Japanese Battle Casualties by nation

On youtube there is a bit of an argument occurring and during one of the replies one of the guys said that the US inflicted 485,717 casualties while Australia inflicted 199,511 casualties. Is there any truth to those numbers?

Waiting on a reply from the person that made the claim.

 

At best this does not include civilian casualties in Japan proper and according to Wiki The Philippines and Okinawa together totaled 446,000 KIA's alone.

 

Just got a reply back, The numbers are strictly military.

His source "War Without Mercy" 1986 ISBN 0-394-75172-8 pp. 297–299 by John W. Dower

 

Wiki places total "military" deaths at 2.1 million and "civilian" at about 1 million. So I guess Britain, China and Russia killed off 1.4 million

Color me skeptical.

 

Because wiki knows all

Will have to find the book and look at it more in depth as well as other books from this bloke, If the other books tend to be on the mark then this one may be too, If they are off the mark then this source wont hold much credit.

In any case the full reply I got from the bloke was..

"Sure I do - you'll find the figures in "War Without Mercy" 1986 ISBN 0-394-75172-8 pp. 297–299.
This book was written by John W. Dower (born 21 June 1938 in Providence, Rhode Island) who is an American author and historian.

The full figures for Japanese military losses are as follows.

Japanese military losses were 2,120,000 including 1,740,000 in the war from 1937 to 1945 and 380,000 POW deaths after the surrender. John W. Dower reported that Japanese government figures list the military deaths of 1,740,955 during 1937–45. The details are as follows: 185,647 in China from 1937 to 1941, and 1,555,308 from 1941 to 1945 in the Pacific War. Army: against US 485,717; against UK/Netherlands 208,026; in China 202,958; against Australia 199,511; French Indochina 2,803; against USSR 7,483; other overseas 23,388; Japan proper 10,543."

 

von_noobie, do you feel the numbers for the US or Australia are too high or too low?

 

Tis a shame those numbers are not specifically sourced, outside of the "By the Japanese Government's own calculations,..." For instance was this the government during the war, or the post-war government? Also, which branch of the government did these figures come from? Was it the Senshi Sosho? Dowers book provides no answers.


It is also worth noting that different Japanese sources vary on their casualty claims, so I would not take any casualty count as gospel, especially since there were more than a few joint US/Australian operations in the SOWESTPAC.

You can read "War without Mercy" here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-5-JeCa2Z7hMllVU29Vc21PLVk/edit?pli=1


My two cents...Stay out of it, just some youtube troll looking to start an argument. Arguing casualties is a slippery slope, because any two separate sources rarely agree.

 

If you look at the Wikipedia article and click on the footnotes, you will see virtually the same numbers cited. In fact Dower is quoted as a source. The numbers look pretty good to me and seem well supported. From notes in Wikipedia article:

Japan

1939 Japanese population includes 1.7 million Japanese in China and Korea.[276]
Japanese military losses were 2,120,000 including 1,740,000 in the war from 1937 to 1945 and 380,000 POW deaths after the surrender. John W. Dower reported that Japanese government figures list the military deaths of 1,740,955 during 1937–45. The details are as follows: 185,647 in China from 1937 to 1941, and 1,555,308 from 1941 to 1945 in the Pacific War. Army: against US 485,717; against UK/Netherlands 208,026; in China 202,958; against Australia 199,511; French Indochina 2,803; against USSR 7,483; other overseas 23,388; Japan proper 10,543. Navy: 1941–45 414,879. "Only one third of the military deaths occurred in actual combat, the majority being caused by illness and starvation."[277] In addition there were the deaths of prisoners after the surrender. According to John W. Dower, the "known deaths of Japanese troops awaiting repatriation in Allied (non-Soviet) hands were listed as 81,090 by U.S. authorities".[278] An additional 300,000 Japanese prisoners died in Soviet hands after the surrender in Manchuria, Korea and the USSR."[277] The Japanese Ministry of Welfare and Foreign Office reported that 347,000 military personnel and civilians were dead or missing in Soviet hands after the war. The Japanese list the losses of 199,000 in Manchurian transit camps, 36,000 in North Korea, 9,000 from Sakhalin and 103,000 in the USSR.[279] These figures were disputed by the Soviet Union, Russian sources report the POW deaths of 62,105(61,855 Japanese and 214 collaborator forces) out of the 640,105 captured(609,448 Japanese and 30,657 collaborator forces).[280]
Military deaths include Koreans and Chinese from Taiwan conscripted by Japan. Not included in Japanese war dead are 432,000 Chinese military forces collaborating with Japan.[10]
Estimates for Japanese civilian losses range from 500,000,[281] to 1,000,000 dead.[282] The lower figure of 500,000 includes those deaths during the war caused by allied bombing and the fighting on Okinawa. The higher estimate of 1,000,000 includes additional post war deaths of persons injured in the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and excess deaths due to adverse post war conditions. In Allied occupied Japan the shortage of food was an acute problem, in 1946 the average kilocalorie intake per day was only 1,530 compared to the average of 1,950 during the war years, this was an amount insufficient for long-term health.[283] The General Headquarters for the Allied Powers in Tokyo reported the civilian death rate in Japan in the first year after the war to be 2.1% compared to the pre-war level of 1.6%.[276]
John W. Dower reports civilian losses due to U.S. strategic bombing according to official Japanese figures were 393,367 dead, including 210,000 killed in the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and 97,031 in the Bombing of Tokyo in World War II. In addition to these deaths 150,000 civilians were killed on Okinawa and 10,000 on Saipan during the fighting. The Japanese government reported that 60,000 civilians dead or missing in Soviet hands after the war.[277] War related deaths of Japanese merchant marine personnel were 27,000.[284] The US Strategic bombing survey estimated 252,769 killed Japanese in the air war.[285] They also estimated the death toll in Hiroshima and Nagasaki at 105,000 to 115,000.[286]
The Yasukuni Shrine in Japan lists a total of 2,325,128 military deaths from 1937 to 1945 including civilians who participated in combat, Chinese(Taiwan) and Koreans in the Japanese Armed Forces.

