Okinawa marks 80 years since end of one of harshest WWII battles with pledge to share tragic history
TOKYO: Okinawa marked the 80th anniversary of the end of one of the harshest battles of World War II fought on the southern island.
With global tensions escalating, its governor said on Monday it is the Okinawan 'mission' to keep telling the tragic history and its impact today.
The Battle of Okinawa killed a quarter of the island's population, leading to a 27-year US occupation and a heavy American troop presence to date.
Monday's memorial comes one day after US attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, adding to a sense of uncertainty on the island about the heavy American military presence and in its remote islands, already worried about getting embroiled in a potential conflict in Taiwan.
Gov. Denny Tamaki, noting the escalating global conflicts and nuclear threats, made a resolve to contribute to global peace studies, disarmament and the preservation of war remains. 'It is our mission, as those living in the present, to preserve and pass on the reality and lessons to future generations.'
Fierce battle and civilian deaths
US troops landed on the main Okinawa island on April 1, 1945, beginning a battle in their push toward mainland Japan.
The Battle of Okinawa lasted nearly three months, killing some 200,000 people — about 12,000 Americans and more than 188,000 Japanese, half of them Okinawan civilians including students and victims forced into mass suicides by Japan's military.
Okinawa was sacrificed by Japan's Imperial Army to defend the mainland, historians say. The island group remained under US occupation until its reversion in 1972, two decades longer than most of Japan.
Monday's memorial was held at the Mabuni Hill in Itoman City, where the remains of most of the war dead reside.
Remembering the tragedy
Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba was in a hot seat when he attended Monday's ceremony. Weeks earlier, one of his ruling party lawmakers Shoji Nishida, known for whitewashing Japan's wartime atrocities, denounced an inscription on a famous cenotaph dedicated to students as 'rewriting history' by portraying the Japanese army as having caused their deaths, while Americans liberated Okinawa. Nishida also called Okinawa's history education 'a mess.'
His remark triggered an uproar in Okinawa, forcing Ishiba days later to apologize to the island's governor, who had criticized the remark as outrageous and distorting history.
The Himeyuri Cenotaph commemorates student nurses who were abandoned near the end of the battle and killed, some in group suicides with teachers. Japan's wartime military told the people never to surrender to the enemy, or die.
Nishida's remarks add to concerns about the whitewashing of Japan's embarrassing wartime past as memories of the tragedy fade and ignorance about the suffering grows.
Ishiba, at Monday's memorial, said Japan's peace and prosperity is built on the sacrifices of Okinawa's history of hardship and that it is the government's responsibility to 'devote ourselves to achieve a peaceful and prosperous Okinawa.'
Postwar years and growing fear
Okinawa remained under US occupation from 1945 until the 1972 reversion to Japan. The US military maintains a heavy presence there due to Okinawa's strategic importance for security in the Pacific. Their presence serves not only to help defend Japan but also for missions elsewhere, including in the South China Sea and the Middle East.
Private properties were confiscated to build US bases, and the base-dependent economy has hampered the growth of local industry.
Fear of a Taiwan conflict rekindles bitter memories of the Battle of Okinawa. Historians and many residents say Okinawa was used as a pawn to save mainland Japan.
There are also ancient tensions between Okinawa and the Japanese mainland, which annexed the islands, formerly the independent kingdom of the Ryukus, in 1879.
Burden of history
Okinawa remains home to the majority of about 50,000 US troops stationed in Japan under a bilateral security pact. The island, which accounts for only 0.6 percent of Japanese land, hosts 70 percent of US military facilities.
Even 53 years after its reversion to Japan, Okinawa is burdened with the heavy US presence and faces noise, pollution, aircraft accidents and crime related to American troops, the governor said.
Nearly 2,000 tons of unexploded US bombs remain in Okinawa, with some regularly dug up. A recent explosion at a storage site at a US military base caused minor injuries to four Japanese soldiers.
