shigeru. John Foster Dulles Oral History Project, 30 September 1964.

Frontline Diplomacy: The U.S. Foreign Affairs Oral History Collection, Association for Diplomatic 

Studies and Training, Arlington, VA.

Personal Interviews by Author/Correspondence

with Author

Armstrong, Rodney. 12 March 2009, Tokyo.

Chiba, Kazuo. 1 December 2000, Tokyo.

Christuk, Constant. E-mail correspondence, 12 May 2003.

Colavito, Jack. 12 March 2003, Riverhead, NY.

Edamura, Sumio. 17 July 2007, Tokyo.

Falk, James F. 24 September 2000, Jamul, CA.

Fearey, Robert A. 1 September 1997, 8 February 1998, and 10 June 2001, Washington, DC.

Finn, Richard B. 29 August, 20 September, 25 September, and 26 November 1997, and 16 June 

1998, Bethesda, MD.

Frost, Clayton (family of ). E-mail correspondence, 14 and 22 May 2003.

Fukuda, Tokuyasu, Mrs. (Aya). Letter, 3 October 2007.

Goodpaster, Andrew J. 27 March 2001.

Green, Marshall. 1 and 8 February 1998, Washington, DC, and letter of 14 September 1997.

Halloran, Richard. 1 November 2007, Honolulu, HI.

Halperin, Morton. 18 October 2000, Washington, DC.

Hemmendinger, Noel. 7 June 2001, Washington, DC.

Iguchi, Takeo. 17 July 2007, Tokyo.

Jenkins, Alfred L. Letter, 12 October 2000.

Kennan, George F. 5 September 1997, Princeton, NJ, and letters of 15 September 1997 and 24 

September 1998.

Kikuchi, Tadahiko. 3 August 2000, 1 September 2002, and 29 June 2008, Chichi Jima.

Kusuda, Minoru. 1 October 1999 and 31 July 2000, Tokyo.

MacArthur, Mimi. January 2003, Brussels, Belgium.
474

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Mansfield, Michael. J. 27 March 2000, Washington, DC.

Martin, James V., Jr. 30 January 1999, Washington, DC.

McNamara, Robert S. Letter, 28 September 2000.

Miki, Hideo. 5 and 7 January 2008, both by telephone.

Monks, Bill. 22 August 2006, Fairview, NJ.

Murata, Itaru. Letters and interviews between 2002 and 2003, and interviews in Tokyo.

Ohira, Kyoko (Edith Washington). 28 June 2008, Chichi Jima.

Okawara, Yoshio. 13 August 2007, Tokyo.

Petree, Richard W. 22 October 2000, Bronxville, NY.

Rostow, Walt R. 12 July 2000, Austin, TX.

Sato, Yukio. 24 June 2008, Tokyo.

Searls, Hank. Letter, 17 February 2000, and interview, 20 September 2000, Newport Beach, CA.

Shaffer, Robert D. 17–18 August 2009, Salt Lake City, UT.

Sprague, Mansfield. 25 September, 2000, Ojai, CA.

Steeves, John M. 13 June 1998, Hershey, PA, and letter, July 28, 1998.

Suetsugu, Ichiro. 18 April 18, 2000, Tokyo.

Tamamura, Fumio. 5 June 2008, Yokohama.

Tatum, Chuck W. 5 May 2008, Stockton, CA.

Thomson, James C., Jr. 3 October 2000, Cambridge, MA.

Tyler, Burket E. E-mail correspondence, 17 and 18 January, 2008.

Wachi, Tsunezo (family of, Mrs. Rosa Ogawa). 5 June 2008, Kunitachi City, Tokyo, and numerous 

letters.

Wada, Seiji. 13 August 2007, Tokyo.

Waterhouse, Charles. 3 July 2007, Toms River, NJ.

Wolcott, George. E-mail correspondence, 12 May 2003.

Yokota, George. 23 August 2005, Kilauea Military Camp, HI.

Memoirs and Diaries

Akikusa, Tsuruji. Junanasai no Iwoto [17 Years Old on Iwo Jima]. Tokyo: Bungei Shunju, 2006.

Armstrong, Rodney E. “The Bonins and Iwo Jima.” Foreign Service Journal vol. 69, no. 5 (May 1992): 

26–27.
475

Bibliography

Benson, Merritt E. “Seventeen Days at Iwo Jima.” Marine Corps Gazette vol. 84, no. 2 (February 

2000): 32–35.

Berger, Graenum. A Not So Silent Envoy: A Biography of Ambassador Samuel David Berger. Pelham, 

NY: John Washburn Bleeker Hampton, 1992.

Borton, Hugh. Spanning Japan’s Modern Century: The Memoirs of Hugh Borton. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2002.

Brady, James. Why Marines Fight. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2007.

Burg, B. A. An American Seafarer in the Age of Sail: The Exotic Diaries of Philip C. Van Buskirk, 1851–

1870. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994.

Cary, Otis, ed. Eyewitness to History: The First Americans in Postwar Asia. Tokyo: Kodansha International, 1995.

Chiba, Kazuo. “The Sorrow of Battlefields: Vietnam to Okinawa.” Insight Japan, 2000, 16–17.

Dosett, Doris. Crater Island—Chichi Jima. Foreign Mission Society of Central Baptists, 1954.

Eldridge, Robert D., and Charles Tatum. Fighting Spirit: The Memoirs of Yoshitaka Horie and the 

Battle of Iwo Jima. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2011.

Emmerson, John K. The Japanese Thread: A Life in the U.S. Foreign Service. New York: Holt, Rinehart, 

and Winston, 1978.

Foley, Robert T. “Seaplane Operations at Iwo Jima.” Marine Corps Gazette vol. 84, no. 2 (February 

2000): 34.

Fukuda, Tokuyasu. Chiseiten ni Tsuzu: Sekai 25 Nen no Ayumi [Toward the Sky: 25 Years in Politics]. 

Tokyo: Gaisei Kenkyukai, 1974.

Gibson, Arvin S. In Search of Angels. Bountiful, Utah: Horizon Publishers, 1990.

Gibson, Arvin S. My Year on Iwo Jima and the Aftermath. Private publisher, 2001.

Guillain, Robert. I Saw Tokyo Burning: An Eyewitness Narrative from Pearl Harbor to Hiroshima. New 

York: Playboy Books, 1982.

Hagiwara, Toshio, Hakkotsu no Shima: Iwoto no Higeki [Island of Skeletons: The Tragedy of Iwo 

Jima]. Tokyo: Aokisha, 1952.

Haynes, Fred, and James A. Warren. The Lions of Iwo Jima: The Story of Combat Team 28 and the 

Bloodiest Battle in Marine Corps History. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 2008.

Hori, Shigeru. Sengo Seiji no Oboegaki [Memorandum on Postwar Politics]. Tokyo: Mainichi Shimbunsha, 1975.

Horie, Yoshitaka. “Chichijima Jinniku Jiken Shidancho mo Kutta [The Chichijima Cannibalism 

Incident: Division Commanding General Also Participated].” Rekishi to Jinbutsu vol. 14, no. 14 

(August 1984): 120–35.

Horie, Yoshitaka, interviewed by Dr. Alvin D. Coox. “Japan’s Self-Defense Force Today.” Marine 

Corps Gazette, vol. 49, no. 2 (February 1965): 50–53.

Horie Yoshitaka. Iwo Jima: Sento no Kiroku [Iwo Jima: A Record of Combat]. Tokyo: Kobunsha, 

1973.
476

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Horie, Yoshitaka. Tokon: Iwo Jima [Fighting Spirit: Iwo Jima]. Tokyo: Kobunsha, 1965.

Humphrey, Hubert H. The Education of a Public Man: My Life and Politics. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1976.

Jenkins, Alfred L. Country, Conscience, and Caviar: A Diplomat’s Journey in the Company of History. 

Seattle: Book Partners, 1993.

Johnson, U. Alexis. The Right Hand of Power: The Memoirs of an American Diplomat. Englewood 

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1984.

Josephy, Alvin M., Jr. The Long and the Short and the Tall: Marines in Combat on Guam and Iwo Jima. 

Short Hills, NJ: Burford Books, 2000.

Kawashima, Shoichi. Iwo Jima Senki: Gyokusai no Shima Kara Seikan Shita Ichiheishi no Kaiso [Diary of the Battle of Iwo Jima: Recollections of One Soldier Who Returned Alive From the Island 

Where Almost Everyone Died]. Tokyo: Kojinsha, 2007.

Koshimura, Yoshio (Yoshikawa Kiyomi, ed.). Iwo Jima no Heitai [Soldiers of Iwo Jima]. Tokyo: 

Asahi Shimbunsha, 2006.

Koshimura, Yoshio. Iwojima Shubitai: Senso to Ningen no Kiroku [The Defense Force of Iwo Jima: A 

Human Documentary and War]. Tokyo: Gendaishi Shuppankai, 1978.

Kusuda, Minoru. Kusuda Minoru Nikki [The Kusuda Minoru Diary]. Tokyo Chuo Koronsha, 2001.

Kusuda, Minoru. Shuseki Hishokan: Sato Sori to no 10 Nen Kan [The Prime Minister’s Secretary: Ten 

Years with Premier Sato]. Tokyo: Bungei Shunju, 1975.

Landau, Sidney. From Boots to Iwo Jima: A Marine Corpsman’s Story in Letters to His Wife, 1943–1945. 

Miami Beach: Universal Publishers, 2001.

LeMay, Curtis E, and Bill Yenne. Superfortress: The B-29 and American Air Power. New York: 

McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1988.

Leininger, Bruce and Andrea (with Ken Gross). Soul Survivor: The Reincarnation of a World War II 

Fighter Pilot. New York: Garland Central Publishing, 2009.

Levin, Dan. From the Battlefield: Dispatches of a World War II Marine. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute 

Press, 1995.

Lucas, Jack H. Indestructible: The Unforgettable Story of a Marine Hero at the Battle of Iwo Jima. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press, 2006.

Miki, Mutsuko. Miki to Aruita Hanseiki [Half a Century with Miki]. Tokyo: Tokyo Shimbun Shuppankyoku, 1993.

Miki, Mutsuko. Shin Nakuba Tatazu: Otto Miki Takeo To No 50 Nen [One Cannot Stand Without 

Trust: 50 Years with My Husband Miki Takeo]. Tokyo: Kodansha, 1989.

Miki, Takeo. Gikai Seiji to Tomo Ni: Miki Takeo Enzetsu-Hatsugen Shu [With Parliamentary Politics: A Collection of Miki Takeo’s Speeches and Public Statements]. Tokyo: Miki Takeo Shuppan 

Kinenkai, 1984.

Minobe, Ryokichi. Tochiji 12 Nen [12 Years as Tokyo Governor]. Tokyo: Asahi Shimbun, 1979.
477

Bibliography

Monks, Bill. Pearls: Short Stories. New York: JJ Company, 2002.

Morgan, Robert. The Man Who Flew the Memphis Belle: Memoir of a WWII Bomber Pilot. New York: 

New American Library, 2002.

Nations, George W. “Iwo Jima: One Man Remembers.” Unpublished manuscript, 1985.

Nishimura Kumao, “Okinawa Kizoku no Kimaru Made—Motomeru ni Isoideatta Nihon no Seron 

[Until the Reversion of Okinawa is Decided—Public Opinion Demanded (the Return of the Islands) Too Quickly],” Asahi Jaanaru, vol. 1, no. 15 (21 June 1959), 19.

Oda, James. Secret Embedded in Magic Cable. Northridge, CA: KNI, 1993.

Okawara, Yoshio. Ooraru Hisutorii Nichibei-Gaiko [Oral History of Japan-U.S. Diplomacy]. Tokyo: 

Japan Times, 2006.

Perry, Matthew C. The Japan Expedition, 1852–1854: The Personal Journal of Commodore Matthew C. 

Perry. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1968.

Radford, Arthur W. From Pearl Harbor to Vietnam: The Memoirs of Admiral Arthur W. Radford. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 1980.

Reischauer, Edwin O. My Life Between Japan and America. New York: Weatherhill, 1986.

Ross, Bill D. “Pilgrimage to Iwo.” Leatherneck, vol. 70, no. 8 (August 1987): 38–44.

Ruschenberger, William Samuel Waithman. Narrative of a Voyage around the World, During the Years 

1835, 36, and 37; Including a Narrative of an Embassy to the Sultan of Muscat and the King of Siam. 

Philadelphia: Carey, Lea, and Blanchard, 1838.

Sakai, Saburo. Samurai! Flying the Zero in WWII with Japan’s Fighter Ace. New York: Ballantine 

Books, 1957.

Sato, Eisaku. Sato Eisaku Nikki [The Diary of Sato Eisaku], Vols. 2 and 3. Tokyo: Asahi Shimbunsha, 

1998.

Sato, Yukio. “Tera ni Sodatte, Watashi no Mita Kokusai Shakai to Nihon, 8, Suribachiyama no Kamikaze [International Society and Japan, as I, Someone Raised in a Temple, Saw It, the Kamikaze 

of Mt. Suribachi”]. Sodoshu Shimbun, no. 447 (May 2004), 4.

Shimoda, Takezo. Sengo Nihon Gaiko no Shogen: Nihon ha Koshite Saisei Shita [Testimony about 

Postwar Japanese Diplomacy: This is How the Rebirth of Japan Took Place]. Tokyo: Gyosei Mondai 

Kenkyusho, 1985.

Sledge, Eugene B. With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Smith, Holland M. Coral and Brass. New York: Bantam Books, 1987.

Stone, Alfred R. A Marine Remembers: Iwo Jima. Austin, TX: Eakin Press, 2000.

Sugihara, Kinryu (edited by Stephen J. Lofgren), “Diary of First Lieutenant Sugihara Kinryu: Iwo 

Jima, January–February 1945,” The Journal of Military History, vol. 59 ( January 1995): 97–134.

Suetsugu, Ichiro. ‘Sengo’ e no Chosen [Challenging the “Postwar”]. Tokyo: Ooru Shuppan, 1981.

Summitt, Dan. Tales of a Cold War Submariner. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2004.

Tada, Minoru. Kaigun Gakutohei: Iwo Jima ni Shisu [Student Sailor: Dying on Iwo Jima]. Tokyo: 

Kodansha, 1980.
478

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Tada, Minoru. Nanimo Kataranakatta Seishun [The Youth I Could Not Speak About]. Tokyo: Mikasa Shobo, 1993.

Tada, Minoru. “Shima Gyokusai no Shinso: Kiseki no Seikansha to Izoku no Zadankai” [The Truth 

about the Mass Death on the Island: A Conversation between the Miracle Survivors and the Bereaved Families]. Shukan Yomiuri, 22 March 1968, 108–13.

Tatum, Charles W. Charles W. Tatum’s Iwo Jima: 19 February 1945, Red Blood, Black Sand, Pacific 

Apocalypse. Stockton, CA: Tatum, 1995.

Taylor, Bayard. “An Exploring Trip through Peel Island,” in Bayard Taylor, A Visit to India, China and 

Japan. vol. 6, The Complete Works of Bayard Taylor. New York: Putnam, 1862.

Taylor, Bayard. “Voyage to the Bonin or Arzobispo Isles.” New York Tribune, 9 November 1953.

Thorpe, Elliott R. East Wind, Rain: A Chief of Counter-intelligence Remembers Peace and War in the 

Pacific, 1939–1949. Boston: Gambit Incorporated, 1969.

Togo, Fumihiko. Nichibei Gaiko 30 Nen [30 Years of Japan-U.S. Diplomacy]. Tokyo: Sekai no Ugoki 

Sha, 1982.

Trautman, Frederic, ed. With Perry to Japan: A Memoir by William Heine. Honolulu: University of 

Hawaii Press, 1990.

Tyler, Burket E. Iwo Jima. N.p.: Lulu Books, 2006. Print-on-demand e-book.

Ugaki, Matome. Fading Victory: The Diary of Admiral Matome Ugaki, 1941–1945. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1991.

Ushiba, Nobuhiko. Gaiko no Shunkan: Watashi no Rirekisho [Diplomatic Moment: My Biography]. 

Tokyo: Nihon Keizai Shimbunsha, 1984.

Ushiba, Nobuhiko. Ushiba Nobuhiko: Keizai Gaiko e no Gaiko [Ushiba Nobuhiko’s Testimony on 

Economic Diplomacy]. Tokyo: Daiyamond Sha, 1984.

Van Buskirk, P. C. “Private Diary of P. C. Van Buskirk” (in possession of Professor Daniel Long), 

covering years 1880, 1881, and 1898. Tokyo, Japan.

Vedder, James S. Surgeon on Iwo: Up Front with the 27th Marines. Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1984.

Wachi, Tsunezo. Miizu: Beiju Kinen [The August Virtue of His Imperial Majesty]. Yokosuka: Iwo 

Jima Kyokai, 1989.

Wakaizumi, Kei. The Best Course Available: A Personal Account of the Secret U.S.-Japan Okinawa Reversion Negotiations. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2002.

Wells, John Keith. Give Me Fifty Marines Not Afraid to Die: Iwo Jima. Abilene, TX: Ka-Well Enterprises, 1995.

Wooldridge, E. T., ed. Carrier Warfare in the Pacific: An Oral History Collection. Washington, DC: 

Smithsonian Institution Press, 1993.

Yaffe, Bertram A. Fragments of War: A Marine’s Personal Journey. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute 

Press, 1999.

Yamano, Kokichi. Okinawa Henkan Hitorigoto [My Views on the Okinawa Reversion]. Tokyo: Gyosei, 1981.

Yoshida, Shigeru. The Yoshida Memoirs: The Story of Japan in Crisis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 

1973.
479

Bibliography

Documents and Reference Materials

Beasley, W. G., ed. Select Documents on Japanese Foreign Policy, 1853–1868. London: Oxford University Press, 1955.

Committee for the Commemoration of the 20th Anniversary of the Reversion of Okinawa, ed. 

Commemorative Events for the Twentieth Anniversary of the Reversion of Okinawa: Okinawa Reversion, 

Its Long-Term Significance in U.S.-Japan Relations, Past and Future. Tokyo: The Japan Foundation 

Center for Global Partnership, 1994.

Department of State. Biographic Register of the Department of State. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973.

Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948. vol. 6, The Far East and Australasia. 

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1974.

Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949. vol. 7, The Far East and Australasia, 

Part II. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1976.

Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950. vol. 6, East Asia and the Pacific. 

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1976.

Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951. vol. 6, Asia and the Pacific (in two 

parts), Part 1. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1977.

Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954. vol. 14, China and Japan (in 

two parts), Part 2. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1985.

Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957. vol. 23, Part 1, Japan. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1991.

Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960. vol. 18, Japan and Korea. 

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1994.

Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960. vol. 17, Indonesia. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1995.

Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960. vol. 18, Japan, and Korea. 

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1995.

Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963. vol. 22, Northeast Asia. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1996.

Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968. vol. 29, Part 2, Japan. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2006.

Department of State. Foreign Service List. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,1970.

Etzold, Thomas H., and John Lewis Gaddis, eds. Containment: Documents on American Policy and 

Strategy, 1945–1950. New York: Columbia University Press, 1978.

Gaimusho, ed. Nihon Gaiko Bunsho [ Japanese Diplomatic Documents], vol. 6 ( January 1873–December 1873). Tokyo: Gaimusho, 1955.
480

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Gaimusho, ed. Nihon Gaiko Bunsho [ Japanese Diplomatic Documents], vol. 7 ( January 1874–December 1874). Tokyo: Gaimusho, 1955.

Gaimusho, ed. Nihon Gaiko Bunsho [ Japanese Diplomatic Documents], vol. 8 ( January 1875–December 1875). Tokyo: Gaimusho, 1956.

Gaimusho, ed. Nihon Gaiko Bunsho [ Japanese Diplomatic Documents], vol. 9 ( January 1876–December 1876). Tokyo: Gaimusho, 1956.

Gaimusho Joyakukyoku Hokika, ed. Heiwa Joyaku no Teiketsu ni Kansuru Chosho [Records Relating 

to the Conclusion of the Peace Treaty], Vols. 1–5. Tokyo: Gaimusho, 2002.

Iokibe, Makoto, ed. The Occupation of Japan. Part 3, Reform, Recovery and Peace, 1945–1952. Bethesda, MD: Congressional Information Service, Inc., 1991.

Iokibe, Makoto, ed. The Occupation of Japan. Part 2, U.S. and Allied Policy Documents, 1945–1952. 

Bethesda, MD: Congressional Information Service, Inc., 1989.

Iokibe, Makoto, ed. The Occupation of Japan: U.S. Planning Documents, 1942–1945. Bethesda, MD: 

Congressional Information Service, Inc., 1987.

Iwo Jima Ikotsu Shushu Kirokushi Henshu Iinkai, ed. Iwojima Ikotsu Shushu Kirokushi [Record of 

Collecting Remains on Iwo Jima]. Chichi Jima: Ogasawara Mura, 1999.

Iwo Jima Kenshohi Kenritsu Kiseikai, ed. Iwo Jima Kenshohi Kenritsu no Kiroku [Record of the Construction of a Memorial on Iwo Jima]. Tokyo: Iwo Jima Kenshohi Kenritsu Kiseikai, 1969.

