Talk:Operation Ten-Go

message: "However, the crews at the fuel depot at Tokuyama defied orders and courageously supplied the task force with much more."
'Courageously'? I don't understand military tactics and the such; but how can fuel crews be 'courageous'? 
:Because disobedience was punishable by death? Just a hypothesis. :oS
MWAK--84.27.81.59 15:02, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 0_o Baloogan 03:10, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: That's a good question.  I'll see if I can find a definitive answer. Cla68 (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question. 

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

message: Some idiot wrote that a B-22 hit the Japanese navy with nuclear warheads, and spelt nuclear wrong.  Corrected it as best as I could.  If someone knows what it originally said, please replace what I wrote.
JodoYodo 04:23, Thursday September 14, 2006 (UTC)
:Just revert it to the earlier version, which I'll do now if it hasn't been done already.  This type of thing always happens when an article is featured on Wikipedia's front page. Cla68 06:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Under Audio-Visual it is stated:
"In Harm's Way is a 1965 film which includes a dramatization of the battle from the perspective of American servicemen."
In Harm's Way is thinly veiled, highly fictionalized representation of the later parts of the Solomons Campaign that took place nearly three years before the Ten-Go operation.
I feel that this reference should be removed.
214.3.11.2 13:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Harm's Way? 

message: [S]ome of the Japanese survivors reported that U.S. fighter aircraft machine-gunned Japanese survivors floating in the water.[39] This may have been a war crime or it may have been a legitimate attempt to protect downed U.S. aircrew who were floating in the water nearby awaiting rescue.[40]
To apply the phrase "war crime" with 21st century connotations to actions during WWII is anachronistic and highly inappropriate.  I have no problem with the documentation of facts (my grandfather who served in the Pacific theater has confirmed to me that Japanese POWs were, in fact, shot after surrender).  My problem is using this statement without putting it in context.
(The systematic execution by Canadian forces, in Europe, of captured members of the SS Hitlerjugend division is probably closer to the modern definition of a "war crime" since not every member of this elite unit was invovled in the massacre of captured Canadians in Normandy.  See Keegan, The Second World War.  But how much sympathy can one have for SS men?  Perhaps we should ask Gunter Grass?)
Although there are numerous recorded incidents of captured Japanese soldiers being shot immediately after capture or shortly thereafter.  However, it MUST be noted that many Japanese POWs, even when gravely wounded, attempted to kill or killed and wounded doctors and nurses attending to them, indeed, trying to save their lives.
The race war nature of the Pacific conflict is something that has been very rarely explored, either officially, or by private scholars of either of the two former enemies, now such close Allies.  Such a study would be fascinating since there can be little question that the Pacific War was, in fact, a classic "race war" where quarter was rarely asked and ever more rarely given.  Contrast this with the European theatre where, with some exceptions, the Nazis and the Allies obeyed Geneva Convention restrictions during the conflict (tho' the Germans did not do so on the Eastern Front under the flimsy pretext that the USSR had not signed the Geneva Convention).
Thus, the killing of Japanese POWs was essentially a self-defense measure--especially given that defeat was considered so shameful by Japanese custom that death, if necessary by suicide, was considered by nearly all officers and men to be preferable to surrender.  This attitude, in part, explains, but cannot excuse, the terrible crimes committed against Allied POWs and civilians under Japanese occupation.
Anyone seeking further information on Japanese atrocities should definitely get a copy of
 Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes in World War II by Yuki Tanaka, a Japanese historian, resident in Australia (not surprisingly since it is not unknown for Japan's tiny, extreme nationalist groups to intimidate, to the point of firing shots at the houses of, Japanese scholars who publish the truth of the military clique's almost unbelievable crimes against humanity.
The author does make a limp attempt to link Japanese crimes to the use of atomic bombs by the United States to end the war.  But this is typical of Japanese WWII scholars.  The Japanese establishment has successfully inculcated the idea that Imperial Japan was a victim and not a purpetrator of horrors beyond imagination.
--->Be warned this book is NOT for those with a weak stomach or for kids.  Tanaka documents the Japanese military's pre-planned use of cannabalism to feed troops that could not otherwise be supplied with food.  And not just of enemy POWs but even low-ranking Japanese enlisted men.
Bottom line: discussion of atrocities, whether Axis or Allied really do not have a place in article concerned strictly with a battle.
PainMan 19:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable assertion 