 

So the youtuber is leaving out the IJN casualties?

 

In all honesty I had thought there still would have been a bigger gap with the US having a higher kill count and Australia lower but could be wrong.

 

Well, if you are using Dower as a source, then which of his numbers are correct?

We have the 485,717 casualty count from pg. 297, but if you read pg 299, you have
30,000 men sacrificed at Saipan
over 10,000 ordered to fight to the end at Guam
8,000-10,000 killed at Tinian
10,000 or more killed at Peleliu
between 20,000 and 23,000 at Iwo Jima
1/3rd of a million men expended in the futile defense of the Philippines
more than 110,000 perished at Okinawa.

So, now Dower is giving us a Japanese casualty count of 521,000 - 526,000 and that is from just the highlights of 1944-45 War in the Pacific. That is roughly a 40,000 difference that does not take into account 1941-43.

So, you can give whatever significance to Dower's numbers you want. But quite frankly, they are just one guess, well two guesses that ignore over 2 years of war, out of many.


Is there a Golden Raspberry award for Casualty Counts? If so, I know who get's my vote.

 

Yes the IJN casualties have been left out so in effect wiki is still off the mark, Most of the IJN casualties can be attributed to the USN.

That said looking at the page it stated the 199,511 casualties were in the 'Australian Combat Zone'. So up to half of those casualties could be attributed to the US Army.

So the youtuber was wrong to claim that Australia killed that number, May have been responsible for a sizeable chunk of it bu the US can still be attributed as the main force in Japanese casualties of 900,000+

 

The 1,740,955 figure for combat dead is from 1937 to 1945. From another source, Pacific War Online Encyclopedia a similar total, 1,740,900, with the following breakdown. It includes 300,386 naval casualties, in the Pacific, the bulk of which were due to the US Navy. That leaves 1,440,569. Of this number 388,600 were in China, (the source in question, Dower, gives 185,647, China '37-41 and 202,958, Imperial Army, China, '41-45, for a total of 388,605) and 210,830 were in SE Asia, (Dower, 208,026 vs British/Dutch Forces, 2,803, French Indo China, total 210,829) Chinese and British/Commonwealth forces were responsible for the bulk of these leaving 841,139. (1,440,569-(388,600+210,830))=841,139. Dower is not listed among the sources for the Pacific War figures.

202,100 Japanese soldiers, sailors and airmen died on New Guinea (Jan '42 to Aug '45), Bougainville and New Britain alone. Australia for most of the New Guinea Campaign provided the majority of the allied forces. In fact well into 1943 Australia alone had more ground forces deployed against the Japanese than the US Army and Marine Corps combined.

An Australian government source to support the number:

http://ajrp.awm.gov.au/ajrp/remember.nsf/Web-Printer/58EBD6D993E15CE8CA256D05002671FD?OpenDocument

This 202,100 number is only 2,589 off from the 199,511 quoted earlier, not a big difference. When Von_Noobie came back and elaborated that; "it stated the 199,511 casualties were in the 'Australian Combat Zone'," the number is probably fairly close.

