Talk:Takeo Kurita

Truth or cover-up?

“Kurita was a dedicated officer and hoped for a glorious death in battle, but like Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, not one in vain. Like Yamamoto, Kurita believed that for a captain to “go down with his ship” was a wasteful loss of valuable naval experience and leadership.”

I’ve been accused of being too apologetic and too harsh on our former enemies in regards to these ww2 articles. However here I’d disagree with the author. Firstly, although admittedly only English historian accounts, Kurita was credited by our commanders for thankfully turning around or not following through on missions/attacks especially in Guadalcanal. Secondly, Yamamoto did die in vain, he was assassinated in his air transports touring the troops against his staff wishes by a squadron of our P38s that were alerted by our codebreakers when and where to shoot him down.

“When ordered by Admiral Soemu Toyoda to take his fleet through the San Bernardino Strait in the central Philippines and attack the American landings at Leyte, Kurita thought the effort a waste of ships and lives, especially since he could not get his fleet to Leyte Gulf until after the landings, leaving little more than empty transports for his huge battleships to attack. He bitterly resented his superiors, who, while safe in bunkers in Tokyo, ordered Kurita to fight to the death against hopeless odds and without air cover.”

This is directly contrary to the quotes of the speeches he gave his staff and crews. I quote: "I know that many of you are strongly opposed to this assignment. But the war situation is far more critical than any of you can possibly know. Would it not be a shame to have the fleet remain intact while our nation perishes? I believe that Imperial General Head-quarters is giving us a glorious opportunity. Because I realize how very serious the war situation actually is, I am willing to accept this ultimate assignment to storm into Leyte Gulf. You must all remember that there are such things as miracles. What man can say that there is no chance for our fleet to turn the tide of the war in a decisive battle? We shall have a chance to meet our enemies. We shall engage his taks forces. I hope that you will not carry out your duties lightly. I know you will act faithfully and well.”Japanese High Sea Fleet; Richard Humble (Ballantine, New York)

In fact, a neat compilation of western historian’s in Tsouras’ “An Alternate History of the Pacific War: Rising Sun Victorious; it could have happened …and nearly did.”…points out that even with Nishimura’s and Shima’s obliterations, and our continued valiant destroyer and 600 plane raids, that Kurita’s half-force could still have wiped out his objective, our invasion fleet packed like sardines impossible to miss in Leyte Gulf, and STILL got away as well.

The fact seems to be that Kurita had the same failing of Halsey, self-promoting glory-seeking reputation to sink enemy carriers, even if they weren’t the main objective.

Kurita, who’s combat career had been full of escorting and covering invasion fleets, knew full well how ireplaceable this specialised shipping was. You might as well say it’s not worth sinking the aircraft carrier if all the planes aren’t still on board. In fact, it turned out the airfield material they needed to create Henderson-field type airfields vital for the invasion to succeed just like it was at Guadalcanal, were still on the invasion fleet. Even if it weren’t, he knew why the invasion fleet and not the carriers, were the only objective given in Toyoda’s plan. MacArthur himself said if he lost that invasion fleet it would set back his abilities to advance in the Pacific at least a year and endanger the existing beachhead.

“While his fleet was enroute from Brunei, Kurita's ships were attacked by two American submarines, which sunk two cruisers (Atago and Maya) in the Palawan Passage. Kurita in the flagship Atago was forced to transfer to Yamato. While in the confines of the Sibuyan Sea and approaching the San Bernardino Strait, he was again attacked by US carrier planes which damaged several other ships, including Yamato. Constant air attacks from Admiral William "Bull" Halsey's US Third Fleet scored a number of torpedo and dive bomber hits on the Yamato, mortally wounding Musashi, and scoring a number of hits on other vessels. These attacks caused Kurita to call off his attack and turn his fleet west away from Leyte Gulf.”

This statement belies the fact that Kurita was being criticised by his own even before spotted by luck by US subs that should have been detected and blocked from sighting and reporting the fleet details because from start to finish Kurita was criticised for ordering the exact wrong formations for circumstances presented. He did have Oshima's couple of hundred planes that even if not valuable as fighter cap should have been ordered up to scan for air and submarine recons in the fleet path, but he refused to take SOP(standard operating procedure) precautions to the confusion of commmanders and historians of any navy to this day.

In fact, despite a great submarine torpedo salvo that luckily sunk his own flagship forcing him to literally swim for it himself, all of Halsey's properly equipped planes(unlike Kinkaids/Spragues) sank fewer ships than expected despite and like the Bismark, it now appears the Musashi was scuttled herself after surviving being picked on for over 4 hours to the point she was still steaming with her deck under-water only turrets above. The point here is that the Japanese weren't the only ones guilty of exaggeration and we thought we sank alot more than we did. But with Kurita turning to flee, it is also why Halsey felt Kurita was finished as a threat too. This is why, when Halsey did fall for Ozawa's sacrificial diversion, Kurita was given the planned for opportunity after-all.

The statement also belies the fact that like Nishimura, who was, by some accounts, on a suicidal vengeance mindset since the death of his son; these old admirals were chosen not so much on their merits or victories, but because of their political maneuverings and influence, one wanting to die(Nishimura) refusing to cooperate with Shima(they hated eachother), one wanting redemption(Ozawa, who didn't insist on going down with his ship as this author correctly points out as a major failing of the IJN mindset) and one wanting glory(Kurita). None the most experienced up and coming younger ww2 IJN admirals. All the ‘old guard’ or ‘good old boys club’.

