invasion japan

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Erich Hartmann:
Answer to question #2: Bankrupt? I still don't understand what you mean. In terms of massive food, ammunition shortages, etc., yes. But I see where we are going here - This was not heading anywhere fast as Japan showed almost no sign of official surrender before the bomb. When given the alternatives (i.e. Operation Olympic, a continuation of coventional bomb strikes), the decision was clear.

Now please answer my questions from above; help me out.......

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As for being willing to surrender being a simplistic idea... I really don't know. What do historians say about this?

About being bankrupt, how could the Japs resist? With swords and bamboos?

This leads to another question: How did american GI's set foot over Japanese soil? Weren't there any skirmishes around the island?

 

I wouldn't underestimate the Japanese resistance. It would not come to swords and bamboo sticks for quite some time, as their homeland defenses were not something to take lightly.
American occupational forces were not exactly met with flowers and kisses, although there was nothing "solid" that came from the Japanese in terms of resistance. Colonel Cutis L. Jennings of the American detachment to Japan reported that: "Although there is a dictinct air of negativity with these (Japanese) people, their cooperation is a constant." (Bryant)

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mito:
As for being willing to surrender being a simplistic idea... I really don't know. What do historians say about this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The populace was probably by now having negative feelings towards the war...hell...i know i would. However the government was run by the military...and they were ready to die fighting...which meant no surrender anytime soon.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>About being bankrupt, how could the Japs resist? With swords and bamboos?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The japs could resist because much of there equipment would have been stored and horded. i doubt bankruptcy would have had an effect for they could just go into debt. (i said this in my post a couple days ago) As eric said it would take awhile before they resorted to fighting with primitive weapons.
That wouldn't happen until they physically couldn't make anymore products after their factories were destroyed.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This leads to another question: How did american GI's set foot over Japanese soil? Weren't there any skirmishes around the island?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Japanese let the allies just walk in not because they were weak or as a sign of weakness. It was a sign of there culture. I'm sure there were isolated events but on the hole the pop. respected the surrender. WHY? because there emporer said too. They respected the emporer...what he said went...and they felt what he thought was good for japan. As long as there was no surrender the japs would fight for the emporer and as soon as he said not to they followed suit.



<FONT COLOR="#ff0000" SIZE="1" FACE="Verdana, Arial">This message has been edited by Ron on 20 November 2000 at 08:51 PM</font>

 

Perhaps the the use of the A-bomb prevented Nuclear war. Becuase as you said it scared the world, perhaps enough to never wanta nuclear war. The pictures of Nagasaki and hiroshima are forever etched in our minds all through the cold war.

------------------
Out side is America!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yankee:
Perhaps the the use of the A-bomb prevented Nuclear war. Becuase as you said it scared the world, perhaps enough to never wanta nuclear war. The pictures of Nagasaki and hiroshima are forever etched in our minds all through the cold war.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"We don't need no nuclear war! With nuclear war we won't get far!"

Peter Tosh

 

Well put Ron, I think they should have waited a little longer before dropping the other bomb. After a while, I think Japan would have came around.

 

Isnt it true we didn't have any nuclear capabilities when the A-bomb was made?

 

How could you not have nucleur capabilities if you just created an atom bomb? I'm not sure what your asking??

 

If the Americans had invaded Japan, they would have been crushed. Maybe Amercia could have put 650.000 soldiers on the Japanese islands, but don't forget that Japan has a regular army of 2.300.000 on it's islands.

There were two attacks:
* Operation Olympic (on Kioesjoe)
3 Marine Divisons, 8 Infantry Division & 1 Panzer Division

* Operation Cornet (on Honsjoe)
9 ID, 2 PD & 3 MD

1.)The troops would have been attacked by Kamikazes even when they would set of to the coast.
2.)Landing crafts would have been attacked by Kamikaze submarines and airplanes
3.)If the Allies land on the coast, they would have been attacked by the infantry, tanks, ...

I think it would be a massacre, at both sides. Finaly the Allies would withdraw, because they were suffering too many losses!

 

There is no doubt that an invasion of japan would have been horrendous for both sides but frankly a retreat by US forces just seems unrealistic to me.
the US invasion would have suffered heavy losses but US technology would have out weighed the Japanese numerical advantage. PLUS The soviet Union would surely have invaded japan as well maybe not making he future all that great but taking considerable pressure off of the US lines.
It's just a damn good thing the atomic bombs were available.
It sounds like a good case when people talk negatively about the use of the Atomic bombs...but now i feel that those people have not done their homework, forgeting or not knowing their history at all. They totally ignore what an invasion would have done to Japan and the US for that matter. Plus the fact that at the Potsdam conference the UN asked Japan for unconditional surrender and gave them ample time to reply...in which they did reply that they would basically fight to the last.