Bougainville is a good example:

-1 November 1943 the reinforced 3rd Marine Division assaults Bougainville, establishes a beachhead and starts expanding the perimeter. Airfields are built. US Army troops begin to be brought in. The perimeter is expanded and secured. The US Army relieves the Marines. Then, later, the Australians (Australian II Corps) relieve the US Army, and conduct offensive patrols to keep the pressure on, defend the perimeter and keep the remaining Japanese bottled up, starving and dying through the surrender on 21 August, 1945. Initial Japanese strength, was estimated at 65,000. According to one source, 23,500 Japanese troops and laborers surrendered at wars end, according to another it was 21,090 Japanese soldiers and sailors. My best guess would be that the difference is 2,410 probably Korean laborers that are included in the first number. Korean laborers are not counted in the 1,740,955 total death figure, just Japanese. While I am sure that the number surrendered is fairly accurate, the allies kept good records and I am sure they knew how many they captured, many other numbers are just best guesses, based upon surviving records. During Australia's portion of the battle 516 Australians were killed, an estimated 8,500 Japanese were killed in action and 9,800 died of starvation and disease, total 18,300. Australian Intelligence Officers estimated, from captured documents and interrogations, that 8,200 Japanese were KIA during the American portion of the operation with another 16,600 dying from starvation and disease, total 24,800. 24,800+18,300=43,100 add in the captured and you have 64,190 to 66,600 for the total strength, close to the initial strength estimate. So probably a good number. Then you might ask why there is not a bigger disparity in the numbers?
The Marines were very aggressive initially, as were the first US Army units. Then when the battle settled into a longer campaign and lesser quality Army units took over from the first rate units, and the Japanese became less aggressive because they were more concerned with feeding themselves and surviving, than persecuting the war, combat became a rarity.

"Griswold (Maj. General Oscar W.) took the view that the Japanese on Bougainville could no longer have any influence on the outcome of the war, and he ordered his division commanders to engage in nothing more than aggressive patrolling. The Japanese were completely cut off from resupply, and by April 1944 their rice ration was cut to 250 grams per day. The rice supply ran out completely in September, and most of Hyakutake's men were put to work on garden plots. Allied pilots took to dropping napalm on the Japanese gardens, and Japanese morale plummeted to the point where desertion was common and there was real danger of mutiny. With Japanese morale at rock bottom, and the Americans disinclined to stir up trouble pointlessly, a sort of unspoken truce settled over the perimeter."

When the Australians took over they were aggressive, and Japanese casualties went back up. In the war overall, only about a third of the Japanese combat casualties were a direct result of combat, the majority were from starvation and disease. In the above Bougainville example, 26,400 of the 43,100, or about 61% were due to starvation and disease. The larger numbers and the tactic of bypassing Japanese troops on New Guinea, probably resulted in an even higher starvation to direct combat death percentage, in that campaign. Now, switch to the Central Pacific, Tarawa, Saipan, Tinian, Guam, Peleliu, Iwo Jima, even Okinawa and virtually all the Japanese deaths were a result of direct combat. It was the nature of the fighting, the size of the objective, and the length of the operation that determined what the primary cause of death would be.

Takao, a portion of the discrepancy you mention is that Dower's 485,717 figure is for IJA forces. The battle casualty figures you quoted were for all forces. Dower wrote; "30,000 of the emperor's men were sacrificed on Saipan". 6,690 (20%) of the approximately 32,000 man Japanese force at Saipan were naval combat troops, primarily the 55th Naval Guard Force, 1st Yokosuka Special Naval Landing Force and 5th Special Base Force. 7,000 of the 11,500 man Guam Garrison were Naval troops. 7,347 of the 22,060 Iwo Jima Garrison were Naval troops.

 

Good post there USMCPrice, Have to agree with it.

I remember reading some were that New Guinea/Papua had more casualties then that of Guadalcanal, And most were due to illness?

Was easier to bypass forces in the South West Pacific unlike the Central Pacific Island campaign however more inclined to catch a disease in the South Pacific then in the central islands. Just the nature of combat in the Pacific.

 

I think they had the number of IJA deaths in transit listed on a thread over on the ijn board. It was quite high from what I recall and I'm not sure where or if it is addressed in the numbers above. Can't seem to find it right now though.

 

I couldn't find the thread so I started a new one at:
http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=14511.0
The lastest quote from Johm Wittman is of interest:

The questions is where if at all are these casualties counted above?