Remains of hundreds of war dead are still unrecovered on Okinawa, as the government's search and identification effort is slow to make progress.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
an hour ago
- Al Arabiya
Israel says only gates of Tehran's Evin prison were targeted
Israel targeted only the gates of Tehran's Evin prison and did not strike the main prison complex, an Israeli official tells Al Arabiya English. Developing
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
Pakistan's top security body backs Iran's right to self-defense after US, Israeli strikes
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan's National Security Committee (NSC), which comprises top civilian and military leaders, has reaffirmed its support for Iran's right to self-defense, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif's office said on Monday, after United States and Israeli strikes on Iran. The statement came a day after US attacks on three Iranian nuclear sites, joining Israel in the biggest Western military action against the Islamic Republic since its 1979 revolution. As the strikes raised fears of a wider conflict in the already volatile region, Russia, China and Pakistan have urged the United Nations Security Council to adopt a resolution calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in the Middle East. On Monday, Pakistan PM Sharif presided over an NSC meeting to review the evolving regional situation and condemned Israeli attacks on Iran, which it said coincided with a constructive negotiation process between Iran and the United States. 'These reckless actions have escalated tensions, threatening to ignite a wider conflict and diminishing the opportunities for dialogue and diplomacy,' Sharif's office said in a statement after the meeting. 'The NSC reaffirmed Iran's right to self-defense as enshrined in the UN Charter.' The NSC expressed grave concern over the potential for further escalation after the attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan by the US, reiterating that they violated the resolutions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), relevant international law, and the UN Charter. The forum reaffirmed Pakistan's readiness to continue efforts to promote regional peace and stability and called on all parties to resolve the conflict through dialogue and diplomacy. Tensions between Tehran and Tel Aviv initially flared on June 13 when Israel launched airstrikes against what it described as Iran's military leadership and nuclear infrastructure. Both sides traded missiles on Monday in fresh strikes. In a separate development, Pakistan PM Sharif spoke with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Monday afternoon — their second telephonic call in less than 48 hours. 'The Prime Minister conveyed Pakistan's condemnation of the US attacks, which followed Israel's unprovoked and unjustified aggression,' Sharif's office said. 'He reaffirmed Pakistan's unwavering solidarity with the brotherly people and Government of Iran.' The prime minister expressed concerns that the US strikes had targeted Iranian facilities that were under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), constituting a 'serious violation of international law and the IAEA Statute.' 'While noting Iran's right to self-defense, as enshrined under Article 51 of the UN Charter, the Prime Minister stressed upon the need to immediately return to dialogue and diplomacy as the only viable path forward,' the statement read. 'He also called for urgent collective efforts to de-escalate the situation.' Earlier on Monday, Pakistan's UN Ambassador Asim Iftikhar Ahmad called on the Security Council to act 'urgently and decisively,' warning against the danger posed to the populations of the region as the war intensifies. Experts warn Pakistan, which shares a 900-kilometer porous border with Iran in its southwestern region prone to separatist militancy and cross-border attacks, will face additional security and economic challenges due to the worsening conflict between Tehran and Tel Aviv. Surging global oil prices due to the worsening conflict will cause economic setbacks for Pakistan, which relies on expensive fuel imports for its energy demands, according to financial analysts. Islamabad is already grappling with a macroeconomic crisis amid a precarious balance of payment position. The crisis also raises questions about how Islamabad will navigate its delicate balancing act between Iran, other Gulf partners, and the US, which remains one of Pakistan's largest trading partners and a critical source of military and economic assistance.
Al Arabiya
2 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Will the Iranian government surrender?
As the war between Israel and Iran intensifies, a seismic shift has emerged in the rhetoric of world leaders and the trajectory of the conflict. US President Donald Trump issued a stark and sweeping demand: Iran must surrender unconditionally. The demand, made publicly during a press conference at the White House, draws on growing speculation that the Iranian government may be nearing the end of its capacity to fight a prolonged war. That speculation has only intensified following a major escalation: the United States has now formally joined Israel in direct military action, launching coordinated airstrikes against three of Iran's most sensitive and fortified nuclear sites – Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow. The attack marks a significant turning point in the conflict, signaling a unified Western resolve to eliminate Iran's nuclear infrastructure and weaken its military-industrial backbone. Israel, for its part, has gained a clear edge in the ongoing hostilities. Within days of the initial exchange of fire, the Israeli military had not only asserted aerial superiority but also inflicted severe damage on Iran's military infrastructure. Airstrikes have decimated command centers, missile stockpiles, and key nuclear sites that once stood at the heart of Iran's defense doctrine. The joint US-Israeli assault on Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow sent an unmistakable message: The international patience with Iran's nuclear ambitions has run out, and the gloves are off. More shockingly, several of Iran's top military leaders – figures considered irreplaceable by many analysts – have been killed in the campaign. The effectiveness of Israel's offensive, now bolstered by US involvement, has led some observers to wonder: Is this the beginning of the end for the Islamic Republic? And if so, will Iran's leadership actually surrender? In many wars, especially those that reach a point of severe imbalance, the conclusion comes not through negotiated settlements but through one-sided surrenders. This pattern of collapse is often followed by either a peace agreement, a political transition, or a complete restructuring of governance. The logic of war would suggest that Iran, overwhelmed