Iwo Jima Kyokai, ed. Iwo Jima Kyokai no Ayumi [The Path of the Iwo Jima Association]. Yokosuka: 

Iwo Jima Kyokai, 1997.

Iwo Jima Kyokai, ed. Kaiho [Report of the Iwo Jima Association]. 1990.

Nihon Gaikoshi Jiten Hensan Iinkai, ed. Nihon Gaikoshi Jiten [Encyclopedia of Japanese Diplomatic 

History]. Tokyo: Yamakawa Shuppansha, 1992.

Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. Civil Affairs Handbook: Izu and Bonin Islands, OPNAV 

50E-9. Washington, DC: Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, 10 July 1944.

Pesce, Dorothy Richard, and L. Gordon Findley, eds., A History of the Bonin-Volcano Islands. Oahu: 

Commander in Chief Pacific, 1958.

Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953–1961). Washington, 

DC: Government Printing Office, 1961.

Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Harry S. Truman (1945–1953). Washington, DC: 

Government Printing Office, 1961.

Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: John F. Kennedy (1961–1963). Washington, DC: 

Government Printing Office, 1963.

Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson (1963–1969). Washington, DC: 

Government Printing Office, 1970.

Richard, Dorothy E., ed., United States Naval Administration of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1957.
481

Bibliography

Official and Organizational Histories

Alexander, Col Joseph H. (Ret). Closing In: Marines in the Seizure of Iwo Jima. Marines in World War 

II Commemorative Series. Washington, DC: Marine Corps Historical Center, 1994.

Bartley, LtCol Whitman S. Iwo Jima: Amphibious Epic. Washington, DC: Historical Branch, G-3 

Division, Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps, 1954.

Boyd, Gary W. “The Air Campaign for Iwo Jima,” in World War II in the Pacific, 1941–1945: The Air 

Force Story. Hickam Air Force Base, HI: Office of History, Headquarters, Pacific Air Forces, 1995, 

159–71.

Chapin, John C. The Fifth Marine Division in World War II. Washington, DC: Historical Branch, 

G-3 Division, Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps, 1945.

Dyer, George C. The Amphibians Came to Conquer: The Story of Admiral Richard Kelly Turner. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1969.

Endo, Kiyoshi, ed. Iwo Jima Kyokai no Ayumi [The History of the Iwo Jima Association]. Yokosuka:

Iwo Jima Kyokai, 1997.

Futrell, Robert F. The United States Air Force in Korea, 1950–1953, Revised Edition. Washington, 

DC: Office of Air Force History, United States Air Force, 1983.

Hawks, Francis L. Narrative of the Expedition of an American Squadron to the China Seas and Japan: Performed in the Years 1852, 1853, and 1854 under the Command of Commodore M. C. Perry, United States 

Navy, by Order of the Government of the United States. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1856.

Hone, Thomas C. Power and Change: The Administrative History of the Office of the Chief of Naval 

Operations, 1946–1986. Washington, DC: Naval Historical Center, 1989.

Iwo Jima Kenshohi Kenritsu Kiseikai, ed. Iwo Jima Kenshohi Kenritsu no Kiroku [Record of the Construction of a Memorial on Iwo Jima]. Tokyo: Iwo Jima Kenshohi Kenritsu Kiseikai, 1969.

Iwo Jima Kyokai, ed. Iwo Jima Senbotsusha Kenshohi Senza ni Tomonau Inen [The Fate of Relocating 

the Memorial to Those Fallen on Iwo Jima]. Yokosuka: Iwo Jima Kyokai, 1987.

“Iwo Jima,” Report No. 7. N.p.: U.S. Army Air Forces, Evaluation Board, Pacific Ocean Areas, May 

1945.

Matloff, Maurice. American Military History. Washington, DC: Office of the Chief of Military History, United States Army, 1969.

Miller, Hunter. Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, vol. 6. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1942.

Miller, Kimberley J., “Battle for Iwo Jima: WWII Fact Sheet.” Washington, DC: Navy and Marine 

Corps WWII Commemorative Committee, Navy Office of Information, 1995.

Morehouse, Clifford P. The Iwo Jima Operation. Washington, D.C: Historical Division, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, 1946.

Nalty, Bernard C., and Danny J. Crawford. The United States Marines on Iwo Jima: The Battle and the Flag 

Raisings. Washington, DC: History and Museums Division, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, 1995.

Ogasawara Kaiun. Ogasawara Kaiun 20 Nen no Ayumi [20 Years of Ogasawara Kaiun]. Tokyo: Ogasawara Kaiun, 1991.
482

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Ogasawara Senyukai, ed. Ogasawara Heidan no Saigo [The Last Days of the Ogasawara Forces]. 

Tokyo: Hara Shobo, 1969.

Okinawa Kyokai, ed. Nanpo Doho Engokai 17 Nen no Ayumi [17 Years of the Nanpo Doho Engokai]. 

Tokyo: Okinawa Kyokai, 1973.

Palmer, Michael A. Origins of the Maritime Strategy: American Naval Strategy in the First Postwar 

Decade. Washington, DC: Naval Historical Center, 1988.

Phelan, Lt W. C. “Jap Military Caves on Peleliu and Iwo Jima.” Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: U.S. 

Air Force Historical Research Center, 20 May 1945.

Points of Interest on Iwo Jima. Carlisle Barracks, PA: Military History Institute, n.d.

Steere, Edward, and Thayer M. Boardman. Final Disposition of World War II Dead, 1945–1951. QMC 

Historical Studies Series II, No. 4. Washington, DC: Historical Branch, Office of the Quartermaster 

General, 1957.

Secondary Works

Aaseng, Nathan. Navajo Code Talkers. New York: Walker and Company, 1992.

Abe, Shin. “Ogasawara Shoto ni Okeru Nihongo no Hogen Keisei [ Japanese Dialect Formation in 

the Ogasawara Islands].” Nihongo Kenkyu Sentaa Hokoku, no. 6 (1998): 149–60.

Abe, Shin. Ogasawara Shoto ni Okeru Nihongo no Hogen Sesshoku: Hogen Keisei to Hogen Ishiki [ Japanese Dialect Contact in the Ogasawara Islands: Dialect Formation and Dialect Recognition]. Kagoshima: Nanpo Shinsha, 2006.

Agawa, Naoyuki. Umi no Yujo: Beikoku Kaigun to Kaijo Jieitai [Friendship Across the Sea: The U.S. 

Navy and the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force]. Tokyo: Chuko Shinsho, 2001.

Akimoto, Shoji. Shashin de Miru Nichibei no Gekisenchi: Chinkon no Suribachiyama Iwoto [Viewing 

the Horrific Battle Ground between Japan and the U.S.: Sacred Mt. Suribachi Iwoto]. Tokyo: Kanto 

Tosho, 2006.

Akioka, Takejiro. “Ogasawara Shoto Hakkenshi no Kihon Shiryo-Chizu ni Tsuite, 1” [Basic Documents and Maps on the Discovery of the Ogasawara Islands, 1]. Kaijishi Kenkyu, no. 1 (1963): 1–13.

Akioka, Takejiro. “Ogasawara Shoto Hakkenshi no Kihon Shiryo-Chizu ni Tsuite, 2” [Basic Documents and Maps on the Discovery of the Ogasawara Islands, 2]. Kaijishi Kenkyu, no. 3–4 (April 

1965): 45–57.

Akioka, Takejiro. “Ogasawara Shoto Hakkenshi no Kihon Shiryo-Chizu ni Tsuite, 3” [Basic Documents and Maps on the Discovery of the Ogasawara Islands, 3]. Kaijishi Kenkyu, no. 1 (October 

1967): 96–112.

Alexander, Joseph H. “Combat Leadership at Iwo Jima.” Marine Corps Gazette, vol. 79, no. 2 (February 1995): 66–71.

Alexander, Joseph H. “Iwo Jima: ‘Hell with the Fire Out.’” Leatherneck, vol. 78, no. 2 (February 

1995): 14–23.

Alexander, Joseph H., and Merrill L. Bartlett. Sea Soldiers in the Cold War. Annapolis, MD: Naval 

Institute Press, 1995.
483

Bibliography

Alexander, Joseph H. Storm Landings: Epic Amphibious Battles in the Central Pacific. Annapolis, MD: 

Naval Institute Press, 1997.

Allen, Robert E. The First Battalion of the 28th Marines on Iwo Jima: A Day-By-Day History From 

Personal Accounts and Official Reports. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1999.

Ambrose, Hugh. The Pacific: Hell Was an Ocean Away. New York: New American Library, 2010.

Ando, Tomichi. Aa Iwo Jima Kiroku ni Yoru Iwo Jima Senshi [Oh, Iwo Jima: A Battle History of Iwo 

Jima based on Documents]. Tokyo: Kawade Shobo Shinsha, 2007.

Angel, Megan. “ ‘Flaming Joe’ Returns to Iwo Jima 65 Years Later.” Okinawa Marine, 19 March 

2010: 10.

Anonymous. “Sketch of Bonin Islands, From the Journal of ——, 1843.” The Friend, February 1844: 5.

Aono, Masao. Ogasawara Monogatari [Ogasawara Story]. Tokyo: Matsumoto Seikido, 1978.

Aquilina, Robert A. “Marine Corps History: ‘Uncommon Valor Was a Common Virtue.’ ” Marines, 

February 1985: 24–25.

Arakawa, Hidetoshi. Nihon Hyoryu Hyochaku Shiryo [Documents on Those Japanese Who Have 

Been Castaways]. Tokyo: Kisho Kenkyusho, 1962.

Arakawa, Hidetoshi. Nihonjin Hyoryuki [A History of Japanese Castaways]. Tokyo: Jinbutsu Oraisha, 

1964.

Arima, Midori. “An Ethnographic and Historical Study of Ogasawara/the Bonin Islands, Japan.” 

PhD diss., Stanford University, 1990.

Arima, Toshiyuki. “Henkan Chokugo no Ogasawara Jumin (Toku ni Sho-Chugakusei Oyobi Seinen) no Kotoba no Jittai” [An Examination of the Language of the Islanders of Ogasawara Immediately after Reversion, Especially Among Elementary and Middle School Students and Young 

People].” Onsei no Kenkyu, no. 21 (1985): 409–17.

Arima, Toshiyuki. “Ogasawara de no Nihongo Kyoiku” [ Japanese Language Education in Ogasawara]. Gengo Seikatsu, no. 281 (1975): 35–41.

Armstrong, Elizabeth H., and William I. Cargo. “The Inauguration of the Trusteeship System of the 

United States.” The Department of State Bulletin, vol. 16, no. 403 (23 March 1947): 511–21.

Arnold Shapiro Productions. Heroes of Iwo Jima. New York: A&E Television Networks, 2001. Video, 

94 min.

Arthur, Robert A., and Kenneth Cohlmia. The Third Marine Division. Washington, DC: Infantry 

Journal, 1948.

Asahi Jaanaru Henshubu, ed. “Chokkatsu ka, Miyako ni Kizoku ka: Kusuburu Ogasawara no Gyosei 

Kizoku” [Will (the Ogasawara Islands] Be Placed Under National Control or Metropolitan Tokyo’s 

Control? The Question of the Return of Ogasawara’s Administration Control]. Asaahi Jaanaru, vol. 

9, no. 54 (1967): 6–8.

Asahi Shimbun, ed. The Pacific Rivals: A Japanese View of Japanese American Relations. New York: 

Weatherhill/Asahi, 1972.

Asano, Toyomi, ed. Nanyo Gunto to Teikoku-Kokusai Chitsujo [The Southern Islands and the Empire 

and World Order]. Nagoya: Chukyo Daigaku Shakai Kagaku Kenkyusho, 2007.
484

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Auslin, Michael R. Negotiating with Imperialism: The Unequal Treaties and the Culture of Japanese 

Diplomacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004.

Bartlett, Tom. “Bloody Iwo.” Leatherneck, vol. 74, no. 2 (February 1991): 58–61.

Bartlett, Tom. “Two Linguists.” Leatherneck, vol. 69, no. 2 (February 1986): 26–29, 58.

Bartley, Whitman S. Iwo Jima: Amphibious Epic. Washington, D.C: Historical Branch, Headquarters, 

U.S. Marine Corps, 1954.

Bashomatsu, Yuko. “Obeikei Imin no Kaitakushi: Ogasawara Shoto Henkan 25 Shunen” [A History 

of the Development (of the Ogasawara Islands) by the Islanders of Western Descent]. Asahi Grafu, 

12 November, 1993: 32–41.

Beasley, W. G. Great Britain and the Opening of Japan, 1834–1858. London: Luzac and Company, 1951.

Beasley, W. G., ed. Select Documents on Japanese Foreign Policy, 1853–1968. London: Oxford University Press, 1955.

Beasley, W. G. “Sir Harry Parkes and the Meiji Restoration.” Transactions of the Asiatic Society of 

Japan, Third Series, vol. 12 (Dec. 1975): 21–38.

Benson, Merritt E., and Robert T. Foley. “17 Days at Iwo.” Marine Corps Gazette, vol. 84, no. 2 (February 2000): 32–35.

Betsumiya, Danro. “Kuribayashi no Saidai no Koseki: Beigun no Hondo Joriku o Boshi” [The Biggest Success of Kuribayashi: Preventing the Landing of U.S. Forces on the Mainland (in Battle)], in 

Kobayashi Taisaku, ed., Kuribayashi Tadamichi: Iwo Jima no Tatakai [Kuribayashi Tadamichi and the 

Fighting on Iwo Jima]. Tokyo: Takarajimasha, 2006, 68–71.

Birdsall, Steve. Saga of the Superfortresses: The Dramatic Story of the B-29 and the Twentieth Air Force. 

Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1980.

Blakeslee, George H. “The Mandates of the Pacific.” Foreign Affairs, vol. 1, no. 3 (September 1922): 

98–115.

Blassingame, Wyatt. The Frogmen of World War II. New York: Random House, 1964.

Boas, Norman F. “Joseph A. Hopkins: His Flag Flew Over Iwo Jima.” Manuscripts, vol. 37, no. 2 

(Spring 1995): 101–10.

Bogan, Eugene F. “Government of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 267 ( January 1950): 164–74.

Boyd, Carl, and Akihiko Yoshida. The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II. Annapolis, MD: 

Naval Institute Press, 1995.

Bradley, James. Flyboys: A True Story of Courage. New York: Back Bay Books, 2003.

Bradley, James, with Ron Powers. Flags of Our Fathers. New York: Bantam Books, 2000.

Brooks, Walker Y. “Engineers on Iwo.” Marine Corps Gazette, vol. 29, no. 10 (October 1945): 48–51.

Bullen, Frank T. The Cruise of the Cachalot Round the World after Sperm Whales. Mechanicsburg, PA: 

Stackpole Books, 2001.

Burrell, Robert S. “Breaking the Cycle of Iwo Jima Mythology: A Strategic Study of Operation 

Detachment.” The Journal of Military History, vol. 68, no. 4 (October 2004): 1143–86.
485

Bibliography

Burrell, Robert S. The Ghosts of Iwo Jima. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2006.

Byrd, Martha. “Iwo Jima.” American History Illustrated, vol. 10, no. 9 (1976): 4–13, 48–50.

“Camera on Iwo.” Yank: The Army Weekly, vol. 3, no. 44 (20 April 1945): 7–9.

Camp, Dick. Leatherneck Legends: Conversations with the Marine Corps’ Old Breed. St. Paul, MN: 

Zenith Press, 2006.

Campbell, Christy. Air War Pacific: The Fight for Supremacy in the Far East, 1937–1945. London: 

Hamlyn Publishing, 1991.

Campbell, Thomas E. “Memories of Iwo Jima.” Marine Corps Gazette, vol. 79, no. 2 (February 1995): 

80–85.

Cant, Gilbert. “Home to Chichijima: Yankee Trader’s Descendant Welcomes U.S. Flag.” LIFE, 24 

June 1946: 17–19.

Carlson, Peter. “Forty Years After the Battle, 200 Marines Make a Return Trip to the Sands of Iwo 

Jima.” People Magazine, 11 March 1985: 99–100, 105.

Chase, Eric L. “Iwo’s Legacy.” Marine Corps Gazette, vol. 81, no. 11 (November 1997): 34–36.

Chaze, William L. “Iwo Jima after 40 Years: Still Teaching Lessons.” U.S. News and World Report, 

25 February 1985: 39–41.

Cholmondeley, Lionel B. The History of the Bonin Islands from the Year 1827 to the Year 1876 and of 

Nathaniel Savory One of the Original Settlers to which is Added a Short Supplement Dealing with the 

Islands after Their Occupation by the Japanese. London: Archibald Constable and Co., 1915.

Clive, Howard, and Joe Whitley. One Damned Island after Another: The Saga of the Seventh Air Force 

in World War II. Washington, DC: Zenger Publishing, 1979.

Close, Upton. “Japan’s Stronghold in the Pacific.” New York Herald Tribune, 26 February 1933: 8, 10.

Cochran, Thomas B., William M. Arkin, and Milton M. Hoenig. Nuclear Weapons Databook.vol. 1:

U.S. Nuclear Forces and Capabilities. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1984.

Collinson, Richard C. “The Bonin Islands in 1851.” The Nautical Magazine, March 1852.

Condon, John Pomeroy. Corsairs and Flattops: Marine Carrier Air Warfare, 1944–1945. Annapolis, 

MD: Naval Institute Press, 1998.

Conner, Howard M. The Spearhead: The World War II History of the 5th Marine Division. Washington, 

DC: Infantry Journal, 1950.

“Conquest of Iwo Jima.” Army-Navy Journal, 24 March 1945: 920.

Cooper, Norman V. A Fighting General: The Biography of General Holland “Howlin’ Mad” Smith. 

Quantico, VA: Marine Corps Association, 1987.

Daniels, Gordon. Sir Harry Parkes: British Representative in Japan 1865–83. London: Japan Library, 

1996.

Daws, Gavan. Prisoners of the Japanese: POWs of World War II in the Pacific. New York: Quill William 

Morrow, 1994.

Dennett, Raymond. “U.S. Navy and Dependent Areas.” Far Eastern Survey, vol. 14, no. 8 (25 April 

1945): 93–95.
486

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Dingman, Roger. Deciphering the Rising Sun: Navy and Marine Codebreakers, Translators, and Interpreters in the Pacific War. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2009.

Dobson, Sebastian. “A Chronology of the Bonin Islands.” Nihongo Kenkyu Sentaa Hokoku [ Japanese 

Language Research Center Reports], vol. 6 ( June 1998): 21–29

Dower, John W. War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War. New York: Pantheon Books, 

1986.

Dunbabin, Thomas. “White Japanese: Britain’s Lost Colony of the Bonins Naval Base Given Away.” 

The Sun, 26 August 1923.

Emerson, Rupert. “American Policy toward Pacific Dependencies.” Pacific Affairs, no. 20 (September 

1947): 259–75.

Eldridge, Robert D. “Honoring the Dead: A Trip to Iwo Jima.” Kansai Time Out, no. 316 ( June 

2003): 11.

Eldridge, Robert D. “ ‘Mr. Okinawa:’ Ohama Nobumoto, the Reversion of Okinawa, and an Inner 

History of U.S.-Japan Relations.” Doshisha Amerika Kenkyu [Doshisha American Studies], no. 39 

(2003): 61–80.

Eldridge, Robert D. “Okinawa in U.S. Postwar Strategic Planning, 1942–1946.” Rokkodai Ronshu

[Hogaku Seijigakuhen], vol. 45, no. 3 (March 1999): 57–99.

Eldridge, Robert D. “Prelude to Okinawa: Nuclear Agreements and the Return of the Ogasawara 

Islands to Japan.” The Journal of American-East Asian Relations, vol. 15 (2008): 5–24.

Eldridge, Robert D. The Origins of the Bilateral Okinawa Problem: Okinawa in Postwar U.S.-Japan 

Relations, 1945–1952. New York: Garland, 2001.

Eldridge, Robert D. The Return of the Amami Islands: The Reversion Movement and U.S.-Japan Relations. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2004.

Eldridge, Robert D. “The U.S. Naval Administration of the Ogasawara Islands, 1945–1968.” Ogasawara Kenkyu, no. 29 (2003): 95–124.

Eldridge, Robert D., Daniel Long, Junko Konishi, Paul A. Cunningham, and John C. Maher. “Exploring the Rich History and Culture of the Ogasawara (Bonin) Islands.” Ogasawara Kenkyu, no. 29 

(March 2004): 93–179.

Embree, John F. “Micronesia: The Navy and Democracy.” Far Eastern Survey, vol. 15, no. 11 (5 June 

1946): 161–64.

Erickson, George E. “United States Navy War Crimes Trials (1945–1949).” Washburn Law Journal, 

no. 5 (1965): 89–111.

Evans, David C., ed. The Japanese Navy in World War II in the Words of Former Japanese Naval Officers, 

2d Edition. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1986.

Fanning, Edmund. Voyages and Discoveries in the South Seas, 1792–1832. New York: Collins and 

Hannay, 1833.

Feifer, George. Breaking Open Japan: Commodore Perry, Lord Abe, and American Imperialism in 1853. 

New York: Smithsonian Books, 2006.

Forty, George. U.S. Army Handbook, 1939–1945. Thrupp, England: Sutton, 2003.
487

Bibliography

Forty, George. U.S. Marine Corps Handbook, 1941–1945. Thrupp, England: Sutton, 2006.