message: Was wondering if you could answer a quick question for me.  Were any of the units involved US Marine Corps VMSB or VMTB squadrons?  I know some of them were operating from escort carriers and were land based on Oki at the time.  Did not know if any went north to participate in this.  Thanks.--203.10.224.59 23:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for not trying to answer this sooner.  Spurr's book (listed in the references) contains information on which U.S. squadrons were involved and I don't currently have that book in front of me.  If I get a chance to look at it I'll post what I find here. Cla68 (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Question on squadrons involved

message: :By spring 1945...
This ambiguous poetic wording has no place in an encyclopedia with a worldwide audience. The word "spring" can be interpreted differently depending on the hemisphere of the reader. This should be reworded using unambiguous wording, like "April 1945". Someone with good knowledge in this area should make the amendment from information contained in primary references just in case "April" is not the correct month. --B.d.mills 09:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to "...early 1945..." CLA 18:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While your edit was fine, it was unnecessary as B.d.mills objection is absolute rubbish - this is the ENGLISH Wikipedia, and everyone knows what the four seasons are.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.8.107 (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  When 

message: I read in an old text by E. B. Potter that Admiral Spruance had ordered Admiral Deyo's force of old battleships to deal with Yamato, but Mitchner launched strikes anyways without Spruance's consent. Can anyone confirm this? If so it should be mentioned in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallan007 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Potter's book on Arleigh Burke goes into this, because it was actually Burke (Mitscher's subordinate) who ordered and coordinated the U.S. carrier air attacks in Mitscher's name as Mitscher was ill.  As soon as I have a chance I'll look it up and see what actually happened.  This article currently doesn't represent the U.S. side of the battle very well which I hope to eventually rectify. Cla68 (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The exchange with Spruance took place after the strikes were already in the air, and well after RS' orders to Deyo's TF 54. Solicitr (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mitchner's Orders? 

message: I noticed in the info window at the top right of the page that the Japanese commanders are listed family name last as in western texts however the Japanese names in the paragraphs are sometimes family first and sometimes family name last. Being that they are Japanese names would it not be right for all to have family name first or since it is an English article have family name last? I feel it should be one or the other but not both. Ltsgosrfn (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style continuity 

message: I notice that many editors place the phrase "Decisive so-and-so victory" in the infobox for articles such as this one in which one side won a lopsided victory.  From what I understand, though, this is an incorrect use of the word "decisive" in this context.  "Decisive" is supposed to be used to describe a battle that directly and significantly decided the overall outcome of a war or campaign.  I don't think this battle was the deciding event in the Battle of Okinawa, the Ryukyu campaign, or the Pacific War in general. Cla68 (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, that is an incorrect understanding of the meaning of the phrase "decisive victory". A battle can be tactically decisive but strategically unimportant (the Battle of New Orleans springs to mind, Americans trounced the Brits, after the War of 1812 was over, didn't matter. Being decisive is when one side so is clearly and unquestionably the winner, sometimes it is quite questionable who won, such as the Battle of Jutland, or a battle is so damaging to win that it is questionable that the winner won, those are Pyrrhic Victories named after the "victories" that Pyrrhus won at Heraclea and Asculum that so devastated his own army that it couldn't function properly anymore, letting the Romans go unchallenged in the future and take the Greek states in Italy he had been defending. Iwo Jima is another decent example, the Americans suffered more casualties taking that stupid rock than they were up against, 26000 casualties against 21060 or fewer Japanese troops. That one served no strategic goals, cratering the runways would have done the same thing, not that they had much in the way of airplanes anyways. Most battles are less pronounced, there's some fighting, some casualties and one side withdraws before it loses too much, the battle is not inconclusive because one side won, but the other side is still in good shape to keep fighting, preferably from a better location. The traditional greatest example of a decisive battle is the Battle of Cannae, in which Hannibal Barca led 50K against 80K and lost 5K while killing or capturing 80K, less than 2000 Romans were able to withdraw from that battle. Somewhat interestingly success forced him to split up his army to defend multiple states that switched from supporting the Romans to Carthage, a somewhat Pyrrhic like effect (and actually the some of the same cities he had been defending), leading to his eventual loss of the war. Ten-Go was decisive because there is no question that the Imperial Japanese Navy lost it, no goals were accomplished and everything significant was lost. 142.117.73.161 (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Decisive" victory 