“Admiral Kurita thought he had chanced upon the carriers of the American Third Fleet and ordered his battleships to open fire, including the Yamato's 18-inch guns. Kurita's forces mauled the American ships, sinking two of the small carriers, two destroyers, including the USS Johnston, commanded by Captain Ernest E. Evans. But the planes from Taffy 3 and Taffy 2, stationed farther south, fought back, and although the American destroyers had only 5-inch guns they attacked and laid smoke.”

Again western naval experts and historians don’t buy Kurita’s and his staff ‘cover-ups’ of them thinking they were engaging Halsey’s fleet. The fact that his ships were over-taking the enemy carriers was proof they were the 19 knot Taffee not 31 knot fast-strike carriers like Essex and lack of battleships or cruisers further proof.

But that doesn’t matter. The article misses the entire point of Toyoda’s plan and Kurita’s own speech. The target of the battle was not the American aircraft carriers, but the invasion fleet transports themselves, far far harder to replace. Imagine D-Day if the invasion fleet went back to England on June 7th and never returned. Our beachhead would never have broken out.

Contrary to the apologetic implications(and we did the same thing apologizing for Halsey’s actions), Kurita knew full well that the destruction of the transport fleet was more important to Japan’s defense than all of Kinkaid’s and Spragues Escort carriers combined. Kurita had been in charge of covering such transport fleets from the very beginning of the war, from Java Sea to Midway to Guadalcanal where he knew our ability to land ten times more men and heavy equipment with proper invasion transports than his Tokyo Express is what won us Guadalcanal. MacArthur himself said if Kurita had done his job, it would have paralyzed future island-hopping operations in the Pacific for at least another year. Toland’s “The Rising Sun”, Wilmott’s “the Battle of Leyte Gulf” and Meirion’s “Soldiers of the Sun”.

“This meant there were more than one thousand attack planes available to battle Kurita's fleet, which had no air cover. Kurita's retreat saved Yamato and the remainder of the IJN 2nd Fleet from certain destruction.”

That doesn’t quash with Kurita’s own post-war excuse that he was charging north to engage Halsey’s more dangerous carrier fleet, especially since he also claimed he was already engaging it all day to the south-west anyways. Despite suffering 600 planes all morning, Kurita was suffering at least as much damage from the suicidal American destroyers apparently more willing to give their lives for the mission than Kurita. Kurita did not save the remainder of the fleet from certain destruction, he just post-poned it and took away their last chance to make their deaths have greater effect & meaning, even if forced into a fleet Kamikaze attack.

The sad irony for the Japanese, is that Oshima’s air crews knew their planes and under-trained inexperienced crews were no match for our boys in general and were asking permission to make Kamikaze runs instead of conventional runs which vastly increased the chances that they would at least take some of us down with them since their deaths were inevitable here anyways. In fact, once he did give permission for kamikaze missions, the Japanese deaths were finally causing us a lot more casualties.

“Kurita was criticized by some elements in the Japanese military for not fighting to the death. In December, Kurita was removed from command. In order to protect him against assassination, he was re-assigned as commandant of the Imperial Japanese Navy Academy. It was not until he was in his eighties that Kurita admitted privately to a former Naval Academy student that he withdrew the fleet from the battle because he did not believe in wasting the lives of his men in a futile effort, having long since believed that the war was lost.”

I’ll be the first to admit that one shouldn’t rely on only non-Japanese historians for the truth about Japan. Yet by Kurita’s own words, Toyoda’s own mission briefing and goals, and the various conflicting excuses given why he didn’t obey orders in the end, contradict the above quote.

Being shaken up shouldn’t be an excuse. A good commander finds time to delegate authority and shifts so he doesn’t have to stay awake days in a row, especially after having been dunked in the ocean after being sunk. To my mind, those defending Kurita’s decisions this way is like defending a driver who chose to drive eventhough he knew he had a concussion, was sleepy or drunk. It may explain the accident, it doesn’t excuse it.

But again, the victors write the history books and there may be Japanese facts that our historians don't think we need to know. Halsey or Kurita, no-one ever truly knows through their own propaganda, what another man was truly aware of or thinking.AthabascaCree (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

question about source

I'm a student at the Naval War College, researching the battle of Leyte Gulf. In this article, a statement is made that : "It was not until he was in his eighties that Kurita began to admit the truth of his actions at Leyte. He admitted privately to a former Naval Academy student (and biographer), Ooka Jiro, that he withdrew the fleet from the battle because he did not believe in wasting the lives of his men in a futile effort, having long since believed that the war was lost."

This is an important statement in that it's the only reference I can find (allegedly in Kurita's own words) that gives a reason for his withdrawal from Leyte.

I very much need to know where the author came by this information; a published book or other original source?

I will gratefully acknowledge in my research paper anyone who can give me an accurate citation for this sentence.

[email protected] 71.191.169.202 (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC) scott cary

I have found a published source, Sea of Thunder by Evan Thomas pp 351–53 that says: Seiichiro Tokoi stated in 2004 that during a 1977 visit with Kurita, Kurita made the admission to Tokoi, "I could not bear losing 80,000 lives by having the joint fleet completely destroyed." Jiro Ooka is also mentioned. Of course, I may have misinterpreted the excerpt; you'll want to read the book yourself. Mang (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Oite

The article says Kurita took command of Oite in 1921, but Oite was not launched until 1924 (according to the Oite Wikipedia article). Seems like an error. --Westwind273 (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Private Alan Keith Evans..... South Pacific..Asm..War....9.12.13

Ww2 Gregory Mervyn Evans 11:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicmatte (talk • contribs)