Frank, Richard B. Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire. New York: Penguin Books, 

2001.

Frothingham, John L. “Tanks on Iwo.” Marine Corps Gazette, vol. 29, no. 5 (May 1945): 8–12.

Fujita, Hozen. “Kokusaikan no Tanima: Ogasawara Mondai” [Caught in the Middle of International Affairs: The Ogasawara Problem]. Okinawa to Ogasawara, no. 7 (15 July 1959): 29–35.

Fujita, Hozen. “Ogasawara Henkan ni Jinryoku o” [Work Hard at the Ogasawara Reversion]. Minami to Kita, no. 42 (October 1967): 27–29.

Fujita, Hozen. “Ogasawara Henkan no Ashiato o Mite” [Looking at the Footprints of the Reversion 

of Ogasawara]. Minami to Kita, no. 45 ( July 1968): 62–71.

Fujita, Hozen. “Ogasawara Hikiagesha to Enyo Gyogyo” [The Ogasawara Islanders Who Were 

Evacuated and Long-Distance Fishing]. Okinawa to Ogasawara, no. 3 (25 October 1957): 41–45.

Fujita, Hozen. “Ogasawara Hosho 600 Man Doru no Keii” [The Background of the 6 Million Dollars Ogasawara Compensation]. Okinawa to Ogasawara, no. 14 (25 September 1960): 17–21.

Fujita, Hozen. “Ogasawara no Genjo to Kongo” [The Situation of Ogasawara and the Future]. Toki 

no Horei, no. 630 (1968): 38–43.

Fukuda, Tokuyasu. “Ogasawara Mondai o Sumiyaka ni Kaiketsu Seyo” [Resolve the Ogasawara 

Problem Quickly]. Okinawa to Ogasawara, no. 1 (30 March 1957): 25–29.

Fukuda, Tokuyasu. “Ogasawara Tomin ni Kokyo o Ataeyo! 7700 no Higan o Beikoku ni Uttaeru” 

[Give the Ogasawara Islanders Their Hometown Back! Appealing to the U.S. the Desires of 7700 

Islanders]. Nihon Shuho, no. 348 (5 December 1955): 24–27.

Fukuda, Tokuyasu, and Ishii Michinori. Ogasawara Shoto Gaishi, Sono 1: Nichbei Kosho o Chushin 

to Shite [A History of the Ogasawara Islands, vol. 1: A Focus on U.S.-Japan Negotiations]. Tokyo: 

Ogasawara Kyokai, 1967.

Fukuda, Tokuyasu, et al. “Zadankai Kaette Kita Ogasawara [Roundtable: Ogasawara Returns]. Minami to Kita, no. 43 (December 1967): 15–24.

Fuller, Richard. Shokan Hirohito’s Samurai: Leaders of the Japanese Armed Forces, 1926–1945. London: 

Arms and Armour Press, 1992.

Funasaka, Hiroshi. Iwo Jima: Aa, Kuribayashi Heidan [Iwo Jima: Kuribayashi’s Forces]. Tokyo: Kodansha, 1968.

Fuwa, Tetsuzo. Nuclear Deception: Japan-U.S. Secret Agreements. Tokyo: Japan Press Service, 2000.

Gabe, Masaaki. Okinawa Henkan to wa Nan Datta no Ka [What was the Reversion of Okinawa: 

Amid the History of Postwar U.S.-Japan Negotiations]. Tokyo: NHK Books, 2000.

Gallant, T. Grady. The Friendly Dead. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964.

Garand, George W., and Truman R. Strobidge. Western Pacific Operations: History of U.S. Marine 

Corps Operations in World War II. Washington, DC: Historical Division, Headquarters, U.S. Marine 

Corps, 1971.

Gast, Ross H. Bonin Islands Story. Monrovia, CA: Monrovia News-Post, 1944.
488

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Gast, Ross H. “New Light on the Re-Discovery of the Bonin Islands.” Annual Report of the Hawaiian Historical Society, 1944: 45–47.

Giangreco, D. M. “ ‘A Score of Bloody Okinawas and Iwo Jimas:’ President Truman and Casualty 

Estimates for the Invasion of Japan.” Pacific Historical Review, no. 72 (February 2003): 93–132.

Gibson, Arrell Morgan, and John S. Whitehead. Yankees in Paradise: The Pacific Basin Frontier. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1993.

Gilchrist, Huntington, “The Japanese Islands: Annexation or Trusteeship?” Foreign Affairs, vol. 22, 

no. 4 ( July 1944): 635–42.

Gilman, Laselle. “Honolulu War Diary.” The Honolulu Advertiser, 9 July 1944.

Graff, Cory. Strike and Return: American Air Power and the Fight for Iwo Jima. North Branch, MN: 

Specialty Press, 2006.

Griffin, Stuart. “The Last Jap Off Iwo.” Marine Corps League, Summer 2001: 25–28.

Hachisuka, Masauji. “A Journey to the Bonin Islands.” Bulletin of the Biogeographical Society of Japan, 

vol. 1 (1930): 67–81.

Hagen, Jerome T. War in the Pacific. vol. 1: America at War. Honolulu: Hawaii Pacific University, 1996.

Hagen, Jerome T. War in the Pacific. vol. 2: People and Places. Honolulu: Hawaii Pacific University, 2002.

Hagiwara, Toru. Kowa to Nihon [The Peace Treaty and Japan]. Tokyo: Yomiuri Shimbunsha, 1950.

Hamai, Kazufumi. “Kita no Hate Kara Minami no Shima e: Kita Reihi Junpaidan no Okinawa Toko 

to Sono Inpakuto” [From the Northern Extreme to the Southern Islands: The Trip to Okinawa of 

the Northern Delegation to Pay Respects and Impact of That Visit]. 20 Seiki Kenkyu, no. 7 (December 2006): 58–59.

Hammond, Blowden, and Mary Shepardson. “Uncle Charlie Washington: His Life, His Island, His 

People.” Unpublished manuscript, 1973.

Hammond, Paul Y. LBJ and the Presidential Management of Foreign Relations. Austin: University of 

Texas Press, 1992.

Hanabusa Nagamichi. “Ogasawara Kizoku Mondai” [The Problem of Ogasawara’s Sovereignty], in 

Gaimusho Gaikoshiryokan Nihon Gaikoshi Jiten Hensan Iiinkai, ed., Shinpan Nihon Gaikoshi Jiten

[An Encyclopedia of Japanese Diplomacy, Rev. ed.]. Tokyo; Yamakawa Shuppan, 1992, 113–14.

Hando, Kazutoshi, ed. Kuribayashi Tadamichi: Iwoto Kara no Tegami [Kuribayashi Tadamichi: Letters from Iwo Jima]. Tokyo: Bungei Shunju, 2006.

Hando, Kazutoshi, et al. “Ryoshikiha ha Shusse Dekinai: Kuribayashi Tadamichi, Imamura Hitoshi, 

Honma Masaharu” [Those With Good Judgment Could Not Be Successful: Kuribayashi Tadamichi, 

Imamura Hitoshi, and Honma Masaharu]. Bungei Shunju, vol. 85, no. 8 ( June 2007): 117–26.

Hara, Kimie. Japanese-Soviet/Russian Relations since 1945: A Difficult Peace. London: Routledge, 1998.

Harries, Meirion, and Susan Harries. Soldiers of the Sun: The Rise and Fall of the Imperial Japanese 

Army. New York: Random House, 1991.

Harvey, George M. “Iwo Jima and Amphibious Operations in the Central Pacific.” Military Review, 

vol. 25, no. 6 (September 1945): 23–28.
489

Bibliography

Hasegawa, Hajime. “Ogasawara Henkan Zenshi” [Report on the Eve of Ogasawara Reversion], 2. 

Toseijin, vol. 45, no. 7: 58–63.

Hasegawa, Hajime. “Ogasawara Henkan Zenshi” [Report on the Eve of Ogasawara Reversion], 1. 

Toseijin, vol. 45, no. 2: 36–41.

Hasegawa, Hajime. “Ogasawara no Hibun” [Ogasawara’s Epitaph], 1. Tokyo Toritsu Ogasawara Koto 

Gakko Kenkyu Kiyo, no. 3 (1989): 1–47.

Hasegawa, Hajime. “Ogasawara no Hibun” [Ogasawara’s Epitaph], 2. Tokyo Toritsu Ogasawara Koto 

Gakko Kenkyu Kiyo, no. 4 (1990): 1–138.

Hasegawa, Tsuyoshi. Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan. Cambridge: 

Belknap Press, 2005.

Hashimoto, Eiya, ed. Iwoto Kessen [The Decisive Battle for Iwo Jima]. Tokyo: Kojinsha, 2001.

Hata, Ikuhiko. Showashi no Nazo o Ou [Looking into the Mysteries of Showa History]. Tokyo: 

Bungei Shunju, 1993.

Hata, Ikuhiko. “Showashi no Nazo o Ou: Jinniku Jiken no Chichi Jima Kara Seigan Shita Busshu” 

[Looking Into the Mysteries of Showa History: How Bush Returned Alive from the Cannibalism 

Incident at Chichi Jima]. Seiron, no. 228 (August 1991): 382–95.

Hata, Ikuhiko, and Izawa Yasuho. Japanese Naval Aces and Fighter Units in World War II. Annapolis, 

MD: Naval Institute Press, 1989.

Havens, Thomas R. H. Fire across the Sea: The Vietnam War and Japan, 1965–1975. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987.

Hayashi, Saburo. Kogun: The Japanese Army in the Pacific War. Wesport, CT: Greenwood Publishing 

Group, 1979.

Hayashi, Tadao. “Fukki ni Tomonau Shinson no Secchi ni Tsuite” [Regarding the Establishment of 

a New Village Following Reversion] Jurisuto, no. 401 (1 July 1968): 34–36.

Head, Timothy E., and Gavan Daws. “The Bonins—Isles of Contention.” American Heritage, vol. 19, 

no. 2 (1968): 69–74.

Hearn, Chester. Carriers in Combat: The Air War at Sea. New York: Praeger, 2005.

Hearn, Chester. Sorties into Hell: The Hidden War on Chichijima. Guilford, CT: Lyons Press, 2003.

Heinl, Robert Debs Jr. Soldiers of the Sea: The United States Marine Corps, 1775–1962. Baltimore: The 

Nautical and Aviation Publishing Company of America, 1991.

Heeres, J. E., ed. Abel Janszoon Tasman’s Journal. Amsterdam: Frederik Muller and Co., 1898.

Henri, Raymond. Iwo Jima: Springboard to Final Victory. New York: U.S. Camera, 1945.

Henri, Raymond, Jim G. Lucas, W. Keyes Beech, David K. Dempsey, and Alvin M. Joseph Jr. The 

U.S. Marines on Iwo Jima. New York: Dial Press,1945.

Hess, William N., and Thomas C. Ivie. P-51 Mustang Aces: Combat Biographies of Fifty-Five Legendary World War II P-51 Fighter Aces. Osceola, WI: Motorbooks International, 1992.

Hicks, George. The Comfort Women: Japan’s Brutal Regime of Enforced Prostitution in the Second World 

War. New York: W. W. Norton, 1995.
490

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Hihada, Yasusuke. “Fukki to Tochi ni Kansuru Shiken no Chosei” [Reversion and the Coordination 

of Private Land Ownership]. Jurisuto, no. 401 (1 July 1968): 29–33.

Hill, Arthur N. “Battalion on Iwo.” Marine Corps Gazette, vol. 29, no. 11 (November 1945): 27–29, 

57–59.

“Hi No Maru Futabi-Nankai no Rakuen: Kaette Kita Ogasawara Shoto” [The Hinomaru Comes Back 

to the Southern Seas Paradise: The Ogasawara Islands Returned]. Foto, 1 February 1968: 3–14.

Hisayama, Shinobu. Eiyu Naki Shima: Iwo Jima Sen Ikinokori Motokaigun Chusa no Shogen [The 

Island with No Heroes: An Imperial Japanese Navy Lieutenant’s Testimony of Surviving the Battle 

of Iwo Jima]. Tokyo: Sankei Shimbun Shuppan, 2008.

Hitoshi, Yuichiro. “Hikaku Sangensoku no Konnichiteki Ronten: ‘Kaku no Kasa’ Kakufukakusan Joyaku, Kakubusoron” [The Contemporary Debate on the Three Non-Nuclear Principles: ‘The Nuclear 

Umbrella,’ the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and a Nuclear Japan]. Reference, August 2007: 41–60.

Hittle, J. D. “Crazy Quilt of Iwo.” Marine Corps Gazette, vol. 30, no. 3 (March 1946): 21–23.

Hoffman, Jon T. “The Legacy and Lessons of Iwo Jima.” Marine Corps Gazette, vol. 79, no. 2 (February 1995): 72–77.

Horie, Yoshitaka. “Chichi Jima Jinniku Jiken: Shidancho mo Kutta” [The Chichijima Cannibalism 

Incident: Division Commanding General Also Participated]. Rekishi to Jinbutsu, vol. 14, no. 14 (December 1984): 120–35.

Horie, Yoshitaka. “Defense Plan for Chichi Jima.” Marine Corps Gazette, vol. 37, no. 7 ( July 1953): 

26–40.

Horie, Yoshitaka. “Japanese Defense of Iwo Jima.” Marine Corps Gazette, vol. 36, no. 2 (February 

1952): 18–27.

Horie, Yoshitaka. Tokon Iwo Jima: Ogasawara Heidan Sanbo no Kaiso [Fighting Spirit, Iwo Jima: 

Memoirs of a Staff Officer of the Ogasawara Forces]. Tokyo: Kojinsha, 2005.

Horiuchi, Hiromu. “Beikoko Senryoki no Ogasawara Shoto no Senryakuteki Juyosei to Nichibei 

Kosho” [The Strategic Importance of Bonin and Volcano Islands for the United States in the Occupation Era, and Negotiations with Japan]. Unpublished master’s thesis, Aoyama Gakuin Daigaku 

Daigakuin, 2004.

Hosokawa, Kameichi. “Meiji Shoki ni Okeru Ogasawarato no Kizoku Mondai, 1” [The Ogasawara 

Territorial Issue in Early Meiji, 1]. Koho Zasshi, vol. 7, no. 12 (1941): 10–34.

Hosokawa, Kameichi. “Meiji Shoki ni Okeru Ogasawarato no Kizoku Mondai, 2” [The Ogasawara 

Territorial Issue in Early Meiji, 2]. Koho Zasshi, vol. 8, no. 1 (1941): 42–55.

Hosokawa, Kameichi. “Meiji Shoki ni Okeru Ogasawarato no Kizoku Mondai, 3” [The Ogasawara 

Territorial Issue in Early Meiji, 3]. Koho Zasshi, vol. 8, no. 3 (1942): 30–38.

Hosokawa, Kameichi. “Meiji Shoki ni Okeru Ogasawarato no Kizoku Mondai, 4” [The Ogasawara 

Territorial Issue in Early Meiji, 4]. Koho Zasshi, vol. 8, no. 4 (1942): 12–27.

Hough, Frank O. The Island War: The United States Marine Corps in the Pacific. New York: J. B. Lippincott, 1947.

Howard, Michael C. “Operation Detachment: The Corps’ Supreme Test at Iwo Jima.” Marine Corps 

Gazette, vol. 79, no. 2 (February 1995): 58–65.
491

Bibliography

Hoyt, Edwin P. How They Won the War in the Pacific: Nimitz and His Admirals. Guilford, CT: The 

Lyons Press, 2000.

Hoyt, Edwin P. The Kamikazes. New York: Arbor House, 1983.

Huie, William Bradford. From Omaha to Okinawa: The Story of the Seabees. New York: Blue Jacket 

Books, 1999.

Hyams, Joe. Flight of the Avenger: George Bush at War. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1991.

Iida, Tatsuhiko. Tokyoto Garapagosu [Tokyo’s Galapagos]. Tokyo: NTT Shuppan, 1996.

Ikei, Masaru. Nihon Gaikoshi Gaisetsu [An Overview of Japanese Diplomatic History]. Tokyo: Keio 

Gijuku Daigaku, 1973.

Imai, Junko. “Primary Schooling for the ‘Navy Generation’ on the Ogasawara (Bonin) Islands under 

U.S. Administration.” Ogasawara Kenkyu, no. 29 (2003): 75–94.

Inoue, Yusuke. “Ogasawara Shoto no Rekishi” [The History of the Ogasawara Islands]. The Ogasawara, no. 6 (1 April 1972): 1–13.

Iokibe, Makoto. Beikoku no Senryo Seisaku [America’s Occupation Policies]. Tokyo: Chuo Koronsha, 

1985.

Iokibe, Makoto. Senryoki: Shushotachi no Shinnihon [The Occupation Period: The New Japan of the 

Prime Ministers]. Tokyo: Yomiuri Shimbunsha, 1997.

Iokibe, Makoto. Senso, Senryo, Kowa, 1941–1955 [War, Occupation, and Peace, 1941–1955]. Tokyo: 

Chuo Koron Shinsha, 2001.

Isely, Jeter A., and Philip A. Crowl. The U.S. Marines and Amphibious War: Its Theory and Its Practice 

in the Pacific. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951.

Isezaki, Yasuhiro. “Beigunseika Kitomin Seikatsu Jokyo ni Tsuite” [Regarding the Lifestyles of the 

Repatriated Islanders]. Tokyo Toritsu Ogasawara Koto Gakko Kenkyu Kiyo, no. 2 (1983): 46–57.

Ishii, Michinori. Ogasawara Shoto Gaishi, Sono 2 [A History of the Ogasawara Islands, vol. 2]. Tokyo: 

Ogasawara Kyokai, 1968.

Ishii, Takashi. Meiji Ishin no Kokusaiteki Kankyo [The International Environment of the Meiji Restoration]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan, 1966.

Ishii, Takashi. Nihon Kaikokushi [A History of Japan’s Opening]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan, 1972.

Ishii, Shuchi. Iwo Jima ni Ikiru [Surviving Iwo Jima]. Tokyo: Kokusho Kankokai, 1981.

Isomura Sadakichi, et al. Ogasawarato Yoran [Guide to the Ogasawara Islands]. Tokyo: Beneki, 1888.

“Iwo: The Red Hot Rock.” Collier’s (14 April 1945): 14–15.

“Iwo Jima no Kako to Genzai” [Iwo Jima’s Past and Present]. Ogasawara Kyokai, ed., Ogasawara, 

vol. 43 (25 December 1997): 12.

Jablonski, Edward. Wings of Fire: The Victorious Climax of the Airwar against Germany and Japan. 

Garden City: Doubleday, 1972.

Janssens, Rudolf V. A. “What Future for Japan?” U.S. Wartime Planning for the Postwar Era, 1942–

1945. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1995.
492

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Jones, Edgar L. “To the Finish: A Letter from Iwo Jima.” Atlantic Monthly (April 1945): 50–51.

Jones, Wilbur D. Gyrene: The World War II United States Marine. Shippensburg, PA: White Mane 

Books, 1998.

Johnson, Gregory J. “Iwo Jima.” Marine Corps Gazette, vol. 75, no. 2 (February 1991): 26.

Johnstone, William C. “Regionalism in the Pacific.” Far Eastern Survey, vol. 14, no. 13 (4 July 1945): 

169–71.

Johnstone, William C. “Trusteeship for Whom?” Far Eastern Survey, vol. 14, no. 12 (20 June 1945): 

156–59.

Josephy, Alvin M., Jr. “Iwo Jima: The Deadliest Battle of the Pacific War, Recalled by a Marine Correspondent.” American Heritage, vol. 32, no. 4 (April 1981): 92–101.

Jowett, Philip. The Japanese Army, 1931–1945. vol. 2, 1942–1945. New York: Osprey Publishing, 2002.

Kaempfer, Engelbert. History of Japan. Tokyo: Yushudo, 1977.

Kakehashi Kumiko, “Chichi Jima Jinniku Jiken no Fuin o Toku” [Opening Up the Closed History of 

the Chichi Jima Cannibalism Incident]. Bungei Shunju, vol. 85, no. 9 ( July 2007): 282–96.

Kakehashi, Kumiko. Chiruzo Kanashiki: Iwoto Soshikikan Kuribayashi Tadamichi [So Sad to Fall in 

Battle: The Iwo Jima Supreme Commander, Kuribayashi Tadamichi]. Tokyo: Shinchosha, 2005.

Kakehashi, Kumiko. So Sad to Fall in Battle: An Account of War Based on General Tadamichi Kuribayashi’s Letters from Iwo Jima. New York: Ballantine Books, 2007.

Kamijo, Akihiro. “Chichi Jima Susaki no Henyo ni Tsuite” [On the Changes to Susaki, Chichi Jima]. 

Ogasawara Kenkyu Nenpo, no. 32 (2008): 49–69.

Kamijo, Akihiro. “Chichi Jima Susaki no Henyo ni Tsuite, Sono 2: Susaki Hikojo to Taiheiyo Senso” 

[On the Changes to Susaki, Chichi Jima, Part 2: The Susaki Airfield and the Pacific War]. Ogasawara Kenkyu Nenpo, no. 33 (2009): 51–85.