message: Aren't the 10 kikusui of the battle of Okinawa part of Ten-gō sakusen ? This article latest version do not mention them but the sources are contradictory on this. Some consider kikusui as the main part of operation Heaven One, which sounds logical considering the name and the fact that the suicide mission of the Yamato was improvised following emperor Shōwa's late order. --Flying tiger (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right that this article could use additional detail, especially on the American side.  If you have the sources to adequately cite the additional material, please feel free to add it. Cla68 (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

text: That's not so easy. Some publications claims Ten-gó as part of Kikusui no.1, and some claims Kikusui to be part of Ten-gó. --Sceadugenga (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there were two battleship forces.  The "battle line" (TG 54.5) of Deyo's Bombardment Force (TF 54) comprised the WWI-era Idaho, New Mexico, Tennessee, West Virginia, Maryland, and Colorado (of which only WeeVee had been sunk at Pearl; Maryland and Tennessee were lightly damaged and the others weren't there).  Subsequent to Mitscher (really Burke) launching the air strikes, Spruance ordered Deyo to take over a force of heavy surface units detached from TF 58, the fast carrier force; this was the group of fast BBs plus the Alaskas listed in the article. Not sure why command wasn't given to Willis Lee. Solicitr (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kikusui 

message: Is that true? 94.174.113.31 (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Largest suicide mission in history"? 

message: This article has a star and is already fairly long. Is there any objection to adding the names of the eight Japanese destroyers? For example, in section "Prelude" At 16:00 on 6 April, Yamato, with Admiral Itō on board, the light cruiser Yahagi and eight destroyers (Fuyutsuki, Suzutsuki, Isokaze, Hamazake,  Yukikaze, Asashimo, Kasumi, and Hatsushimo) departed Tokuyama to begin the mission. Vagabond nanoda (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese destroyer names 

message: This article is titled "Operation Ten-Go" and links to the Japanese article of the same name, which (accessed 2021.01.30) is entirely different: does not mention "Yamato" (大和) even once. Possibly a separate article has been split off from the original "Ten-Go" article, namely 「坊ノ岬沖海戦」(Boh no Misaki Kaisen "Battle of Cape Boh"). I don't know how to change links. Maybe something should be said in the first paragraph about the name that Japanese actually use for this battle. The Japanese article for "Operation Ten-Go" is poorly written (the one-sentence lead just says "an operation plan of the Japanese military during the last phase of the Pacific War"), and is more about operational planning than the actual battles (separate articles); it does not even have a link to the "Boh no Misaki Kaisen". I am not suggesting that this article needs to be renamed or rewritten, but the link to the Japanese wiki should be changed. Vagabond nanoda (talk) 09:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Ten-Go vs Bonomisaki (coordination with Japanese wiki) 

message: Oops I forgot to write an edit summary in this edit, so I will write it here now: "Added flagicons and fixed a few things in the infobox" Poopykibble (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  forgot to write an edit summary