by superior firepower, international isolation, and internal decay, should ultimately throw in the towel. But when it comes to the Islamic Republic, things are not so simple. For many reasons – political, psychological, and existential – Iran's government is unlikely to surrender. In fact, it is more probable that the leadership will choose to fight to the bitter end, even if the battlefield is reduced to shadows, bunkers, and ruins. One of the most significant reasons Iran's ruling elite will resist surrender is fear – fear of what might follow their collapse. Over the past decade, the Islamic Republic has been rocked by some of the largest, most sustained protest movements in its history. Millions of Iranians have poured into the streets demanding justice, economic reform, an end to corruption, and a complete dismantling of the clerical establishment. From the 2019 protests over fuel prices to the nationwide uprising following the death of Mahsa Amini in 2022, Iran's streets became a recurring theater of revolt. In such a climate of public anger and mistrust, the ruling class knows that any surrender could open the floodgates to retribution. If the government collapses, the Iranian people – or the transitional government that follows – may seek to hold top officials accountable. Crimes against humanity, corruption, human rights violations, and political repression could all come under scrutiny in a post-government Iran. The prospect of facing international tribunals or even domestic trials is enough to make surrender unthinkable for those currently in power. They understand that stepping down might not just mean the loss of office, but the loss of their freedom – or even their lives. Adding to this paranoia is the reality that there are few viable exit routes available to Iran's ruling elite. While some might think these are the places Iranian leaders can flee to – countries like Russia, Venezuela, or Cuba – these supposed sanctuaries are far from secure. Russia, embroiled in its own international isolation and economic decline, may not have the capacity or willingness to indefinitely host high-profile fugitives from Iran. Latin American nations, while sympathetic to anti-American governments, have their own political instabilities to contend with. Moreover, even if Iran's leaders do manage to flee, there's always the looming risk of extradition. If a new Iranian government emerges and establishes diplomatic ties with the West, it could easily demand the return of former officials to stand trial. Life in exile, then, would likely be a shaky and paranoid existence – not the dignified retirement that many political elites might envision for themselves. Faced with these bleak prospects, Iran's leadership may instead seek to cling to power by disappearing into the shadows. Rather than formally surrendering, the government could fracture into a loosely connected network of bunkers, loyalist militias, and underground command centers. From these hiding places, they could continue to rule – albeit weakly – over a disintegrating country. In such a scenario, the Iranian state would effectively become a ghost government, battered by war but still refusing to admit defeat. Israel, meanwhile, seems poised to continue its campaign of degrading Iran's military and nuclear capabilities. With air superiority already established, the Israeli Air Force can now operate with relative impunity over Iranian skies. Each passing day brings more missile strikes, more military targets reduced to rubble, and deeper damage to Iran's infrastructure. The addition of US firepower – especially the high-precision targeting of critical nuclear facilities at Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow – has amplified the scale and intensity of the assault. These coordinated strikes have not only crippled Iran's nuclear advancement but also served to isolate the regime further on the international stage. Iran's leaders are likely betting that this air war will remain limited in scope. They may believe that as long as the conflict does not descend into a ground war, they can survive the onslaught. Their strategy, it seems, is to endure, absorb the damage, and hope that international diplomacy or domestic resilience can offer them a way back from the brink. This is a gamble, of course – but one that similar governments have made before. The leadership may calculate that it is better to be weak but in power than to surrender and risk annihilation. A model they may be looking at is Hezbollah in 2025. Despite Israel's intensive air campaign that has severely damaged Hezbollah's weapons stockpiles, command centers, and missile infrastructure in southern Lebanon, the group has not been eliminated. A weakened but still intact Hezbollah remains embedded within the Lebanese political and social structure, continuing to function as both a militia and a political actor. Iran's leaders may be drawing parallels from this outcome. Even after suffering immense military losses, Hezbollah endures – and that endurance might offer Iran a psychological and strategic template. The thinking may be that if Hezbollah can survive relentless Israeli assaults and retain some form of operational and political presence, then perhaps the Islamic Republic, even in a debilitated state, can also weather the storm and rebuild over time. But the comparison only goes so far. Unlike Hezbollah, Iran is a state – with embassies, a currency, critical infrastructure, and a deeply embedded security apparatus. The fall of Iran's central authority would unleash a level of chaos that Hezbollah never had to contend with. From separatist movements to tribal rivalries to economic collapse, the unraveling of Iran would be immense. This, too, informs the government's thinking. By continuing to fight, even in diminished form, they maintain a grip – however tenuous – on the direction of the country. Surrender, on the other hand, means handing the wheel to forces that may be hostile, chaotic, or revolutionary. In the end, Iran's government may very well continue to fight – not because it believes it can win, but because it might see surrender as worse. The government sees the future in stark terms: fight and possibly survive, or surrender and face oblivion. And given that calculus, the outcome appears inevitable. The Islamic Republic, like several similar governments before it, will most likely choose defiance over defeat, even if it means ruling over rubble. For now, the war grinds on. Missiles fall, airstrikes roar, and civilians brace for whatever comes next. The recent US-Israeli joint strikes on Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow have dealt a devastating blow to Iran's nuclear ambitions, yet the regime remains unbowed. Whether that refusal leads to prolonged devastation or a final reckoning remains to be seen. But one thing is increasingly clear: the Iranian government does not seem to be surrendering anytime soon.