Kamisaka, Fuyuko. Iwo Jima Imada Gyokusai Sezu [Iwo Jima Has Yet to Die]. Tokyo: Bungei Shunju, 

1993.

Kashima, Morinosuke. Nihon Gaikoshi, 3: Kinrin Shokoku Oyobi Ryodo Mondai [ Japanese Diplomatic 

History, vol. 3: (Relations with) Neighboring Countries and Territorial Problems]. Tokyo: Kashima 

Kenkyusho Shuppankai, 1970.

Kasuga Sho, “Kokkyo no Keiken: Ogasawara no Minzoku Shiteki Mondai to Chiseigakuteki Igi” 

[The Experience of the Border: Ogasawara’s Ethnographic Problems and Geopolitical Significance]. 

Unpublished master’s thesis, Kyoto University Graduate School of Human and Environmental 

Studies, 1999.

Keene, R. R. “Medals of Honor, Iwo Jima.” Leatherneck, vol. 78, no. 2 (February 1995): 56.

Keliher, Macabe. “Anglo-American Rivalry and the Origins of U.S. China Policy.” Diplomatic History, vol. 31, no. 2 (April 2007): 227–57.

Kelly, Arthur L. Battlefire! Combat Stories from World War II. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1997.

Kessler, Lynn S. A., and Edmond B. Bart, eds. Never in Doubt: Remembering Iwo Jima. Annapolis, 

MD: Naval Institute Press, 1999.
493

Bibliography

Kikuchi, Takehisa. “Amerika Shisekenka no Kokoseitachi o Tazunete: Ogasawara Koto Gakko no 

Zenshi no Kochiku no Tame ni” [Visiting the Former High School Students from the American 

Administration Days in an Effort to Understand the Early History of Ogasawara High School].

Tokyo Toritsu Ogasawara Koto Gakko Kenkyu Kiyo, no. 8 (1994): 75–82.

Kimura, Masafumi. “Ogasawarato Konketsusha no Haigusha Sentaku to Jinko” [Selection in Marriage and Population in the Mixed Blood People on the Bonin Islands]. Jinruigaku Zasshi, vol. 67, 

no. 5 (1960): 12–22.

King, Reverend A. F. “Hypa, the Centenarian Nurse.” Mission Field, 1 November 1898: 415–21.

Kikumura, Itaru. Iwo Jima. Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten, 2007.

Koizumi, Chikashi. Nichibei Gunji Domeishi Kenkyu: Mitsuyaku to Kyoko no 50 Nen [A Study of the 

History of the U.S.-Japan Military Alliance]. Tokyo: Shin Nihon Shuppansha, 2002.

Kotani, Hidejiro. Iwoto no Shito: Kyofu no Dokutsusen [The Battle to the End on Iwo Jima: The Scary 

Strategy of Fighting from the Caves]. Tokyo: Sankei Shuppan, 1978.

Kristensen, Hans M. “Japan under the Nuclear Umbrella: U.S. Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear War 

Planning in Japan during the Cold War, A Working Paper.” Berkeley: Nautilus, 1999.

Kublin, Hyman. “Commodore Perry and the Bonin Islands.” United States Naval Institute Proceedings, vol. 88, no. 3 (March 1952): 282–91.

Kublin, Hyman, “The Bonin Islands: An Essay on the Western Language Literature.” Kokusaiho 

Gaiko Zasshi [The Journal of International Law and Diplomacy], vol. 54, no. 6 (December 1955): 

671–86.

Kublin, Hyman. “The Bonin Islands, 1543–1875.” PhD diss., Harvard University, 1947.

Kublin, Hyman. “The Discovery of the Bonin Islands: A Reexamination.” Annals of the Association of 

American Geographers, no. 43 (March 1953): 27–46.

Kublin, Hyman. “The Ogasawara Venture, 1861–1863.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, no. 14 

(1951): 261–84.

Kunihiro, Masao. Soshu Aru Hoshu Seijika: Miki Takeo [An Honest Statesman: Takeo Miki]. Tokyo: 

Tachibana Shuppan, 2005.

Kurata, Yoji. Ogasawara: Hakken kara Senzen made [Ogasawara, From Discovery to the Prewar]. 

Kamakura-shi: Abokku-sha, 1983.

Kuribayashi, Tadao. “Ogasawara,” in Kokusaiho Jirei Kenkyukai, ed., Nihon no Kokusaiho Jirei Kenkyu, 3: Ryodo [Digest of Japanese Practice in International Law, vol. 3: Territory]. Tokyo: Keio Tsushin, 1990.

Kuwata, Etsu. “Kuribayashi Chujo no Nidai Ketsudan [LtGen Kuribayashi’s Two Major Decisions]. 

Rekishi to Jinbutsu, vol. 13, no. 10 (August 1983): 148–57.

Lamont-Brown, Raymond. Kamikaze: Japan’s Suicide Samurai. London: Arms and Armour, 1997.

Lattimore, Eleanor. “Pacific Ocean or American Lake?” Far Eastern Survey, vol. 14, no. 22 (7 November 1945): 313–16.

Lawson, Chris. “Back to the Beach: Veterans Return to Iwo Jima, Okinawa for 53rd Anniversary.” 

Leatherneck, vol. 81, no. 6 ( June 1998): 12–16.
494

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Leckie, Robert. Strong Men Armed: The United States Marines against Japan. New York: DeCapo 

Press, 1967.

Leckie, Robert. The Battle for Iwo Jima. New York: Random House, 1967.

Leigh, Mark. “The Meat Grinder.” Military Illustrated, April 2004: 8–15.

Liverpool, Lord Russell of. The Knights of Bushido: A Short History of Japanese War Crimes. London: 

Cassell and Company, 1958.

Lofgren, Stephen J., ed. “Diary of First Lieutenant Sugihara Kinryu, Iwo Jima, Jan-Feb. 1945.” Journal of Military History, January 1995: 97–134.

Long, Daniel. English on the Bonin (Ogasawara) Islands. Durham: Duke University Press, 2007.

Long, Daniel. “Evidence of an English Contact Language in the 19th Century Bonin (Ogasawara) 

Islands.” English World-Wide, vol. 20, no. 2 (1999): 251–86.

Long, Daniel. “Ogasawara,” in David Levinson and Karen Christensen, eds., Encyclopedia of Modern 

Asia, vol. 4. New York: Thomson Gale, 2002: 377.

Long, Daniel. “Ogasawara Shoto ni Okeru Gengo Sesshoku no Rekishi” [The History of Language 

Acquisition in the Ogasawara Islands]. Nihongo Kenkyu Sentaa Hokoku, no. 6 ( June 1998): 59–85.

Long, Daniel. “The Bonin (Ogasawara) Islands: A Multilingual, Multiethnic and Multicultural Community in Japan.” Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan, Fourth Series, vol. 18 (2004): 41–55.

Long, Daniel. “The Unknown Linguistic Heritage of the Ogasawara (Bonin) Islands: Identity and 

Language Usage in a Japanese Minority Community.” Ogasawara Kenkyu, no. 29 (2003): 123–37.

Long, Daniel, ed. Ogasawaragaku Koto Hajime [An Introduction to Ogasawara Studies]. Kagoshima: 

Nanpo Shinsha, 2002.

Long, Daniel, and Hashimoto Naoyuki, eds. Ogasawara Kotoba Shaberu Jiten [Talking Dictionary of 

the Bonin Islands Language]. Kagoshima: Nanpo Shinsha, 2005.

Long, Daniel, and Inaba Makoto, eds. Ogasawara Handobukku: Rekishi, Bunka, Umi no Seibutsu, 

Riku no Seibutsu [Ogasawara Handbook: History, Culture, Sea Creatures, and Land Creatures]. 

Kagoshima: Nanpo Shinsha, 2004.

Long, Daniel, et al. “Ogasawara ni Okeru Nihongo Shutoku no Rekishi—Navy Sedai no Obeikei 

Tomin no Gengo Seikatsu Chosa Kara” [A History of the Acquisition of the Japanese Language in 

Ogasawara Based on a Survey of the Language Used by the Islanders of Western Descent in their 

Daily Lives during the Years of the Navy Administration]. Ogasawara Kenkyu Nenpo [Ogasawara 

Research], no. 28 (March 2005): 87–122.

Long, Daniel, et al. “Ogasawara Shoto no Tagengo Jokyo ni Kansuru Jittai Chosa Hokoku” [Multiple Language Usage on the Bonin (Ogasawara) Islands: A Field Survey Report]. Ogasawara Kenkyu

[Ogasawara Research], no. 32 (March 2007): 21–103.

Love, Robert William, Jr. The Chiefs of Naval Operations. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 

1980.

Machidori, Ryo. Ogasawara Senseki Ichiran [A List of Ogasawara War Sites]. Tokyo: Soeisha, 2003.

Madden, William B. “Iwo Jima: One Man’s Experience.” Leatherneck, vol. 78, no. 2 (February 1995): 

50–55.
495

Bibliography

Madej, W. Victor. Japanese War Mobilization and the Pacific Campaign, 1941–1945. Allentown, PA: 

Game Publishing, 1985.

Maeno, Hirotake. Ritto to Media no Kenkyu: Ogasawarahen [The Outer Islands and Media: Ogasawara Edition]. Tokyo: Gakubunsha, 2000.

Maga, Timothy P. Judgment at Tokyo: The Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Lexington: University Press of 

Kentucky, 2001.

Maki, John M. “U.S. Strategic Area or UN Trusteeship.” Far Eastern Survey, vol. 16, no. 15 (August 

13, 1947): 175–78.

Makise, Koji. “ ‘Henkan’ Ichinenme no Ogasawara: Mada Kaeranu Toi Shima” [Ogasawara One 

Year After ‘Reversion’: The Island Far Away That Has Yet to Return]. Ekonomisuto, vol. 47, no. 31 

(22 July 1969): 74–81.

Makise, Koji. “Kore Kara no ‘Ogasawara Mondai:’ Kizoku ni Fuan Tsunoru Hitobito” [The ‘Ogasawara Problem’ From Now: The People Who are Worried About Reversion]. Ekonomisuto, vol. 46, 

no. 8 (27 February 1968): 42–47.

Makise, Koji. “Ogasawara no Genjo to Mondaiten: Okinawa Mondai to Ogasawara Mondai no 

Kankei” [The Current Situation and Problems of Ogasawara: The Relationship between the Okinawa Problem and the Ogasawara Problem]. Nihon no Kagaku, vol. 1, no. 5 (1967): 2–10.

Makise, Koji. “70 Nen Anpo to Mite Kita Ogasawara no Jittai: Tokuni Okinawa Mondai to no Kanren de” [The Situation of Ogasawara as Seen from the 1970 Security Treaty Situation Especially as 

Related to the Okinawa Problem]. Rodo Horitsu Junpo, no. 712 (August 1969): 17–21.

Marshall, Don. “Iwo Jima.” After the Battle, no. 82 (1993): 1–44.

Masuyama, K. Mike. Iwoto: Nihonjin Horyo no Mita Amerika [Iwo Jima: America as Seen by a Japanese Prisoner of War]. Tokyo: Haato Shuppan, 2008.

Matsumiya, Eizo. “Ogasawara Henkan Mondai no Soten (Tochiji to Chuo Seifu, 1)” [Issues with 

the Ogasawara Reversion, Tokyo Governor and the Central Government, 1]. Keizai Hyoron, vol. 17, 

no. 2 (1968): 90–93.

Matsumoto, Hideaki. “Ogasawara no Fukki ni Tomonau Horitsu Mondai: Chiho Jichitai Tokubetsuho 

no Mondai o Chushin to Shite” [Legal Problems Relating to the Reversion of Ogasawara with a Focus 

on the Problem of the Local Autonomy Special Law]. Jichi Kenkyu, vol. 44, no. 2 (1968): 115–46.

Matsumoto, Kenichi. Kaikoku Ishin, 1853–1871 [The Meiji Restoration, 1853–1871]. Tokyo: Chuo 

Koronsha, 1998.

Matsumoto, Kenichi. “Ogasawarato Konmyuunron” [The Ogasawara Commune]. Tenbo, no. 165 

(September 1972): 126–40.

Matsumoto, Mimasu. “Okinawa Ogasawara Henkan Toso no Hatten no Tame ni” [For the Furthering of the Struggle for the Return of Okinawa and Ogasawara]. Zenei, no. 241 (1965): 111–17.

Matthews, Allen R. The Assault. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1947.

Maxey, Nelson C. “Volcano Island 1945.” Marine Corps Gazette, vol. 69, no. 2 (February 1985): 

44–51.

Truitt, James. “Iwo Jima Revisited.” Newsweek, 31 May 1965: 40.
496

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

McFarland, Keith D., and David L. Roll. Louis Johnson and the Arming of America: The Roosevelt and 

Truman Years. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005.

McJennett, John F. “Marines Off the Carriers.” Marine Corps Gazette, vol. 29, no. 12 (December 

1945): 7–8.

McKay, Ernest A. Carrier Strike Force: Pacific Air Combat in World War II. New York: Julian Messner, 

1981.

Mikuriya, Takashi. Meiji Kokka no Kansei, 1890–1905 [The Completion of the Meiji State]. Tokyo: 

Chuo Koron Shinsha, 2001.

Millot, Bernard. Divine Thunder: The Life and Death of the Kamikazes. New York: McCall Publishing, 

1970.

Miyara, Chokin. “Ogasawara no Sokoku no Wasurereta Kora” [The Children of Ogasawara Forgotten by the Fatherland]. Minami to Kita, no. 41 ( July 1967): 56–62.

Miyazato, Seigen. Nichibei Kankei to Okinawa, 1945–1972 [U.S.-Japan Relations and Okinawa, 

1945–1972]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2000.

Momoi, Shiroku. “Beigun ni Totte no Iwo Jima: Shisutemuka Sareta Tatakai” [Iwo Jima for the U.S. 

Military: Systematized Fighting] in Kobayashi Taisaku, ed., Kuribayashi Tadamichi: Iwo Jima no Tatakai [Kuribayashi Tadamichi: The Fighting of Iwo Jima]. Tokyo: Takarajimasha, 2006. 88–91.

Momoi, Shiroku. “Iwo Jima no Tokko” [The Special Attack Forces of Iwo Jima] in Kobayashi Taisaku, ed., Kuribayashi Tadamichi: Iwo Jima no Tatakai [Kuribayashi Tadamichi: The Fighting of Iwo 

Jima]. Tokyo: Takarajimasha, 2006. 84–86.

Morison, Samuel Eliot. History of United States Naval Operations in World War II: Victory in the Pacific 

1945, vol. 14. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1960.

Morison, Samuel Eliot. “Old Bruin” Commodore Matthew Calbraith Perry, 1794–1858. Boston: Little, 

Brown, and Company, 1967.

Morita, Katsuaki. Kujira to Hogei no Bunkashi [A Cultural History of Whales and Whaling]. Nagoya: Nagoya Daigaku Shuppankai, 1994.

Moriya, Michio. “Ogasawara Shoto Genchi Chosadan Chosa Hokoku no Gaiyo to Fukki ni Tomonau Seisaku no Gaikan” [An Overview of the Report of the Delegation to the Ogasawara Islands 

and Policies Related to Reversion]. Jurisuto, no. 401 (1 July 1968): 37–39.

Moriyama, Kohei. Nihon no Senreki: Iwojima no Kessen [ Japan’s War History: The Decisive Battle of 

Iwo Jima]. Tokyo: Gakushu Kenkyusha, 2001.

Muraki, Issei. “Mite Kita Ogasawara” [The Ogasawara I Saw]. Minami to Kita, no. 37 ( June 1966): 

95–101.

Muroga, Nobuo. “Geographical Exploration by the Japanese” in Herman R. Friis, ed. The Pacific Basin: A History of its Geographical Exploration. New York: American Geographical Society, 1967.

Musashino Taicho Hoka, ed. Iwo Jima Kessen [Decisive Battle of Iwo Jima]. Tokyo: Aokisha, 1952.

Muscarella, Anthony. Iwo Jima: The Young Heroes. Stonington, CT: Freedom Press, 1994.

Naito, Hatsuho. Thunder Gods: The Kamikaze Pilots Tell Their Story. Tokyo: Kodansha, 1982.
497

Bibliography

Nakajima, Binjiro. “Ogasawara Fukki Kyotei no Gaiyo” [An Overview of the Ogasawara Reversion 

Agreement]. Jurisuto, no. 401 (1 July 1968): 22–24.

Nakamura, Eiju. Iwo Jima: Mura ha Kieta, Senzen no Rekishi o Tadoru [Iwo Jima, the Village Has 

Disappeared: Tracing Prewar History]. Tokyo: Iwo Jima Senzenshi Kankokai, 1983.

Nakamura, Take. “Ogasawarato to Edo Bakufu no Shisaku” [The Ogasawara Islands and the Policies 

of the Edo Bakufu] in Iwao Seiichi, ed., Kinyo no Yogaku to Kaigai Kosho [Modern Western Studies 

and Foreign Negotiations]. Tokyo: Gannando Shoten, 1979.

Nanpo Doho Engokai, ed. Ogasawara Mondai no Gaiyo [An Overview of the Ogasawara Problem]. 

Tokyo: Nanpo Doho Engokai, 1963.

Nanpo Doho Engokai, ed. Ogasawara Mondai no Gaiyo [An Overview of the Ogasawara Problem]. 

Tokyo: Nanpo Doho Engokai, 1964.

Nasu, Kiyoshi. “Ogasawara OK Okinawa NO Amerika Kara no Hokoku” [Ogasawara Yes, Okinawa 

No: Report from America]. Chuo Koron, vol. 82, no. 13 (December 1967): 156–65.

Newcomb, Richard F. Iwo Jima. New York: Vanguard, 1985.

Nihon Shakaito Chuo Shikko Iinkai, ed. “Ogasawara Shoto no Chokkatsu Mondai ni Kansuru To 

no Taido” [The Party’s Attitude toward the Problem of Placing the Ogasawara Islands Under the 

Direct Control of the State]. Gekkan Shakaito, no. 130 (1968): 63–66.

Nishimura Kumao, San Furanshisuko Heiwa Joyaku [The San Francisco Peace Treaty]. Tokyo: Kajima 

Kenkyu Shuppankai, 1971.

Nobushima, Fuyuo. “Rosuto Taimu o Koete” [Beyond Lost Time]. Shima, no. 125 (1985): 56–62.

Nomura, Kichisaburo. “Ryodo o Meguru Shomondai” [Problems Regarding Territory]. Keizai Orai, 

vol. 2, no. 6 ( June 1950): 36–42.

Notter, Harley. Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation, 1939–1945. Greenwood, CT: Greenwood Press, 

1975.

NHK Shuzaihan, ed. Iwojima Gyokusaisen: Seikanshatachi ga Kataru Shinjitsu [The Horrific Battle of 

Iwo Jima: The Truth as Told by the Survivors]. Tokyo: NHK Shuppan, 2007.

NHK Shuzaihan, ed. Sengo 50 Nen: Sono Toki Nihon ha, Dai 4 Kan [50 Years of the Postwar: Japan, 

At That Moment in Time, vol. 4]. Tokyo: NHK Shuppan, 1996.

Oberdorfer, Don. Senator Mansfield: The Extraordinary Life of a Great American Statesman and Diplomat. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books, 2003.

Oda, Shizuo. “A Review of Archaeological Research in the Izu and Ogasawara Islands.” Man and 

Culture in Oceania, vol. 6 (1990): 53–79.

Odo, David. “A Brief Biography of Beechey’s Copper Plaque.” Journal of Boninology, no. 14 (March 

2005): 7–9.

O’Dell, James Douglas. The Water is Never Cold: The Origins of the U.S. Navy’s Combat Demolition 

Units, UDTs, and Seals. Washington, DC: Brassey’s, 2000.

O’Donnell, Patrick K. Into the Rising Sun. New York: The Free Press, 2002.

Ogasawara Kaiun. Ogasawara Kairo Zenshi [A History of the Ogasawara Sea Route]. Tokyo: Ogasawara Kaiun, 1991.
498

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Ogasawaramura Kyoiku Iinkai, ed. Hirakeyuku Ogasawara [Emerging Ogasawara]. Chichi Jima: 

Ogasawaramura Kyoiku Iinkai, 1985.

Ogasawaramura Kyoiku Iinkai, ed., Ogasawarason Senseki Chosa Hokokusho [Survey on War Remnants in Ogasawara Village]. Chichi Jima: Ogasawaramura Kyoiku Iinkai, 2002.

Okumo, Ryoichi. Ogasawara Shoto Ikokusen Raikoki [Records of the Visits of Foreign Vessels to the 

Ogasawara Islands]. Tokyo: Kondo Shuppansha, 1985.

Okumo, Ryoichi. “Ogasawara Shoto to Hayashi Shihei no ‘Sankoku Tsuran Zusetsu’ ” [The Ogasawara Islands and Hayashi Shihei’s ‘Three Country . . . ’]. Seisaku Geppo, no. 207 (1973): 112–29.

Okumo, Ryoichi. Rekishi no Kataru Ogasawarato [The Ogasawara Islands as Seen through History]. 

Tokyo: Nanpo Doho Engokai, 1966.

“Ordeal at Okinawa.” Yank: The Army Weekly, vol. 4, no. 2 (29 June 1945): 2–4.

