Get Task & Purpose in your inbox
How The US Suffered 300 Casualties Storming An Empty Island In WWII
On Aug. 15, 1943, a massive Allied force assaulted a North Pacific island at the height of World War II. A joint force of 34,000 American and Canadian troops, supported by warplanes and naval bombardment, moved inland through frigid and unforgiving terrain searching for occupying Japanese forces.
By the end of the second day, 300 Allied soldiers lay dead or wounded. However, there wasn’t a Japanese soldier in sight. The island had been evacuated three weeks prior. It was completely deserted.
Called Operation Cottage, the goal of the amphibious assault was to retake the small volcanic island of Kiska, one of 14 that make up Alaska’s Aleutian islands, from Japan. Ahead of the attack, the Allies shelled and bombed Kiska island, but on July 28, a small Japanese task force penetrated the blockade under the cover of heavy fog and extracted more than 5,000 Japanese soldiers from the small volcanic island in less than an hour.
So how then, did an unopposed amphibious assault result in hundreds of casualties?
On Aug. 18, the Navy destroyer Amner Read struck a mine in Kiska Harbor, killing 70 sailors and wounding 47 more, according to Del Kostka who has written extensively about the Aleutian Island Campaign. Other casualties occurred due to friendly fire, vehicle accidents, landmines, and booby traps. In total, Operation Cottage resulted in 92 deaths and a further 221 wounded, some grievously.
To understand what happened on Kiska island it’s important to look back to May of that year when Allied forces launched an amphibious assault against another Japanese stronghold on a different Aleutian Island called Attu.
Caption: A U.S. Army image depicting the territory under Japanese military control during World War II.
On May 10, 1943, Operation Landcrab was set in motion. Allied forces assaulted Attu island, where the Japanese were hurriedly building an airfield to serve as a buffer between U.S. forces and mainland Japan.
The mission was to retake Attu from the occupying forces, and though it was ultimately successful, of the 16,000 Allied troops fighting on Attu, 3,829 became casualties, including 549 killed in action. Of the 2,650 Japanese soldiers stationed on Attu, all but 29 fought to the death, notes Kostka whose father served as an engineer during the battle to take Attu.
Attu, Aleutian Island. Soldiers hurling their trench mortar shells over a ridge into a Japanese position.U.S. Navy photo
It was with the battle for Attu in mind that so many troops were ordered to retake Kiska, the last enemy stronghold on North American soil, which the Japanese had held since June 7, 1942. The allies expected to encounter an entrenched enemy force, one which had proved time and time again that every foot of ground gained would cost numerous lives.
“I think the biggest takeaway is not to always trust everything you see,” said Kostka of Operation Cottage in an interview with Task & Purpose. “Sometimes, appearances can be deceptive, and our own personal bias can kind of lead us astray when it comes to interpreting the motivation and the predictive course of action of others.”
American military brass anticipated that the Japanese defenders would retreat inland where they could fire with impunity on the landing parties, as they had on Attu, even though reconnaissance reports showed no enemy activity on the island leading up to the amphibious assault.
“That the Allied staff might have had an unrealistic impression of Japanese resilience and fortitude in August 1943 is understandable given the context of prior events in the Pacific,” wrote Kostka. “Japan’s samurai heritage and code of ethics known as bushido fueled a stereotype of a warrior culture steeped in obedience, discipline, and staunch revulsion to surrender. The intensity and savagery of the fighting on Attu only served to reinforce this image.”
Though the fight for Attu certainly informed the decisions of Allied commanders, it also had an effect on the Japan’s military leaders, who did not wish to see a repeat of Attu on Kiska.
“The decision to evacuate the Kiska garrison was not taken lightly,” Kostka wrote. “But even the most aggressive Japanese commanders realized that Japan’s hold on Kiska was pointless, and manpower was badly needed elsewhere in the Pacific.”
By the time the Allied forces attacked Kiska in full force on Aug. 15, the island was empty, with the exception of a few stray dogs. Though Kiska was ultimately recaptured it came at great cost and serves as a cautionary tale of the effects of perception and assumption explained Kostka. It also serves to show that no military operation is ever without risk.
The Air Force's top general says one of the designers of the ride-sharing app Uber is helping the branch build a new data-sharing network that the Air Force hopes will help service branches work together to detect and destroy targets.
The network, which the Air Force is calling the advanced battle management system (ABMS), would function a bit like the artificial intelligence construct Cortana from Halo, who identifies enemy ships and the nearest assets to destroy them at machine speed, so all the fleshy humans need to do is give a nod of approval before resuming their pipe-smoking.
An F-15 is rocking a WWII paint job to honor a B-17 pilot who gave his life to save a wounded crewman
An F-15C Eagle is sporting a badass World War II-era paint job in honor of a fallen bomber pilot who gave everything to ensure his men survived a deadly battle.
A U.S. E-11A Battlefield Airborne Communications Node aircraft crashed on Monday on Afghanistan, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein has confirmed.
Beloved basketball legend Kobe Bryant, his daughter, and seven other people were killed in a helicopter crash in Calabasas, California on Sunday. Two days earlier, Army Spc. Antonio I. Moore was killed during a vehicle rollover accident while conducting route clearing operations in Syria.
Which one more deserves your grief and mourning? According to Maj. Gen. John R. Evans, commander of the U.S. Army Cadet Command, you only have enough energy for one.
After 70 years, service members are finally filing medical malpractice claims against the US military
Jessica Purcell, a captain in the U.S. Army Reserve, was pregnant with her first child when she noticed a swollen lymph node in her left underarm.
Health-care providers at a MacDill Air Force Base clinic told her it was likely an infection or something related to pregnancy hormones. The following year they determined the issue had resolved itself.
It hadn't. A doctor off base found a large mass in her underarm and gave her a shocking diagnosis: stage 2 breast cancer.
Purcell was pregnant again. Her daughter had just turned 1. She was 35. And she had no right to sue for malpractice.
A 1950 Supreme Court ruling known as the Feres doctrine prohibits military members like Purcell from filing a lawsuit against the federal government for any injuries suffered while on active duty. That includes injury in combat, but also rape and medical malpractice, such as missing a cancer diagnosis.
Thanks in part to Tampa lawyer Natalie Khawam, a provision in this year's national defense budget allows those in active duty to file medical malpractice claims against the government for the first time since the Feres case.
With the Department of Defense overseeing the new claims process, the question now is how fairly and timely complaints will be judged. And whether, in the long run, this new move will help growing efforts to overturn the ruling and allow active duty members to sue like everyone else.