Ota, Masakatsu. Meiyaku no Yami: “Kaku no Kasa” to Nichibei Domei [The Darkside of a Promise: 

“The Nuclear Umbrella” and the Japan-U.S. Alliance]. Tokyo: Nihon Hyoronsha, 2004.

Packard, George R. Edwin O. Reischauer and the American Discovery of Japan. New York: Columbia 

University Press, 2010.

Papinot, Edmond. Historical and Geographical Dictionary of Japan. Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle Company, 1972.

Phelps, Bob. “Iwo Jima 20 Years after the Battle: Former Enemies Recall Opposing Sides of Invasion.” Kanto Plainsman [Tachikawa Airfield], 19 February 1965: 1–4.

Piccigallo, Philip Rocco. The Japanese on Trial: Allied War Crimes Operations in the East, 1945–1951. 

Austin: University of Texas Press, 1979.

Pomeroy, Charles, ed. Foreign Correspondents in Japan: Reporting a Half Century of Upheavals from 

1945 to the Present. Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle, Co., 1998.

Potter, E. B. Admiral Arleigh Burke. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1990.

Potter, E. B. Nimitz. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1976.

Prados, John. Combined Fleet Decoded: The Secret History of American Intelligence and the Japanese Navy 

in World War II. New York: Random House, 1995.

Pratt, William V.“What Makes Iwo Jima Worth the Price.” Newsweek, 2 April, 1945: 36.

Price, Willard. Japan’s Islands of Mystery. London: William Heinemann, 1944.

Price, Willard. Key to Japan. New York: John Day Company, 1946.

Price, Willard. “Springboards to Tokyo.” The National Geographic Magazine, vol. 76, no. 4 (October 

1944): 385–407.

Proehl, Carl W., ed. The Fourth Marine Division in World War II. Nashville, Tennessee: Battery Press, 

1988.

Pyle, Ernie. Last Chapter. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1946.

Quin, Michael. “Notes on the Bonin Islands.” Journal of the Royal Geographic Society, no. 26 (1856): 

232–34.
499

Bibliography

Raymond, Jack. Power at the Pentagon. New York: Harper and Row, 1964.

Reader’s Digest Illustrated History of World War II. New York: The Reader’s Digest Association, 1986.

Rees, Laurence. Horror in the East: Japan and the Atrocities of World War II. London: De Capo Press, 

2001.

Reischauer, Edwin O. “The Far East: A Conversation with Former Ambassador Reischauer.” (Harvard University) Alumni Bulletin, 15 October, 1966: 18–24.

Reischauer, Edwin O. The United States and Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961.

Ricks, Thomas E. Making the Corps. New York: Touchstone, 1997.

Robertson, Russell. “The Bonin Islands.” Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan, vol. 4 (20 October, 

1875–12 July 1876): 111–42.

Rosenthal, Joe, and W. C. Heinz. “The Picture That Will Live Forever.” Collier’s, 18 February 1955: 

62–66.

Rusu, Haruo. Tsune ni Shoko no Sento ni Ari: Rikugun Chujo Kuribayashi Tadamichi to Ioujimasen

[Always at the Front: Imperial Army LtGen. Kuribayashi Tadamichi and the Battle of Iwo Jima]. 

Tokyo: Keibunsha, 2006.

Rusu, Haruo. “Waseda Daigaku Kyoju Rusu Haruo Intaabyuu: Amerika ni Totte Ioujima to ha 

Nanika” [Interview with Waseda University Professor Rusu Haruo: What is Iwo Jima to America?], 

in Kobayashi Taisaku, ed. Kuribayashi Tadamichi: Iwo Jima no Tatakai [Kuribayashi Tadamichi: The 

Fighting on Iwo Jima]. Tokyo: Takarajimasha, 2006: 100–104.

Sakai, Saburo. Samurai: Flying the Zero in WWII with Japan’s Fighter Ace. New York: Ballantine 

Books, 1957.

Sakamoto, Kazuya. Nichibei Domei no Kizuna: Anpo Joyaku to Sogosei no Mosaku [The Bonds of the 

Japan-U.S. Alliance: Searching for Mutuality in the Security Treaty]. Tokyo: Yuhikaku, 2000.

Salwey, Charlotte M. The Island Dependencies of Japan: An Account of the Islands That Have Passed under Japanese Control since the Restoration, 1867–1912. London: Eugene L. Morice, 1913.

Sarantakes, Nicholas Evan. “Continuity through Change: The Return of Okinawa and Iwo Jima, 

1967–1972.” The Journal of American-East Asian Relations, vol. 3, no. 1 (Spring 1994): 35–53.

Sarantakes, Nicholas Evan. Keystone: The American Occupation of Okinawa and U.S.-Japanese Relations. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2000.

Sato, Hiroaki. Legends of the Samurai. Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press, 1995.

Schaller, Michael. Altered States: The United States and Japan since the Occupation. New York: Oxford 

University Press, 1997.

Scott, Paul D. “Flagging Battles.” Kansai Time Out, no. 360 (February 2007): 65.

Searls, Hank. Kataki: A Novel of Revenge. New York: Berkley Books, 1987.

Seidensticker, Edward G. “Japanese Views on Peace.” Far Eastern Survey, vol. 20, no. 12 (13 June 

1951): 119–24.

Seraphim, Franziska. War, Memory, and Social Politics in Japan, 1945–2005. Cambridge: Harvard 

University Asia Center, 2006.
500

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Severance, Dave E. “Grappling with Mount Suribachi, Iwo Jima.” Leatherneck, vol. 87, no. 2 (February 2004): 32–35.

Sheeks, Robert B. “Civilians on Saipan.” Far Eastern Survey, vol. 14, no. 9 (9 May 1945): 109–12.

Sheftall, Mordecai G. Blossoms in the Wind: Human Legacies of the Kamikaze. New York: New American Library, 2005.

Shepardson, Mary. The Bonin Islands: Pawns of Power. Unedited unpublished manuscript, 1998.

Shepardson, Mary. The Bonin Islands: Pawns of Power. Edited unpublished manuscript, 2000.

Sheridan, Martin. “Sunday Telegram Writer Finds a Bit of New England in the Pacific.” Worcester 

Sunday Telegram, 17 October 1948: 7, 8, 12–14.

Sherrod, Robert. On to Westward: The Battles of Saipan and Iwo Jima. Baltimore: Nautical and Aviation, 1990.

Sherrod, Robert. “With Dignity and Courage.” Time, 12 March 1945: 33–35

Shima, Tomato. Toi Shima no Hito [The Person on the Far Away Island]. Tokyo: Hekitensha, 2005.

Shiroi, Akio. “Kuribayashi Shogun no Saigo ni Tsuite no Ichikosatsu: Horie Moto Shidan Sanbo 

Kaiso no Kensho” [Looking at the Last Moments of General Kuribayashi: An Examination of the 

Memoirs of Division Staff Horie]. Fuji, nos. 311–328 (November 2005–April 2007).

Shively, John C. The Last Lieutenant. New York: NAL Caliber, 2006.

Shoup, Laurence H. “Shaping the National Interest: The Council of Foreign Relations, the Department of State, and the Origins of the Postwar World, 1939–1943.” Unpublished PhD diss., Northwestern University, 1974.

Simpson, Ross W. “Uncommon Valor Was a Common Virtue.” Leatherneck, vol. 78, no. 2 (February 

1995): 38–43.

Skates, John Ray. The Invasion of Japan: Alternative to the Bomb. Columbia: University of South 

Carolina Press, 1994.

Smith, Larry. Iwo Jima: World War II Veterans Remember the Greatest Battle of the Pacific. New York: 

W. W. Norton, 2008.

Smith, Larry. The Few and the Proud: Marine Corps Drill Instructors in Their Own Words. New York: 

W. W. Norton, 2006.

Smith, Rex Alan, and Gerald A. Meehl. Pacific Legacy: Image and Memory from World War II in the 

Pacific. New York: Abbeville Press, 2002.

Smith, Rex Alan, and Gerald A. Meehl. Pacific War Stories in the Words of Those Who Survived. New 

York: Abbeville Press, 2004.

Solberg, Carl. Hubert Humphrey: A Biography. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1984.

Sommers, Allen. “Artillery on Iwo.” Marine Corps Gazette, vol. 29, no. 5 (May 1945): 4–5.

Sontag, Sherry, and Christopher Drew. Blind Man’s Bluff: The Untold Story of American Submarine 

Espionage. New York: Harper, 2000.

Spector, Ronald H. Eagle Against the Sun: The American War with Japan. New York: Vintage Books, 

1985.
501

Bibliography

Spector, Ronald H. In the Ruins of Empire: The Japanese Surrender and Battle for Postwar Asia. New 

York: Random House, 2007.

Standish, Robert. Bonin: A Novel. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1944.

Stanley, Michael E. “Archipelago of the Suburbs.” Skyward, vol. 1, no. 7 (October 2003): 24–29.

Stephan, S. L. “Ship to Shore and Inland.” Marine Corps Gazette, vol. 29, no. 7 ( July 1945): 20–23.

Stinnett, Robert B. George Bush: His World War II Years. Missoula, MT: Pictorial Histories Publishing 

Company, 1991.

Straus, Ulrich. The Anguish of Surrender: Japanese POWs in World War II. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2003.

Strong, Beret E., and John Tweedy. Iwo Jima: Memories in the Sand. Boulder, CO: Landlocked Films, 

2001. DVD, 27 mins.

Summers, Harry G., Jr. Korean War Almanac. New York: Facts on File, 1986.

Suzuki, Hajime. “Burossamugo no Kokai” [The Voyage of the HBM Ship Blossom]. Journal of Boninology, no. 14 (March 2005): 12–14.

Suzuki, Hajime. “Mo Hitotsu no Doban” [One Other Copper Plaque]. Journal of Boninology, no. 14 

(March 2005): 15.

Suzuki, Takahiro. “Beigun Shihaika no Ogasawara Shoto to Chiri Jishin Tsunami” [The Ogasawara 

Islands under U.S. Military Control and the Tsunami from the Chilean Earthquake]. Tokyo Toritsu 

Ogasawara Koto Gakko Kenkyu Kiyo, no 6 (1992): 22–56.

Tabata Michio, Ogasawara Jima Yukari no Hitobito [People with a Connection to Ogasawara]. Ogasawara-son: Ogasawara-son Kyoiku Iinkai, 1993.

Tabobashi, Kiyoshi. “Nasanieru Saborii to Ogasawara Shoto” [Nathaniel Savory and the Ogasawara 

Islands], 1. Rekishi Chiri, vol. 39, no. 1 (1922): 26–37.

Tabobashi, Kiyoshi. “Nasanieru Saborii to Ogasawara Shoto” [Nathaniel Savory and the Ogasawara 

Islands], 2. Rekishi Chiri, vol. 39, no. 2 (1922): 119–37.

Tabobashi, Kiyoshi. “Ogasawara Shoto no Kaishu” [The Recovery of the Ogasawara Islands], 1. 

Rekishi Chiri, vol. 39, no. 5 (1922): 361–78.

Tabobashi, Kiyoshi. “Ogasawara Shoto no Kaishu” [The Recovery of the Ogasawara Islands], 2. 

Rekishi Chiri, vol. 39, no. 6 (1922): 444–55.

Tabobashi, Kiyoshi. “Ogasawara Shoto no Kaishu” [The Recovery of the Ogasawara Islands], 3. 

Rekishi Chiri, vol. 40, no. 2 (1922): 84–95.

Tabobashi, Kiyoshi. “Ogasawara Shoto no Kaishu” [The Recovery of the Ogasawara Islands], 4. 

Rekishi Chiri, vol. 39, no. 4 (1922): 255–67.

Tagaya, Osamu. “The Imperial Japanese Air Forces,” in Robin Higham and Stephen J. Harris, ed., 

Why Air Forces Fail: The Anatomy of Defeat. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2006: 177–202.

Takano, Yuichi. “Okinawa to Ogasawara ha Do Naruka” [What Will Become of Okinawa and Ogasawara?]. Sekai, no. 139 ( July 1957): 45–47.
502

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Takeichi, Ginjiro. Iouto: Kyokugen no Senjo ni Kizamareta Nihonjin no Tamashi [Iwo Jima: Japanese 

Feelings as Engraved in the Extreme Battle]. Tokyo: Omura Shuppan, 2001.

Takemae, Eiji. Inside GHQ: The Allied Occupation of Japan and its Legacy. New York: Continuum, 2002.

Tanaka, Hiroyuki. Bakumatsu no Ogasawara: Obei no Hogeisen de Sakaeta Midori no Shima [Ogasawara during the Bakumatsu Period: The Green Islands that Prospered as a Result of the Western 

Whaling Vessels]. Tokyo: Chuko Shinsho, 1997.

Tanaka, Hiroyuki. “Beechii Kancho no Doban ni Tsuite” [On Captain Beechey’s Copper Plaque]. 

Journal of Boninology, no. 14 (March 2005): 10–11.

Tanaka, Hiroyuki. “Edo Jidai ni Okeru Nihonjin no Mujinto (Ogasawarato) ni taisuru Ninshiki” 

[The Ogasawara Islands in Tokugawa Japan]. Kaijishi Kenkyu [ Journal of Maritime History], no. 50 

( June 1993): 30–44.

Tanaka, Hiroyuki. “How the Japanese of the Edo Period Perceived the Ogasawara Islands.” Nihongo 

Kenkyu Sentaa Hokoku [ Japanese Language Research Center Reports], vol. 6 ( June 1998): 31–58 

(translation and annotations by Stephen Wright Horn).

Tanaka, Hiroyuki. “Ogasawara Shoto wa Naze Nihon no Ryodo ka” [Why are the Ogasawara Islands Japanese Territory]? in Gejo Masao, ed., Shitte Imasuka, Nihon no Shima [Do You Know Japan’s 

Islands?]. Tokyo: Jiyu Kokuminsha, 2002.

Tanaka, Yuki. Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes in World War II. New York: Westview Press, 1996.

Thomey, Tedd. Immortal Images: A Personal History of Two Photographers and the Flag-Raising on Iwo 

Jima. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2008.

Timeless Media Group. Iwo Jima: 36 Days of Hell, The True Story. Eugene, OR: Timeless Media 

Group, 2007. DVD, 351 mins.

Tokyo Nodai Ogasawara 100 no Sugao Henshu Iinkai, ed. Ogasawara 100 no Sugao, 1: Bonin Mo 

Hitotsu no Gaidobukku [100 Faces of Ogasawara, vol. 1: Another Type of Guidebook for the Bonins]. 

Tokyo: Tokyo Nodai Shuppankai, 2004.

Tokyo Nodai Ogasawara 100 no Sugao Henshu Iinkai, ed. Ogasawara 100 no Sugao, II: Dongara Mo 

Hitotsu no Gaidobukku [100 Faces of Ogasawara, vol. 2: “Don’t Forget” Another Type of Guidebook]. 

Tokyo: Tokyo Nodai Shuppankai, 2004.

Trumbull, Robert. “Bonin Islanders Seek U.S. Tie But Remain International Pawns: Descendants of 

Americans Ask Citizenship in Vain, Fight Return of Japanese.” The New York Times, 11 March 1956.

Tsuge, Hisayoshi. Kuribayashi Tadamichi: Iwoto no Shito o Shiki Shita Meisho [Kuribayashi Tadamichi: 

The Famous General Who Led the Fight to the End on Iwo Jima]. Tokyo: PHP Kenkyusho, 2006.

Tucker, Nancy Bernkopf. “Threats, Opportunities, and Frustrations in East Asia” in Warren I. Cohen and Nancy Bernkopf Tucker, eds., Lyndon Johnson Confronts the World: American Foreign Policy, 

1963–1968. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994. 99–134.

Turner, Douglas. “The Men Who Took Iwo Jima Meet Again.” Marine Corps Gazette, vol. 75, no. 2 

(February 1991): 27.

Ueda, Hayao. “Ryodo Kizoku Kankeishi: Ogasawara, Karafuto, Chishima, Oyobi Ryukyu” [History 

of Territorial Issues: Ogasawara, Karafuto, Chishima, and Ryukyu] in Yada Sanryo, ed., Heiwa Joyaku no Sogo Kenkyu [Comprehensive Research on the Peace Treaty], vol. 1. Tokyo: Yuhikaku, 1952.
503

Bibliography

“Unthinkable Crime” Time, 16 September 1946.

U.S. Military Academy. The War with Japan, Part III. West Point, NY: U.S. Military Academy, 

1951.

Van der Vat, Dan. The Pacific Campaign: The Second World War at Sea. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1991.

Veith, Ilza. “The Strategic Bonins.” Far Eastern Survey, vol. 14, no. 21 (24 October 1945): 307–9.

Vincent, Jack. “Water on Iwo.” Marine Corps Gazette, vol. 29, no. 10 (October 1945): 52.

Wachi, Tsunezo. Iwo Jima Senbotsusha Kenshohi Senza ni Tomonau Inen [The Fate of Relocating the 

Memorial to Those Fallen on Iwo Jima]. Yokosuka: Iwo Jima Kyokai, 1987.

Wada, Tomoyuki. “Senshi no Kyokun Iwoto Kara no Senkun Denpo (Kohen): Rikukaigun no Togo 

Mondai ni Tsuite” [Lessons of War History Battle Orders from Iwo Jima, Part 2: Regarding the 

Problem of Jointness between the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy]. Mamoru, no. 47, January 

2011: 48–49.

Warner, Denis, and Peggy Warner. The Sacred Warriors: Japan’s Suicide Legions. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1982.

Warren, James A. American Spartans: The U.S. Marines, A Combat History from Iwo Jima to Iraq. New 

York: Free Press, 2005.

Watanabe, Akio. Sengo Nihon no Saishotachi [The Prime Ministers of Postwar Japan]. Tokyo: Chuo 

Koron, 1995.

Watanabe, Akio. The Okinawa Problem: A Chapter in Japan-U.S. Relations. Melbourne: Melbourne 

University Press, 1970.

Watanabe, Tsuneo. Habatsu to Tatoka Jidai: Seiji no Mishitsu [Factions and the Age of Multiple Parties: Backroom Politics]. Tokyo: Sekikosha, 1967.

Watanabe, Tsuneo. Nagatacho Kenbunroku: Seikai, Habatsu, Kenryoku no Jitsuzo [A Record of Nagatacho: The Reality of the Political World, Factions, and Power]. Tokyo: Toyo Keizai Shinposha, 1980.

Watanabe, Tsuneo. Who Was Responsible? From Marco Polo Bridge to Pearl Harbor. Tokyo: Yomiuri 

Shimbun, 2006.

Weigert, Hans W. “U.S. Strategic Bases and Collective Security.” Foreign Affairs, vol. 25, no. 2 ( January 1947): 250–62.

Welch, Jeanie M. “Without a Hangman, Without a Rope: Navy War Crimes Trials After World 

War II.” International Journal of Naval History, vol. 1, no. 1 (April 2002).

Weller, George. Bases Overseas: An American Trusteeship in Power. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and 

Co., 1944.

Welsch, Bernhard. “Was Marcus Island Discovered by Bernardo de la Torre in 1543?” The Journal of 

Pacific History, vol. 39, no. 1 (2004): 109–22.

Werrell, Kenneth P. Blankets of Fire: U.S. Bombers over Japan during World War II. Washington, DC: 

Smithsonian Institution Press, 1996.

Werner, Tim. Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA. New York: Doubleday, 2007.

Werts, Russell. “The Ghosts of Iwo.” Marine Corps Gazette, vol. 69, no. 2 (February 1985): 32–43.
504

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Wettberg, B. W. von. “Air Support on Iwo.” Marine Corps Gazette, vol. 29, no. 5 (May 1945): 10–11.

Wheeler, Richard. A Special Valor: The U.S. Marines and the Pacific War. New York: Harper and Row 

Publishers, 1983.

Wheeler, Richard. Iwo. New York: Lippincott and Crowell, 1980.

Winton, John. Air Power at Sea, 1939–1945. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1977.

Wright, Derrick. Pacific Victory: Tarawa to Okinawa, 1943–1945. Thrupp, England: Sutton, 2005.

Wright, Derrick. The Battle for Iwo Jima 1945. Thrupp, England: Sutton, 1999.

Yabuki, Kobun. “Ogasawara Shoto Henkan no Igi: Nichibei Kosho no Kiroku Kara” [The Significance 

of the Reversion of the Ogasawara Islands as Seen from the Records of the Japan-U.S. Negotiations]. 

Unpublished master’s thesis, Waseda University Graduate School of Political Science, 2008.

Yamada, Koichi. Nanshinsaku to Ogasawara Shoto [The Policy to Move South and the Ogasawara 

Islands]. Tokyo, 1916.

Yamaguchi Ryoko. Ogasawara Kuronikuru: Kokkyo no Kakureta Shima [Ogasawara Chronicles: The 

Islands Behind the Border]. Tokyo: Chuko Shinsho La Clef, 2005.

Yamasaki, Hideki. “Ogasawara Shoto no Fukki ni Tomonau Horei no Tekiyo no Zantei Sochito ni 

Tsuite” [On the Temporary Measures for the Application of Laws to Ogasawara as a Result of Its 

Reversion (to Japan)]. Toki no Horei, 1968.

Yamakata, Ishinosuke, Ogasawara Toshi [Ogasawara Islands History]. Tokyo: Toyodo Shiten, 1906.

Yasuoka, Akio. Meiji Ishin to Ryodo Mondai [The Meiji Restoration and the Territorial Problem]. 

Tokyo: Kyoikusha, 1980.

Yasuoka, Akio. “Bakumatsu no Ogasawara Shoto o Meguru Kokusai Kankei” [International Relations around the Bonin Islands on [sic] the Last Days of the Shogunate],” Kokusai Seiji, no. 2 (1960): 

72–82.

Yasuoka, Akio. “Ogasawarato to Edo Bakufu no Shisaku” [Policy of the Edo Shogunate toward the 

Ogasawara Islands]. Iwao Seiichi, ed., Kinyo no Yogaku to Kaigai Kosho [Western Studies in Modern 

Times and Negotiations Abroad]. Tokyo: Gannando Shoten, 1979.

Yokota, Takio, et al., eds. “Zadankai Ogasawara Fukki o Uttaeru” [Roundtable: Calling for the Return of Ogasawara]. Minami to Kita, no. 21 ( June 1962): 57–62.

Yomiuri Shimbun Senso Sekinin Kensho Iinkai, ed. Kensho Senso Sekinin [Examining War Responsibility]. Tokyo: Yomiuri Shimbunsha, 2006.

Yoshida, Shien. Nanpo Shoto [The Nanpo Islands]. Tokyo: Jiji Tsushinsha, 1962.

Yoshida, Shien. Nanpo Shoto no Ho Chii [The Legal Status of the Nanpo Islands]. Tokyo: Nanpo 

Doho Engokai, 1958.

Yoshida, Tsuyuko, ed. “Gyokusai Soshikan” no Etegami [Picture Letters from the Commander Who 

Perished]. Tokyo: Shogakukan, 2002.

Yoshida, Tsuyuko, ed, (Foreword by Clint Eastwood). Picture Letters from the Commander in Chief. 

San Francisco: Viz Media, 2007.

Yoshimura, Akira. Zero Fighter. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1996.
505

Bibliography

Journals and Newspapers

Asahi Shimbun

Asahi Newspaper

Bulletin, The America-Japan Society

Chicago Tribune

Daily Yomiuri

i-Bo: Journal of Boninology

Japan Times

Japan Times Weekly

Kita to Minami

Kobe Shimbun

Look Japan

Mainichi Daily News

Mainichi Shimbun

New York Herald Tribune

Nihon Keizai Shimbun

Nippon Times

Ogasawara

Ogasawara Kenkyu Nenpo

Okinawa Times

Okinawa to Ogasawara

Pacific Stars and Stripes

Ryukyu Shimbun

Shima no Shimbun

Shimbun Okinawa to Ogasawara

The New York Times

The Washington Post

The Ogasawara

Time

Tokyo Shimbun

Worcester Sunday Telegram
506

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

A

Abbot, Joel, 23

Acheson, Dean G.

Dulles and, 151

and Joint Chiefs of Staff, 245

and reversion, 152, 237

and trusteeship, 163, 228n103

Ackerman, Arthur, 268

ACLU. See American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

Adair, E. Ross, 400

Admirals’ Revolt, 228n94

Advisory Committee on Postwar Foreign Policy, 135

Advisory Committee on Problems of Foreign Relations, 135–38

Agriculture, 33–34, 105, 212, 220, 254–55, 318, 359n83

Ahn Pyungchi, 122–23

Air campaign, before Battle of Iwo Jima, 61–64, 67, 92n59, 108–17

Albert, Carl B., 400

Alcock, Sir Rutherford, 25

Alexander, Joseph, 53, 88n3

Allison, John M., 251, 253, 269–70, 272, 287n11, 287n21

ambassadorship of, 247

and compensation issue, 256, 312

Dulles and, 248

Murphy and, 241

and Operations Coordinating Board, 261–62

and Peace Treaty, 151–52

and return of residents, 237, 240

and reversion of islands, 246–49

and trusteeship, 156–58, 163

Amami Islands

administration of, 9n25, 192
507

Index

Allison and, 291n76

Bonin reversion and, 406, 415

fortification of, 35

and Kagoshima Prefecture, separation of, 202

Navy and, 192

Okinawa reversion and, 378, 388, 458

Peace Treaty and, 164

as pressing issue, 247–48

protests in, 160–61

Radford and, 291n81

return of, 164, 244, 246, 248–50, 265, 291n76, 291n81

reversion ceremony, 302n275

strategic importance of, 248

surrender of, 118

U.S. control of, 148

Amami Reversion Agreement, 406, 415–16

America-Japan Society, 385

American Affairs Bureau, 253, 345, 416

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), 304n311

American Council on Japan, 272–73

Ancestral grave visits, 338–49, 372n371

Anderson, Robert B., 251

Ando Nobumasa, 28

Ani Jima, 3, 21, 27, 105, 107, 113

Araki Eikichi, 237, 242

Armstrong, Rodney E., 348

Arnold, Henry H., 55–56

Asakai Koichiro, 278, 283, 285–86, 324, 329, 342

Asanuma Keisaburo, 235

Ashida Memorandum, 150

Asian Development Bank, 392, 395
508

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Asiatic Exclusion Laws, 284

Asiatic Society of Japan (ASJ), 17, 31, 43n54

Assistance Association for Okinawa and Ogasawara and Northern Islands, 338, 429. See also Nanpo 

Doho Engokai

Association for Reunion of the Okinawan Islands (Okinawa Shoto Nihon Fukki Kiseikai), 251

Association of Agricultural Landowners (Ogasawara Tochi Nogyo Doshikai), 333

Astlie, Sir Thomas, 75

Astor, John Jacob, 42n44

Atcheson, George, 150

Atlantic Charter, 139, 150

Atrocities, 103–4. See also cannibalism; prisoners of war

Atsuchi Kanehiko, 38

Australia, 139, 154

B

B-24 (plane), 129n66

B-29 Superfortress, 53, 55, 80, 180–81

Bacon, Ruth E., 151

Bailey Islands, 45n81

Bakufu, 15–16, 18, 20, 23–28, 39n4, 41n24, 41n29

Baldridge, E. F., 314

Baldwin, Roger N., 304n311

Ball, George, 345

Bane, David N., 316

Barringer, Philip E., 417

Bataan, 109

Battle of Iwo Jima, 74–85, 179. See also Iwo Jima

American memorial to, 254, 389, 403, 405–6, 419–23, 451n437

casualties in, 52, 61, 76, 85–87, 88n3

commemoration of, 8n11

costs of, 85–86
509

Index

defense by Japanese in, 65–74

flag raising in, 77–78

Formosa and, 56–57

as Hell, 52–53

intelligence in, 61

Japanese memorial to, 429, 451n438

Kuribayashi and, 65–76, 79–82

landing in, 75–76, 178

Marine Corps in, 52, 58–59, 74–87, 178

Medals of Honor in, 87

memorial service after, 86–87

Navy in, 59, 64, 75, 86–87

night attacks in, 77

Nimitz and, 56–58, 80–81

Okinawa and, 65

planning of, 54–65

pre-invasion bombardment and, 61–64, 67, 92n59, 94n105, 108–17

reasons for, 53

reconnaissance in, 61–62

Seabees in, 79–80

significance of, 85–88

Smith, Holland, and, 52, 58–64, 76–78

Spruance and, 56–59, 63–64

worth of, 52

Beechey, Frederick W., 17–18, 26, 31, 43n49, 46n95

Belleau Wood, 109

Bennington, 93n103, 113

Berger, Samuel D., 251–52, 293n110

Bikini Atoll, 253, 294n116

Birmingham, 231n165

Bismarck Sea, 77
510

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

“Black Ships,” 20, 24, 176

Blakeslee, George H., 138–40, 166n25

Blossom, 17

Bolton, Frances P., 400

Bombing campaign, before Battle of Iwo Jima, 61–64, 67, 92n59, 94n105, 108–17

“Bone collection,” 88

Bonham, Sir J. George, 22–23

Bonin Compensation Bill, 330–32. See also compensation, for property owners

Bonin Islands. See also Ogasawara Islands

in Cold War, 214–16

development of, 27–28

discovery of, 4–5, 11–18, 39n4

early U.S. occupation of, 117–21

fact sheet on, 404–5

makeup of, 1

name origin, 1, 15

names for, 3, 7n1, 12, 14, 17

strategic importance of, 104, 243, 275–76, 311, 321–22, 404–5

in World War II, 103–25

Bonin Islands Council, 196, 209, 216–17, 243, 277

Bonin Islands Court, 217

Bonin Islands Trading Co., 199, 203, 405

Bonin Islands Trading Co. Superette, 219

Bonin Islands Trust Fund, 405, 407

Bonins-Marianas Sub-Area, 200

Bonin-Volcano Trust Fund, 217, 219

Borton, Hugh, 138, 140–41, 150

Boundaries, 135

Bowie, Robert R., 273

Bowman, Isaiah, 135

Bradley, James, 104–5, 115, 126n5
511

Index

Bradley, Omar N.

and CINCPAC command question, 204

on reversion of islands, 164, 245

and Smith’s Haha Jima memo, 290n70

and U.S. retention of islands, 152

Brice, William O., 213

Briscoe, Robert P., 237, 241

and Chichi Jima administration, 210

Fukuda and, 298n191

photograph of, 188

and repatriation, 260

Yokota and, 213

Bronson, Earl D., 205, 209–10, 214, 219–21

Bruns, William H., 347–48

Buchanan, James M., 24

Buckland Island, 21. See also Ani Jima

Buckner, Simon Bolivar, 57–58, 91n40

Buddhism, 349–50

Bundy, McGeorge, 391

Bundy, William P., 400, 420

grave visit issue and, 344

and return of remains, 355

and reversion of islands, 345, 379–80, 383–84, 388, 390

Rusk and, 344

Shimoda and, 379, 388

Bureau of Ogasawara Islands, 32

Burke, Arleigh A., 274–75, 384–85

Burrell, Robert S., 89n5

Bush, George H. W., 104, 112, 127n17

Byrnes, James F., 144
512

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

C

Cabezon (submarine), 243, 289n45

CAC. See Country and Area Committees (CAC)

Cairo Declaration, 139

Camp Smith, 84, 90n34, 422

Camp Tarawa, 60, 92n76

Cannibalism, 103, 114–15, 122, 125

Caruso, Patrick F., 75, 374

Castle, William J., 273

Cates, Clifton B., 59, 78

Cemeteries

ancestral Japanese, 338–49

“enemy,” 9n17

Marine Corps, 86–87, 102n313, 178, 182, 449n390

 3d Marine Division Cemetery, 86

 4th Marine Division Cemetery, 86, 182

 5th Marine Division Cemetery, 86, 182

Center for Strategic and International Studies, 384

Central Air Base, 215

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), 214, 262, 281, 289n49, 290n69

Chapin, Aldin B., 18, 44n65

Charlton, Richard, 18

Chemical warfare, 89n13

Chest, 57

Chester, 112

Chiba Kazuo, 417

“Chichi Birds,” 196

Chichi Jima. See also Peel Island

after World War I, 34

air campaign against, 108–17

antiaircraft activity on, 113
513

Index

atrocities on, 103

Bakufu settlement of, 27

in Bonin Islands, 1

Bush, George H. W., and, 104, 112, 127n17

cannibalism on, 114–15

chain of command for, 201

climate of, 4

in Cold War, 214–16

communications stations on, 104–5

condition of, after war, 195

discovery of, 13–15

in discussion of Iwo Jima invasion, 55–56

downed flyers on, 113–16, 118–19, 121–25

evacuation of, 37, 51n185

as exempt from reversion, 393

fortification of, 35–36, 105–8, 127n23

in “Horton Incident,” 27–28

housing on, 196–97, 203, 405

individuals in charge of, 205

Japanese war remains on, 349

lack of support for, 197

life on, 216–21

local government on, 216–21

medical care on, 218–19

military government on, 199–203

missionary work on, 218

names in, 3, 12

and Naval Limitation Conference, 35

Pearl Harbor and, 36

photograph of, 173, 187

population of, 34–35
514

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

post-peace treaty years on, 207–13

Radford and, 108, 167n62, 205

return of Western islanders to, 192–99

reversion anxieties on, 221–23

reversion ceremony on, 453–54

Saipan and, 108

school on, 186, 217–18

settlement of, 4

strategic importance of, 104, 243, 393, 404

as target, 56, 105

as target before Iwo Jima, 54

United Kingdom in, 17

in World War I, 105–6

and World War II, 35–36, 452

China, 19, 89n13, 106, 116, 120, 142, 146, 162, 343

China Seas Pilot, 48n136

Chita, 339

Cholmondeley, Lionel B., 10n26, 40n5, 43n58

Chukichi-maru, 23–24

Church, Edmund, 31

Churchill, Winston, 81, 134

CIA. See Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

CINCFE. See Commander in Chief Far East (CINCFE)

CINCPAC. See Commander in Chief, Pacific (CINCPAC)

Civil Administration Unit, 197–98

Civil Affairs Handbook, 61

Claim, of islands by Japan, 25–26, 28–32

Clark, Harlan B., 316–17, 328–29

Clark, Joseph J. “Jocko,” 67, 109

Clark, Mark W., 188, 237, 241

Clean Government Party, 408. See also Komeito Party
515

Index

Cobia, 70

Cockade, 231n165

Coffin, James J., 17, 21, 42n44

Cold War. See also Soviet Union

Chichi Jima in, 214–16

Naval bases and, 144

and reversion of islands, 259

Collins, J. Lawton, 188

Collis, J. L., 351–53

Commander in Chief, Pacific (CINCPAC), 194, 274, 310, 314–15, 350–51, 401, 407. See also Denfeld, Louis E.; Felt, Harry D.; McCain, John S., Jr.; Radford, Arthur W.; Ramsey, DeWitt C.; Sharp, 

Ulysses S. Grant; Stump, Felix B.

Bonin Islands under, 204–5, 207

Korean War and, 204

and Western-descent islanders, 194

Commander in Chief Far East (CINCFE), 151, 200, 203–5, 207, 291n80

Committee for Acceleration of Return of Okinawa to Japan, 293n114

Committee of Ogasawara Landowners (Ogasawara Tochi Shoyusha Iinkai), 333

Communist Party, 293n102, 378, 409, 455

Compensation, for property owners, 254, 256, 311–21, 324–38, 359n83

Allison and, 256, 312

CINCPAC and, 314–15

Clark and, 315–16, 328–29

Congressional appropriation for, 315–16

cost-sharing in, 313–14

Dulles and, 313, 316, 319, 326

early memorandum on, 254

Eisenhower and, 331, 333

figures, 314, 318, 320, 324

Horsey and, 324–25

Lamb and, 321–22

as lease, 315
516

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

MacArthur II and, 311–12, 316–19, 325–27, 330–31, 334–35

Murphy and, 327

as obligation, 281

Okinawa and, 315, 327

Parsons and, 322, 325, 328–29

as precedent, 314

for proprietary rights, 315

repatriation vs., 256

Robertson and, 311, 313, 315–16, 324

Ryukyu Islands and, 254, 256, 311, 313–15, 320, 324, 326–28, 357n40, 358n66

standards, 318–19

Conference on the Limitation of Armament, 106

Connally, John B., 340

Connell, Hershel C., 110

Conroy, John J., 242

Conservation, environmental, 34

Constance, 231n165

Cook, James, 36, 51n188

Couch, Edward, 218

Council for Ogasawara Islanders, 333, 337

Council of Advisers on the Okinawa Problem (Okinawa Mondai Kondankai), 375

Council of Advisors on Okinawa and Other Problems (Okinawa Mondaito Kondankai), 381

Council on Foreign Relations, 135, 140, 254

Country and Area Committees (CAC), 138

Cowen, Myron M., 164

Cowpens, 109

Crimean War, 23

Cromwell, Oliver, 75

Crowl, Peter A., 63–64

Curlew, 31

“Cyprus parallel,” 270
517

Index

D

Davis, Norman H., 136

Davison, Ralph E., 112

Dawkins, Stephen P., 408

Day, A. Grove, 18–19

Deforestation, 33–34

de Long, C. E., 29–30

Democratic Liberal Party. See Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) ( Japan)

Democratic Party (U.S.), 45n8

Democratic Socialist Party, 455–56

Denfeld, Louis E., 202, 228n94

Desecrations, 354

Development, 27–28

de Weldon, Felix, 254

Dewey, Thomas E., 254, 295n139

Di Go Fukuoka Maru (Lucky Dragon No. 5) incident, 253

Dinah Might, 80, 177, 180

Dirksen, Everett M., 399

Discovery, 36

Dobbin, James C., 21–22, 45n88

Dobbin, 45n88

Donaho, Glynn R., 331

Dooman, Eugene, 140–41

Doyle, Oscar Long, 109

Duke, Irving T., 216

Dulles, Allen W., 248, 297n175

Dulles, John Foster, 184

Acheson and, 151

Allison and, 248

and ancestral grave issue, 339

and compensation of islanders, 313, 316, 319, 326
518

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

and fortification of islands, 214

and repatriation of islands, 209, 296n170, 311, 323

 and reversion of islands, 229n126, 234, 246–49, 254–57, 265–67, 269–70, 273, 275, 277–80, 

284–85, 293n110, 295n139, 300n233, 301n249, 307n363

in treaty negotiations, 151–52, 155–63

Dumbarton Oaks Conference, 140

Dunlap, 117, 184

Dutch East India Company, 13, 15

Dye, James W., Jr., 113–15

E

Early, Charles, 8n11

Earthquake, 43n49, 196

Ebbets, John, 42n44

Economics, of postwar Japan, 234–35

Edamura Sumio, 374, 376

Edson, Merritt A., 255, 295n143

Education, 186, 217–18, 221–22, 223n3, 405

EIGLOAN. See Expenses Island Governments and Liberated and Occupied Areas Navy (EIGLOAN)

Eisenhower, Dwight D., 331

and compensation issue, 331, 333

in Japan, 254

Kishi and, 282, 316

and League for the Repatriation of Bonin Islanders, 310

and maintenance of status quo, 214

Murphy and, 237

Radford and, 278

and return of islands, 255, 277–78, 316

and strategic importance of Iwo Jima, 248, 278

Yoshida and, 254

Eldorado, 75, 78
519

Index

Eldridge, Robert D., 7n11

Emigration, 32

Emmerson, John K., 346

Emperor Hirohito, 66

“Enclave theory,” 379

Endo Kiyoshi, 8n17, 94n118

English language, 223n3

Enright, Joseph F., 245–46, 290n68

Enterprise, 19, 29, 44n65

Environmental conservation, 34

Erskine, Graves B., 59, 79, 86

Essex, 93n103, 109

Evacuations, 36–37, 51n185, 68

Expenses Island Governments and Liberated and Occupied Areas Navy (EIGLOAN), 202

F

Fahs, C. T., 21

Far East Air Logistics Force, 215

Far East Materiel Command, 215

Farrar, R. L., 205

Fearey, Robert A., 153, 384

Fechteler, William M., 164, 188, 207, 238–39, 241, 350

Feith, Arend William, 15

Felt, Harry D., 303n301, 340

“Fighting Fourth,” 60

Finback, 112

Findley, L. G., 259, 354–55

Finn, Richard B., 160, 210, 254, 257

Fish, Hamilton, 29, 175, 227n78

Fishing, 254–55, 315

Flag raising, 77–78, 179, 191, 254
520

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Flood, Daniel John, 330

Ford, Gerald R., 399

Foreign Military Rights Affairs, 417

Forests, 33–34

Formosa, 53, 55–58, 145

Forrestal, James V., 60, 78

Foster, William C., 245, 289n38

Frazier, Glenn J., 113

Frost, Clayton E., 207–8, 214, 217–18

Fujieda Sensuke, 337

Fujita Hozen, 251–52

Fujita Masayoshi, 67

Fujiyama Aiichiro, 282–85, 311–12, 316–19, 323, 339

Fukkokuju Maru, 14

Fukuda Takeo, 383, 391

Fukuda Tokuyasu, 189, 249, 251, 258–61, 263, 272, 297n170, 297n175, 298n191, 298n205, 303n301, 

310, 322–23, 337–38, 343

Fukuryu Mari incident, 253

Fulbright, J. William, 329, 400

Furuya Toru, 337–38

Futami Bay, 173, 187, 207

G

GARIOA. See Government and Relief in Occupied Areas (GARIOA) funds

Gas, poison, 89n13

General George M. Randall, 198

Geneva Convention, 89n13, 125, 129n59

Geology, 4

Germany, 34, 48n136

Gilley, Grover, 196, 243

Gilley, Jeffrey, 36
521

Index

Girard case, 274

Gittelsohn, Roland B., 86–87

Gold Island, 13

Gonzales, Frank, 196, 203, 217, 243

Gonzales, Isaac, 195, 218, 232n191

Goodpaster, Andrew J., 278

Government, military, on Chichi Jima, 199–203

Government and Relief in Occupied Areas (GARIOA) funds, 320, 326–28, 359n83

Grave visits, 338–49, 372n371

Gray, Gordon, 210, 260–61, 263–64, 272, 303n294

Green, Cecil, 218

Green, Marshall, 277, 282, 344

Greenway, J. W., 218

Grew, Joseph C., 140, 254, 273

Guadalcanal, 59, 73

Guam. See also Mariana Islands

migration to, 34

and reversion of Bonins, 395

seizure of, 54

war crimes trials on, 103–4, 124–25, 126n5, 127n18

H

Habomai Islands, 342, 348

Hachijo Jima, 55

Hagen, Jerome T., 75

Hagenbuckle, Vernon B., 195–98

Haha Jima

agriculture on, 105

climate of, 4

Coffin and, 17

defense of, 107
522

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

discovery of, 13–14

in discussion of Iwo Jima invasion, 55

evacuation of, 37

fortification of, 107–8

Japanese war remains on, 349

names of, 3

population of, 34–35

surrender of, 117

as target, 56

as transshipment point, 105

trial repatriation to, 260

United Kingdom and, 17

United States and, 21

Haha Jima Maru, 1

Hall, Floyd E., 113, 115–16

Halloran, Richard, 431n15

Halperin, Morton, 379, 382

Halsey, William F., 57

Hammond, Blowden, 193

Harmon, Millard F., 56–58, 91n40

Harrill, William K., 109

Harriman, W. Averell, 340

Harris, Townsend, 25, 175

Hart, Richard R., 385

Haru Hikoichi, 251

Hashimoto, Robert, 218

Hata Ikuhiko, 104

Hatoyama Ichiro, 256, 267

Hawley, Frank, 252

Hayashi Masaaki, 30, 41n32, 42n37

Hayashi Shiehi, 15–16
523

Index

Hayden, Carl T., 440n198

Hayward, Richard W., 349

Hearn, Chester, 104, 111

“Heckler attacks,” 111

Heine, Wilhelm, 174

Heinz, L. C., 342

Hemmendinger, Noel H., 265, 267–68, 270, 300n239, 301n263, 304n311

Hensel, H. Struve, 144

Hensey, Walter R., Jr., 242

Hensley, Stewart, 260

Herndon, Richard M., 210, 259, 265

Herter, Christian A., 283, 314, 327, 329, 331

Herz, Martin F., 319–20

Hickenlooper, Bourke B., 400, 442n225

Higashigi Seiji, 112

Hindenlang, Warren A., 111–12

Hintz, Owen M., 109

Hirohito, 53, 65–66, 105–6

Hiroshima, 73, 180

History of Japan, The (Kaempfer), 15

Hoover, Herbert C., Jr., 257

Hopwood, Herbert G., 214, 219–20

Horie Yoshitaka, 51n185, 53, 69, 71, 82, 103–4, 107, 110–11, 113, 116–19, 124, 126n8, 127n18, 183–84

Hornbeck, Stanley K., 136

Hornet, 109–10

Horsey, Outerbridge, 275, 324–27

Horton, George, 27–28, 47n128

“Horton Incident,” 27–28

Hoshina Zenshiro, 384–85

House Foreign Affairs Committee, 251, 331, 440n198

Housing, on Chichi Jima, 196–97, 203, 405
524

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Huie, William Bradford, 79

Hull, Cordell, 135, 138

Humphrey, Hubert H., Jr., 382

I

Ichiban Maru, 27

IDACFE. See Inter-Divisional Area Committee on the Far East (IDACFE)

Iguchi Sadao, 158, 253, 265, 268, 302n269

Ikeda Hayato, 253, 335–36, 341

Ikeda Masuo, 79

Ikeda Minoru, 203, 212

Indianapolis, 177

Imperial Japanese Army

31st Division, 66, 70, 107

109th Division, 66, 107, 116

Inoue Sadao, 73

Inouye, Daniel J., 214–15

Inter-Divisional Area Committee on the Far East (IDACFE), 138–43

International Red Cross, 194

Iokibe Makoto, 138

Irwin, John N. II, 275

Isely, Jeter A., 63–64

Ishibashi Tanzan, 273, 304n320

Ishii Michinori, 259–61

Ishii Shuji, 371n338

Ishiwata Yukutaro, 113

Island Governing Council, 216. See also Bonin Islands Council

Isley Field, 111

Itagaki Osamu, 324

Ito Togai, 15

Iwakura Mission, 30
525

Index

Iwakura Tomomi, 30

Iwatake Nobuaki, 115

Iwo Jima. See also Battle of Iwo Jima

airport, 38

American memorial on, 389, 403, 405–6, 419–23, 451n437

ancestral grave visits and, 347–48, 372n371

discovery of, 13

evacuation of, 37, 68

as exempt from reversion, 387, 393

exercises on, 215–16

fortification of, 35–36, 71–73

as “Inevitable Island,” 52

Japanese claim of, 38

Japanese memorial on, 429, 451n437

Japanese war remains on, 8n17, 349

in Korean War, 215

names of, 3, 7n2

nuclear weapons deployment on, 215

population of, 38

reversion ceremony on, 454–55

settlement of, 36–38

as “special case” in reversion talks, 383

strategic value of, 53

U.S. decision to seize, 54–58

volcano on, 4

water on, 38

before World War II, 36–38

Iwo Jima Association, 8n11, 8n17, 51n197, 353–54, 421, 429

“Iwo Jima Courageous Battle Vow,” 73

Iwo Jima Kyokai (Association of Iwo Jima), 255, 353

“Iwo Jima Song,” 81–82
526

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Iwo To, 7n2

Izu ( Japanese patrol vessel), 408

Izu Shoto islands, 2, 9n25, 35–36, 145, 148

J

Japan

claiming of islands by, 25–26, 28–32

early interest in islands by, 13–14, 23–28

postwar economic situation in, 234–35

Soviet relations with, 271, 273

Japan-American Assembly, 381

Japan-America Society, 268, 429, 451nn437–38

Japan Defense Agency ( JDA), 343, 401–2, 408, 410, 418

Japanese-Soviet Joint Declaration, 273

Japan Veterans Association (Nihon Kyoyu Renmei), 429

JCS. See Joint Chiefs of Staff ( JCS)

JCS 570/40, 144–46, 167n48

JCS 1231, 199–200

JCS 1380/135, 238

JCS 1619/1, 145–46

JCS 1619/4, 146–47

JDA. See Japan Defense Agency ( JDA)

Jenkins, Alfred L., 392–93, 438n148

“Jocko Jimas,” 109

Jockusch, Julius W., 210

John F. Kennedy Memorial, Runnymede, 389

Johnson, Charles, 18

Johnson, Dale W., 205, 214, 221, 452

Johnson, Louis, 151

Johnson, Lyndon B., 221, 338, 345, 347, 380, 392, 424

Johnson, Mary-Lou, 452
527

Index

Johnson, Roy L., 215

Johnson, U. Alexis, 190, 194, 374, 376–78, 380, 382–84, 386–88, 390–403, 406, 409–12, 415–16, 

418–26, 430n3, 431n17, 440n198–440n199, 441n209, 443n244, 444n285, 452

Joint Chiefs of Staff ( JCS), 163, 167n48, 171n125, 379, 393–94

and Battle of Iwo Jima, 54–58, 90n32, 136

and nuclear weapon storage, 424

on Ryukyus, 167n48

Joint Strategic Survey Committee ( JSSC), 144–45

Joint War Planning Committee ( JWPC), 54, 56

Jones, C. B., 215

JSSC. See Joint Strategic Survey Committee ( JSSC)

Junker, Curt, 75

Jushoan Koami, 349. See also Wachi Tsunezo

JWPC. See Joint War Planning Committee ( JWPC)

K

Kaempfer, Engelbert, 15

Kanagawa, Treaty of, 24

Kanagawa Incident, 28

Kanaka village, 174

Kaneyama Masahide, 259

Kangoku Iwo, 447n363

Kanmuri Yoshikaru, 116

Kan Naoto, 9n17

Kannon statue, 351, 353–55

Kanrin Maru, 25

Katayama Tetsu, 375

Kato Kanju, 337, 365n229

Kawakami Jotaro, 311

Kazan Islands, 36, 137–38. See also Volcano Islands

Kell, John E., 218
528

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Kelly, John, 21

Kelsey, John W., 205

Kennan, George F., 150–51

Kennedy, John F., 336

Kenney, R. W., 202–3

Keokuk, 77

Kern, Harry F., 272–73

Keyaki Maru, 195

Khabarovsk, 339

Kidd, Coburn, 334–36, 339–40

Kikuchi Torahiko, 148, 235

Kimura Settsu, 47n110

Kimura Toshio, 391

King, Ernest J., 57–58, 62, 177

Kishi Nobusuke, 273–74, 278–80, 282, 304n320, 310–12, 330–31, 383

Kita Iwo Jima, 3–4, 7n2, 13, 37, 134, 234, 339

Kita Iwo To, 7n2

Kitano Jima, 3

Kiyose village, 188, 214

Klaproth, Julius Heinrich, 15–17, 42n33

Kodaira Hisao, 365n229

Kodaki Akira, 251–52

Komagari cemetery, 348

Komeito Party, 408–9, 455–56

Kono Ichiro, 311

Korea, 30, 205

Korean War, 204, 215, 228n96, 243, 289n43, 289n46

Kosaka Zentaro, 365n229

Krulak, Victor H. “Brute,” 190, 422–23

Kruzenshtern, Ivan Fedorovich, 46n90

Kublin, Hyman, 11, 16, 40n5, 41n16, 42n44
529

Index

Kunai Sadato, 16

Kunishima Kiyosashi, 418

Kuraishi Tadao, 383

Kuribayashi Tadamichi, 51n185, 52–53, 55, 64–76, 79–82, 94n116, 95n126, 177, 184, 349

Kuribayashi Yoshima, 67

Kuriles, 30, 145, 270, 343

Kurtz, Lawrence A., 418

Kusiak, John H., 120

Kusuda Minoru, 398, 433n55

Kwajalein, 73

Kyosho Maru, 1

L

Lamb, Richard M., 209–10, 301n265, 321, 344

Langley, 109

Languages, 10n35, 223n3

Larne, 19

LDP. See Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) ( Japan)

League for Ogasawara and Iwo Jima Evacuees (Ogasawarato Iwo Jima Hikiagesha Renmei), 148, 235

League for the Repatriation of the Bonin Islanders, 310

League of Bonin Evacuees, 172n144, 209, 234–36, 242, 293n107

League of Bonin Evacuees for Hastening Repatriation (Ogasawara Iwo Jima Kikyo Sokushin Renmei),

148, 208, 234–36, 242

Leahy, William D., 136

Leckie, Robert, 72

Lee, Fitzhugh III, 210

Lew Chews, 20. See also Okinawa; Ryukyu Islands

Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) ( Japan), 189, 263, 267, 322–23, 337–38, 383, 455

Liberal Party ( Japan), 249, 259, 293n102

Lipscomb, Glenard P., 400

Litch, Ernest W., 243
530

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Long, Daniel, 10n35, 222–23

Lovett, Robert A., 245

Luke, John, 129n67

Lunga Point, 77

Lutke, Frederic, 17–18

M

MacArthur, Douglas A., 149, 152, 194, 200

and Battle of Iwo Jima, 53, 56, 65, 90n34, 100n265

Korean War and, 228n96

MacArthur, Douglas II, 234

and compensation of islanders, 311–12, 316–19, 325–27, 330–31, 334–35

and reversion of islands, 273–75, 277–78, 283–84, 364n218

Macedonian, 23

Maeda Sadamu, 148

Magruder, John H., Jr., 117–18, 183

Mahon, George H., 400, 440n198

Maitley, James, 21

Mansfield, Michael J., 381–82, 397, 399

MARBO. See Marianas-Bonins Command Area (MARBO)

Marcus Island, 9n21, 142, 145, 147, 150, 157. See also Minami Tori Shima

and Bonin Islands reversion, 386

detachment of, in Territorial Subcommittee report, 137–38

Japanese defense of, 66

reversion of, 459n1

Mariana Islands

in bombings of Japan, 53

loss of, by Japan, 53

and Pacific Command, 214

in pre-history, 4

strategic importance of, 55–56, 58

and Supreme Commander Allied Powers, 202
531

Index

Marianas Area of the Pacific Command, 200

Marianas-Bonins Command Area (MARBO), 200

Marianas Turkey Shoot, 54, 109

Marine Corps, U.S.

in Battle of Iwo Jima, 52, 58–60, 63–64, 72, 74–87, 178

in demilitarization of Iwo Jima, 118, 120, 195

in desecrations, 354

exercises by, 215–16

memorial, 254, 389

in occupation of Bonin Islands, 118

policing role of, 20

study of, by Japanese forces, 73

and surrender ceremony, 100n265

units

 3d Marine Division, 7n11, 60

 4th Marine Division, 7n11, 60

 5th Marine Division, 7n11, 60

Maritime Self Defense Forces (MSDF), 408, 418

and accessibility of Bonin Islands, 1

and flag raising, 455

Iwo Jima as current base of, 4

and Marcus Island reversion, 459n1

in memorial care, 451n438

and metropolitan government autonomy, 408

and reversion, 389, 402

in reversion, 408–9, 418, 453

Marshall, George C., 159

Martin, James V., Jr., 269, 271, 285, 323

Masaki Hitoshi, 117

Masaoka, Mike, 331–32

Masland, John, Jr., 138–39
532

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Masuda Hiroshi, 259

Masuda Kaneshichi, 408, 452

Matoba Sueo, 113, 115–18, 122, 125

Matsudaira Tsuneo, 235

Matsuno Raizo, 316, 370n328

Matsuoka Komakichi, 235

Matsushita Kanehisa, 115

Matthews, Francis P., 228n03

Maurer, Ely, 313–14

Mazarro, Matteo, 18–19, 44n65

McCain, John S., Jr., 442n238

McCloskey, Robert J., 375

McClurkin, Robert J. G., 210–11, 251–52, 260, 291n80

McCormack, John W., 400

McCormick, Robert R., 80

McMillion, David C., 183

McNamara, Robert S., 343–44, 379–80, 382–84, 392–95, 440n198

McNaughton, John T., 379–80, 433n43

Medal of Honor, in Battle of Iwo Jima, 87

Medical care, on Chichi Jima, 218–19

Meiji-maru, 31

Memorials

American, 254, 389, 403, 405–6, 419–23, 451n437

care of, 451n438

Japanese, 429, 451n437–51n438

Mershon, Marvie W., 113–14

Micronesia, 202

Miki Bukichi, 267–68, 398

Miki Takeo, 374–77, 379–88, 390–91, 396–99, 402–3, 406, 410–11, 415, 418–21, 423–25, 431n17, 

432n38, 443n244

Military Government Unit, 207
533

Index

Millichamp, John, 18–19, 43n58

Millinchamp, Richard M., 43n58

Minami Iwo Jima, 4, 7n2

Minami Iwo To, 7n2

Minami Tori Shima, 1, 9n21, 106. See also Marcus Island

Mineral resources, 212

Ministry of Home Affairs ( Japan), 32

Minobe Ryokichi, 378, 399, 408

Missionary work, 218, 232n191

Missouri, 57, 100n265, 117, 134

Mitscher, Marc A., 109

Miyake Kijiro, 316–17, 319–20, 324–25

Mizuno Chikugo, 25–28, 34

Mochimaru Matsuo, 337

Monda Chokoe, 106

Monks, Bill, 120–21

“Monks of Makalapa,” 58

Moorer, Thomas H., 343, 384–85

Morgan, Thomas Ellsworth, 331, 400

Moriizumi Hirasuke, 333

Mori Kunizo, 116–18, 121, 125

Mori Motojiro, 375

Morishima Morito, 311

Morishita Hironobu, 114, 130n84

Motoyama, 38

Mount Suribachi, 4, 173, 182, 351, 403

MSDF. See Maritime Self Defense Forces (MSDF)

Muko Jima, 3, 216

Murai Tokushiro, 127n23

Murata Itaru, 448n372

Murphy, John D., 125
534

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Murphy, Robert D., 163, 172n144, 208, 213, 236–44, 246, 253, 260, 269, 287n11, 287n21, 288n23, 

327

Mustard gas, 89n13

Mutual Security Act, 315, 380

N

Nagasaki, 73, 180

Nakahama “John” Manjiro, 26–27

Nakajima Toshijiro, 348

Nakayoshi Yoshimitsu, 293n114

Nakodo Jima, 3

Namamugi Incident, 28

Nanpo Doho Engokai (Assistance Association for Okinawa and Ogasawara and Northern Islands), 

338, 344, 348, 366n236, 429

Nansei Islands, 145, 157, 163, 240

Narahashi Wataru, 337

Narrative of the Expedition of an American Squadron... (Perry), 24–25

Nash, Frank C., 237, 240, 246–47, 287n10–287n11, 305n335, 310–11

National Security Agency (NSA), 262, 281, 290n69

Nauru Island, 154

Naval Communications Center ( Japanese), 35

Naval Limitation Conference, 35

Navy ( Japanese), 30–31, 35, 38, 52, 66, 69–71, 86. See also Maritime Self Defense Forces (MSDF)

Navy (U.S.)

Ackerman family and, 268

in Battle of Iwo Jima, 59, 64, 75, 86–87

Chichi Jima and, 54, 56, 105, 404

Civil Affairs Handbook of, 61

and compensation issue, 314, 326–27

de Long and, 29

Dobbin and, 45n88

and grave visit issue, 341, 344
535

Index

and Iwo Jima as target, 54–56

McNamara and, 384

Perry and, 21

pre-invasion bombardment by, of Iwo Jima, 52, 67, 94n105

and repatriation, 262, 282

and reversion of islands, 354, 383–84

Seabees, 77, 79–80, 86, 203, 207, 449n390

and strategic importance of islands, 275–76

support of islanders by, 405, 407

Navy Achievement Medal, 453

Navy Liberator (plane), 129n66

Nemoto Hiroshi, 260

Newcomb, Richard F., 354

New Zealand, 139, 154

Nezu Seikichi, 30

Nichibei Kyokai (Japan-America Society), 429

Nihon Kyoyu Renmei (Japan Veterans Association), 429

Nii Jima, 55

Nimitz, Chester W., 54, 56–58, 62, 80–81, 91n53, 109, 177, 183, 199, 213, 261

Ninomiya Sontoku, 106

Nippon Maru, 353

Nishi cemetery, 348

Nishimura Kumao, 156

Nishinoshima Island, 9n21

Nishi Takeichi, 70, 95n167

Nisshu Maru, 70, 111

Nitze, Paul H., 345

Nixon, Richard M., 254

Non-Proliferation Treaty, 391

North Carolina, 64

Northern Islands, 271, 338, 366n236, 381, 429, 452
536

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

North Korea, 421

North Pacific Council, 137

Norvell, William C., 268

Notter, Harley A., 135

NSA. See National Security Agency (NSA)

NSC 60/1, 151–52

NSC 125, 244

NSC 6008/1, 336

Nuclear bombing, 73, 180

Nuclear weapons deployment, 215

Nuclear weapons storage, 188, 214

Nugent, D. R., 350

O

Obana Sakujo, 30, 34

Obana Sakunosuke, 27–28

Obata Hideyoshi, 66

Ockey, William C., 283–84

Ogasawara Association, 310, 429, 452

ancestral grave visits and, 338–39, 347

creation of, 337–38

Ogasawara Brave Warriors Association (Ogasawara Yushi no Kai), 429

Ogasawara Garrison Force, 107

Ogasawara Islands. See also Bonin Islands

name of, 12, 16

settlement of, 27, 30

strategic importance of, 15–16

in Territorial Subcommittee plan, 137–38

Ogasawara Iwo Jima Kikyo Sokushin Renmei (League of Bonin Evacuees for Hastening Repatriation), 

148, 208, 234–36, 242

Ogasawara Kunai Sadato, 16
537

Index

Ogasawara Kyokai (Ogasawara Association), 429

Ogasawara Maru, 1

Ogasawara Sadato, 39n4

Ogasawara Sadayori, 11, 16, 39n4

Ogasawara Tochi Nogyo Doshikai (Association of Agricultural Landowners), 333

Ogasawara Tochi Shoyusha Iinkai (Committee of Ogasawara Landowners), 333

Ogasawarato Iwo Jima Hikiagesha Renmei (League for Ogasawara and Iwo Jima Evacuees), 148, 235

Ogasawara Village Office, 235

Ogasawara Yushi no Kai (Ogasawara Brave Warriors Association), 429

Ohama Nobumoto, 375

Ohira Masayoshi, 343

Okawara Yoshio, 417

Okazaki Katsuo, 149, 172n144, 208, 236–37, 241–44, 251, 253–54, 288n23

Okazaki Memo, 149

Okinawa. See also Ryukyu Islands

Amami Islands and, 378, 388, 458

and Battle of Iwo Jima, 65

Bonin Islands vs., 192, 224n3

and Bonin reversion, 388, 399, 401, 416–17

casualties in, 74

and compensation issue, 315, 327

in Korean War, 215

as Lew Chews, 20

in military exercises, 216

in Okazaki Memo, 149

return of, 249–51, 291n80, 311

Rusk on, 421–22

Sebald and, 164, 172n144

Soviet Union and, 206, 209

strategic importance of, 209, 246

strategy in, 73
538

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

as target, 53, 57–58

trusteeship and, 153–54, 156

U.S. control of, 148

Okinawa Mondaito Kondankai (Council of Advisors on Okinawa and Other Problems), 381

Okinawa Shoto Nihon Fukki Kiseikai (Association for Reunion of the Okinawan Islands), 251

Okino Torishima, 9n21, 245

Okuyama Tadashi, 148

Omori Hachiro, 252

Omura Village Young Men’s League (Omura Sonendan), 235

Operation Causeway, 55, 57. See also Formosa

Operation Detachment, 58–65. See also Battle of Iwo Jima

Operation Flag Hoist, 215–16

Operation Forager, 109. See also Saipan

Operation Magic Carpet, 120

Operation NAVMARLEX I-56, 216

Operations Coordinating Board, 262

Opium War, 19

Ordaz, Gustavo Diaz, 343

O Shima, 55

Osuga Kotau, 66, 69, 110

Ota Kazuo, 373n371

Ototo Jima, 3, 21, 33

Overich, H. E., 214, 289n49

Overton, Richard E., 83–84

Oyama Shigeyasu, 118–19, 124

Ozawa Jisaburo, 109

P

P-51 Mustang, 53

Pacific Islands Coordinating Group (PICG), 291n83
539

Index

Pacific Mandates, 135

Page, Thomas J., 20–21

Parece Vela, 151, 157, 161, 386, 412, 414, 424, 426, 428, 463

Parkes, Sir. Harry S., 30–31, 47n127, 48n137, 49n152

Parsons, Howard L.

and compensation of islanders, 322, 325, 328–29

and reversion of islands, 273, 275, 283, 304n311

Parsons, Jeff Graham, 209–10, 251, 268–69, 329–31

Peace Park, 406

Peacock, 19, 29

Pearl Harbor, 134–35

and Battle of Iwo Jima, 52, 58, 63, 85

Chichi Jima and, 36

code breaking and, 105

Dobbin and, 45n88

isolationism and, 80

Iwo Jima and, 38

Savory family and, 36

Yamamoto and, 66

Pease, Benjamin, 29, 48n137, 48n139

Peel, Sir Robert, 17, 46n90

Peel Island, 17, 19, 21–23, 29, 46n90, 174, 247, 454. See also Chichi Jima

Peleliu, 73, 112

Pensacola, 112

Perry, Matthew C., 16, 29

in Bay of Edo, 176

Dobbin and, 45n88

Horton and, 27

Narrative of, 24–25

photograph of, 175

Savory and, 36
540

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

strategy of, 20–23

Pesce, Dorothy Richard, 45n73, 201–2, 204

Peters, Richard H., 31

Pfeiffer, Harry F., Jr., 275

PICG. See Pacific Islands Coordinating Group (PICG)

Pierce, Franklin, 45n88

Pillboxes, 64, 71–72, 78

Piracy, 20–21, 27, 47n127, 204

Pletcher, Charles H., 265

Plymouth, 21

Pobst, Frederick A., 205

Poison gas, 89n13

Policy Planning Staff, 150, 245, 379–80

Political Subcommittee, 135–36. See also Advisory Committee on Problems of Foreign Relations

Polka, Mike, 195

Pollock, E. A., 353

Porpoise, 20, 45n73

Port Lloyd, 17, 20, 22–26, 31, 174

Portman, E. L. C., 26

Post-War Programs Committee (PWC), 138–39

Potsdam Conference, 116

Potsdam Declaration, 150

Pownall, Charles A., 185, 198

Price, Charles M., 361n134, 399–400

Price, Willard, 50n179

Price Committee, 327, 361n134

Prisoners of war, 108–19, 121–25

Pruyn, Robert H., 27–28

Puchachin, E. V., 46n90

Pueblo, 421

Purnell, Lewis M., 376, 388, 416, 420
541

Index

PWC. See Post-War Programs Committee (PWC)

Q

Quarles, Donald A., 277–78

Quast, Hendricken Mathijs, 13

R

Radford, Arthur W., 237, 277–78, 281, 287n21, 288n23, 299n229, 302n269

Chichi Jima and, 108, 167n62, 205

Dulles and, 229n126

and nuclear weapons storage, 214

photograph of, 186

in pre-invasion bombing, 112–13

and relocation of islanders to Japan, 167n62

and return of islands, 205–6, 209, 229n126, 237–43, 246–47, 256–57, 264–65

and strategic importance of islands, 206–9, 214

Radio facilities, 36, 104–5, 108, 115, 128n30

Ramsey, DeWitt C., 198

Randolph, 113

Reconnaissance, 54, 61–62, 77, 105, 111, 289n45

Red Cross, 194

Reischauer, Edwin O., 336–37, 339–41, 343–47, 368n299, 382

Religious rites, 349–55

Remusat, Jean-Pierre Abel-, 15, 17, 41n32

Rentschler, A. K., 346

Residual sovereignty, 156, 161, 163, 206, 211, 234, 236, 258, 264, 336, 280321

Resolution, 36

“Reunion of Honor,” 7n11

Reynolds, J. H., 205

Rice, T. G., 205

Rich, Waldon T., 191
542

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Richardson, Robert C., Jr., 56

Richardson Affair, 28

Ridgway, Matthew B., 163, 291n80, 350, 352, 440n199

Riley, Herbert D., 273, 303n301

Rites, religious, 349–55

Rivers, L. Mendel, 399

Rixey, Presley M., 103–4, 108, 116, 118–24, 126n15, 131n114, 194

Robbins, Berton A., Jr., 275, 277, 314

Robertson, Russell, 11, 17, 31, 34, 313

Robertson, Walter S., 211

and compensation of islanders, 311, 313, 315–16, 324

and repatriation of islands, 323

 and reversion of islands, 247, 253–54, 259, 263–64, 269–73, 275, 277–78, 280–81, 285–86, 

297n175, 303n294

and strategic importance of islands, 321–22

Robinson, Arthur G., 124–25

Rockefeller, John D. III, 254

Rockey, Keller E., 59

Roosevelt, Franklin D., 56, 76, 81, 89n13, 99n228, 122, 134–35

Rosario Island, 9n21, 157

Rostow, Walt R., 380, 391–95, 398–99, 438n148

Runnymede, 389

Rusk, Dean, 152, 343–46, 378, 380, 382–83, 386, 390, 392–96, 400, 402, 409–12, 440n198

on Okinawa, 421–22

Russell, G. L., 264

Russell, Richard B., 399

Russia, 15–16, 22, 36. See also Soviet Union

Russo-Japanese War, 105

Ryukyu Islands, 134, 270, 368n299. See also Okinawa

Bonin Islands vs., 240

and Bonin reversion, 380, 387, 392, 406, 417
543

Index

and compensation issue, 254, 256, 311, 313–15, 320, 324, 326–28, 357n40, 358n66

Joint Chiefs of Staff on, 167

in Peace Treaty, 151–53

Perry and, 20–22

property considerations with, 254, 256

return of, 153, 251, 257–58, 274–75, 278, 296n164, 322, 345

strategic importance of, 147, 244–45, 248, 346

in trusteeship, 155–57, 161, 163, 368n299

S

Saga uprising, 30

Saipan

and Bonin Islands Trading Company, 203

ceremonies at, 352

Chichi Jima and, 108

fortification of, 35–36

and Iwo Jima invasion, 108

land value in, 315

resettlement to, 224n18

seizure of, 54

Sakai Saburo, 67–68, 71

Sakai Yoneo, 398

Sakhalin, 30

Sakishima Island, 149

Sakurai Naosaku, 67

Salt Lake City, 112

Sanada Joichiro, 72

Sandwich Islands, 18

San Francisco Peace Treaty, 23, 134–64, 412

San Joaquin County, 408, 460n10

Saratoga, 77, 174
544

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Sasaki Mitsuyoshi, 115

Sato Eisaku, 221, 338, 343–47, 379–81, 385, 391–401, 408, 419–20, 424, 426

Sato Nobuhiro, 15

Satsuma Daimyo, 28

Savory, Frederick, 103, 121–22, 167n62, 193–94, 210–11

Savory, Horace Perry, 31

Savory, Jerry, 193, 196, 198, 203, 209–11, 213, 226n42, 243

Savory, Jimmy, 36

Savory, Lizzie, 193

Savory, Maria, 11, 31–32

Savory, Martha, 203

Savory, Miriam, 36, 193

Savory, Moses, 193

Savory, Nathaniel, 18–19, 21, 26, 31, 36

Savory, Nathaniel (great grandson), 194, 196–97, 209

Savory, Roger, 121, 193

Savory, Samuel, 121

Savory, Simon, 36

Savory, William, 121

Savory, Wilson, 196, 209–10, 243

SCAP. See Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers (SCAP)

Schmidt, Harry, 59–60, 62–64, 74, 79

School, 128n30, 186, 217–18

Schribert, Fred, 98n204

Scott, Robert H., 157

Seabees, 77, 79–80, 86, 203, 207, 449n390

Sea Devil (submarine), 243, 289n46

Searls, Hank, 127n17

Sebald, William J., 152–53, 160, 163, 172n144, 264–65, 270, 296n170

Security Subcommittee, 135–36. See also Advisory Committee on Problems of Foreign Relations

Seikanron, 30
545

Index

Senate Armed Services Committee, 440n198–440n199

Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 440n198

Senda Sadasue, 78–79

Seniavin (Russian warship), 17–18

Seven Points, 151, 153

Seward, William H., 25, 28

Seya Hideyuki, 375

Shaffer, Robert D., 124, 127n16

Sharp, Ulysses S. Grant, 383–84

Shepardson, Mary, 48n139, 103, 126n8, 193, 195, 222

Sheridan, Martin, 198–99

Sherman, Forest P., 57, 204–5, 228n94

Sherman, Frederick C., 112

Sherrod, Robert, 76, 103

Shidehara Kijuro, 235

Shigemitsu Mamoru, 256–58, 261–63, 267, 297n170

Shiina Etsusaburo, 343

Shikoku earthquake, 196

Shikotan Island, 342, 348

Shimamura Sokuo, 105

Shima Shigenobu, 252–53, 260, 265

Shimaya Ichizaemon, 14–15, 26

“Shimoda concept,” 379, 432n38

Shimoda Conference, 381

Shimoda Takezo, 322, 379, 381–84, 388, 420

Shindo Yoshitaka, 94n118

Shirai Masatoki, 350

Shirasu Jiro, 153

Shitayatake-cho Elementary School, 235

Shoveler, 207

Siberia, 339–40, 342
546

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Silver Island, 13

Simpson, Alexander, 19, 22

Smith, Allan E., 112

Smith, Holland M., 52, 58–64, 68–69, 76–78, 100n265

Smith, “Howlin’ Mad,” 90n34

Smith, John, 21

Smith, Margaret Chase, 399

Smith, Walter Bedell, 290n70

Smith, William, 27

Sneider, Richard L., 310, 333, 385, 417, 420

Socialist Party, 311, 337–38, 375, 378, 455–56

Soejima Taneomi, 30

SOFA. See Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)

Sofu Gan, 137, 145, 150

Solomon Islands, 59

Sone Eki, 311

Southern Island, 9n21. See also Marcus Island

Soviet Union

and ancestral grave visits, 339–40, 342–43, 348

entry into World War II, 116

Japanese relations with, normalization of, 271, 273

Kuriles and, 270

in Non-Proliferation Treaty, 391

Northern Islands and, 271

Okinawa and, 206, 209

trusteeship and, 146, 157

at Yalta Conference, 81

Soya Saburo, 113

Spanish-American War, 34

Sparkman, John J., 440n199

Special Committee on the Okinawa Problem, Et Cetera (Okinawa Mondaito ni Kansuru Tokubetsu 
547

Index

Iinkai), 378

Special Okinawa Committee, 432n38

Sperry, 243, 289n44

Spice Islands, 13

Spider traps, 72

Spies, 193

Sprague, Mansfield D., 278, 280–81, 313, 316, 357n47

Spruance, Raymond A., 56–59, 63–64, 91n53, 109, 177

Stafford, David A., 81

Stalin, Joseph, 81

Standish, Robert, 1

Stans, Maurice H., 326

Stapleton Island, 21. See also Ototo Jima

State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee (SWNCC), 138, 143–44, 147–48, 194, 224n18, 226n55, 276

Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), 381, 416–17, 425

Stelle, Charles C., 245

Stennis, John C., 330

Stetenbenz, Jack, 218

Stevens, Edward, 218

Stimson, Henry L., 87

Stipends, for relocation, 32

Stone Age, 4

Strong, George V., 136

Stump, Felix B., 208, 213, 250, 293n107, 303n301, 353–54

Submarines, 99n235

Suganuma Kiyoshi, 310, 328

Sugarcane, 33–34

Suisho Jima, 342

Sullivan, Charles, 287n11

Sulphur Island, Iwo Jima as, 3

Supply (British whaler), 17
548

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers (SCAP), 148, 194–95

Suribachiyama, 4

Susaki Airfield, 106, 127n22, 207

Susquehanna, 20, 174, 176

Sutterlin, James S., 333–36

SWNCC. See State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee (SWNCC)

SWNCC 38/25, 167n48

SWNCC 240/1, 147–48

SWNCC 249/1, 144

T

Tachibana Yoshio, 104, 110–14, 117–19, 121, 125, 183–84

Tada Tokuchi, 73

Takatsuki ( Japanese destroyer), 408

Takeuchi Ryuji, 253, 334, 345

Tamamura Fumio, 114–15

Tanabe Taiichi, 30

Tanaka Hiroto, 254, 269, 271

Tanaka Hiroyuki, 11, 13, 24, 30, 39n4

Tanaka Yuki, 125

Tani Masayuki, 266, 268–71, 278, 300n239

Tarawa, 61, 73, 108, 118. See also Mariana Islands

Tasman, Abel Janszoon, 13

Tatum, Charles W., 55, 76

Taylor, Bayard, 21

Teraki Tadashi, 103–4, 116

Terashima Munenori, 30–31

Territorial Subcommittee (TS), 135–39. See also Advisory Committee on Problems of Foreign Relations

Terry, Calvin D., 109

Thomas, Charles S., 261–63

Thomas, Otis, 76
549

Index

Thomson, James C., Jr., 345, 368n299

Thorndyke, J. R., 205

Timber, 212

Tinian

fortification of, 35–36

invasion of, 59, 111

remains at, 352

resettlement to, 224n18

seizure of, 54

Titsingh, Isaac, 41n32

Togo Fumihiko, 376, 381, 388–90, 401–2, 409, 412, 416, 418–19, 421

Tojo Hideki, 53, 66, 95n128, 266

Tojo Shinko, 15–16

Tokonami Tokuji, 250

Tokugawa Ieyasu, 16

Tokugawa Shogunate, 14, 176. See also Bakufu

Tokyo Prefecture Ogasawara Branch Office, 32

Toledo, 243, 289n43

Torre, Bernardo de la, 11–13, 36

Tower, John G., 440n199

Toyotomi Hideyoshi, 41n24

Trade unions, 272

Train, Harold C., 140

Transit (British whaler), 17

Treaty of Amity and Commerce, 24–25

Treaty of Kanagawa, 24

Trippe, 118

Truman, Harry S., 88, 103, 143–44, 147, 200

Trumbull, Robert, 301n249

Trusteeship, 139, 141–63, 167n51, 368n299

TS. See Territorial Subcommittee (TS)
550

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Tsunami, 43n49, 48n135, 48n141

Tsunezo Wachi, 189

Tsurumi Kiyohiko, 353

Tsushima Yoshitaka, 408

Turner, Richard Kelly, 58, 60, 62–63, 75

Tyler, Burket E., 421

U

Uehara Etsujiro, 249–50

Ueno Haruo, 337

Umezu Yoshijiro, 64

Unions, 272

United Kingdom

Allison in, 157

and Asiatic Society of Japan, 43n54

in Chichi Jima, 17

China and, 19

claim of islands by, 17–18, 22–23, 25, 31, 48n137

colonization by, 18–19

early involvement by, 19–20, 25

Hawaii and, 18

JFK memorial in, 389

Opium War and, 19

and prisoners of war, 125

in Richardson Affair, 28

trusteeship and, 146, 157

whaling by, 4–5, 16–17

in World War I, 105–6

United States. See also Marine Corps; Navy (U.S.)

citizens in Bonin islands, 29

control policy of, 244–49
551

Index

entry into World War II, 134

and “Horton Incident,” 27–28

and Japanese claim to islands, 25–26

Kuribayashi on, 66

Perry and, 16, 20–25, 27, 29, 36, 45n88, 175–76

policy of, in surrender of Japan, 134–48

United States Overseas Military Bases: Report to the President (Nash), 310–11

Urabe Kiyoshi, 71

Ushiba Nobuhiko, 376, 378, 380–81, 409, 420–21, 424

U.S.-Japan Joint Committee, 402, 415

U.S. Marine Corps War Memorial, 254

Utsunomiya Tokuma, 249, 293n102

Uyama Atsushi, 332–36, 340

V

Vandergrift, A. A., 59, 62

van Diemen, Antonio, 13

Vaughn, Warren E., 113–16

Vedder, James S., 83–85

Vietnam War, 379, 383, 385, 392

Villalobos, Ruy López de, 13, 40n5

Volcano Islands. See also Kazan Islands

discovery of, 11–18, 40n5

forced evacuations from, 37

geology of, 4

as Japanese territory, 5

names for, 3

Vries, Maarten Gerritsz de, 41n14

W

Wachi Tsunezo, 38, 51n197, 215, 255, 349–55, 421
552

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Wajima Eiji, 288n34

Wakaizumi Kei, 391–92, 398–99

Wake Island, 117, 248

Wake Island, 80

War crimes, 103–4, 124–25, 126n5, 127n18. See also cannibalism; prisoners of war

Warnke, Paul, 397, 399, 409

Washington, Charles, 195–96

Washington, Frank, 36

Washington, Richard, 36, 121, 196, 209–10, 212, 243

Washington, Rufus, 195

Washington, “Uncle” Charlie, 193, 223

Washington, 64

Washington Post, The (newspaper), 430n15

Washington Treaty, 106

Watanabe Kazan, 15

Watanabe Makoto, 376

Watts, Ethelbert, 242

Weatherby, V. W., 205

Weaver, Phil, 330

Webb, Jesse, 212

Webb, Roderick, 196, 212–13, 243, 298n191

Webb, Thomas H., 21, 26

Weeks Island. See Marcus Island

Weller, Donald M., 62–63

Welles, Sumner, 135–36

Wendt, Waldemar F. A., 344

Whaling, 4–5, 17, 23

Wheeler, Earl G., 380, 394–95

Whitney, Courtney, 150

Wickel, James J., 376

Wilhelm, R. S., 197–98
553

Index

Will, Harry W., 58–59

Williams, Justin, 291n80

Wilson, Charles Erwin, 253, 256, 291n79

Wilson, J. K., Jr., 210

Woellhof, Lloyd Richard, 110, 112

Wolcotts, Dave, 218

World War I, 34, 53, 105–6, 389

World War II. See also Battle of Iwo Jima

Bonin Islands in, 103–25

Chichi Jima and, 35–36, 452

Iwo Jima before, 36–38

lingering feelings about, 340–41

United States entry into, 134

Wright, Ione S., 40n5

Y

Yagi Hide, 408

Yalta Conference, 81

Yamakage Kofuku, 349

Yamamoto Isoroku, 66, 95n130

Yasui Seiichiro, 235

Yasukawa Takeshi, 323

Yokota, George, 218

Yokota Tatsuo, 148, 208, 213, 235, 252, 330, 333, 339

Yome Jima, 3

York, Grady A., 113–14

Yorktown, 109

Yoshida Shien, 348

Yoshida Shigeru, 149, 153–61, 185, 240–41, 249, 251, 253–55, 274, 288n23, 294n131, 295n139, 

389–90

Yoshii Shizuo, 114–15, 125
554

Iwo Jima and the Bonin Islands in U.S. - Japan Relations

Young, Kenneth B., 245–46, 252

Youngs, Maurice F., 351, 353

Z

Zablocki, Clement J., 400

Zurhellen, Owen, Jr., 344, 346–47



About the Author

Robert D. Eldridge, PhD, is the deputy assistant chief of staff, G-7 (Government and External Affairs), Marine Corps Installations Pacific, headquartered at Camp Smedley D. Butler, Okinawa, Japan. He earned his BA 

in international relations at Lynchburg College in Virginia and his MA and 

PhD in political science at Kobe University in Japan, specializing in Japanese 

political and diplomatic history. He was previously a tenured associate professor at the School of International Public Policy, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan, where he taught about U.S.-Japan relations, foreign and security 

policy, and Okinawa issues. From 2004 to 2005, he served as the first-ever 

scholar-in-residence at Marine Corps Forces Pacific, Camp Smith, HI. His 

books include The Origins of the Bilateral Okinawa Problem: Okinawa in Postwar U.S.-Japan Relations, 1945–1952 (Routledge, 2001) and Fighting Spirit: 

The Memoirs of Yoshitaka Horie and the Battle of Okinawa (U.S. Naval Institute 

Press, 2011), translated and coedited with Iwo Jima veteran Chuck Tatum. 

His current work Megaquake: How Japan and the World Should Respond, is 

available from Potomac Books. He is editing a book about the history of the 

Japanese ground self-defense forces and writing a book about the origins of 

the Senkaku Islands dispute.