 

Gentlemen, calm down!

Here is a question for our US postees. Why did the USAAF conduct "pure" strategic bombing in Europe against the Germans yet in the Pacific conducted area bombing in daylight? Why was there this doctrinal change?

Secondly, Mito has a point about the state of Japan in 1945. The US has never really evaluated the situation in Japan in mid-45, partly because the evidence presented about the costs of invasion and the Japanese capacity to resist was over-inflated. An acceptance that the Japs were weaker then opens up all the questions about whether the Bomb was necessary. It has become almost an article of faith in the US that it was: probably borne out ogf guilt if the alternative was the case. I've posted about this before, my opinion is well known. I think, apart from some fanatics, the Japs would have surrendered quicker than most people think: Hirohito was ready for it: an invasion would have been a trigger for his peace party to force the issue. If they were so fanatical, why didn't they flee to the hills in 1945 anyway? Were there raids against US occupation forces?

Jumbo

 

Hi Jumbo: The change in bombing was partly due to the type of enemy the US was encountering.

As far as an actual invasion versus the A-bomb, the potential casualty list warranted using the bombs instead. The Japanese had proven time and again that they were fanatical in their fighting and were not about to let US forces land on mainland Japan without a fight. Take Iwo Jima for example, the defenders there knew there would be no help coming yet 22,000 Japanese held off 70,000 US Marines for 36 days while inflicting 25,851 casualties (1 in 3 would be killed or wounded). The time needed for US troops to take mainland Japan would have been longer than 36 days therefore sending the casualty list into the stratosphere. It is already a fact that America was not happy with the casualty results from Iwo Jima and one can imagine how they would have felt about taking Japan itself. Therefore, the bombs gave the US the victory they wanted without having to sacrifice more lives. Also, the casualties would have been higher for the Japanese had an actual invasion taken place.

 

Steve

What was the difference? Why was the USAAF prepared to undertake carpet bombing of Japan but not of Germany? Saying that they wew "different" doesn't wash.

Again it is not the soldiers you are trying to convince to make peace but the Japanese leadership.

Personally I think that the US should have just starved the buggers out, but I've had this argument elsewhere and I tire of repeating myself.

Jumbo

 

i didn't think the US did purely strategic bombing in Germany...they contantly bombed population centers. They did the same thing in Japan, bombing Japanese population centers in and around industrial areas. As for Tokyo...that was no different then carpet bombing of Berlin.

hmmmm yeah i don't think that would have happened right away...but when casualties were mounting and the country was getting eaten up i think the emporer would probably have done something...but i can't even begin to guess how soon or deep into the invasion that would have been! As for being fanatical, i think they were basically that way at the order of the emporer. Once the emporer commanded them to peace...that command along with the mob mentality created the peaceful scene that happened. Also i think the Japanese culture played a big role in why the country followed the surrender to the dime.

 

Ron

In Germany the USAF bombed as accurately as possible against industrial targets and quite deliberately shied from any form of area bombing. If there was low cloud cover they would try to bomb by radar (often inaccurate but at least they were trying) and I can't think of an instance where they delibertately targeted housing or civilian areas. The RAF had, by 1941, become wedded to area bombing at night.

Now over to the Pacific, where we have massive firebomb raids on Japanese cities. My question remains Why? Was it racist? Did the US still see the Germans as civilised whilst the Japanese were not (see pre-war treatment and Bugs Bunny cartoons no longer shown)? Was there a doctrinal reason? I don't know but would like some serious evidence.

As for Olympic or A-Bomb I'm not sure how much of US historiography is a smokescreen and how much is prepared to throw out preconcieved ideas. It's rather like saying Britain never considered Peace with Hitler or the Dunkirk myth: the need for these historical "comfort blankets" is an annoying cloak behind which we can often find a different version of events.

Jumbo

 

If you want to know if the Japanese soldier was civilized, ask any Allied combat soldier that served in the Pacific and see what they say. As far as carpet bombing, Roosevelt and Churchill had already declared that the war would be brought to the enemy. Japan now had to take what they had been giving out.

[ 06 September 2002, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: Steve ]

 

People should visit the Atomic Museum in Albuquerque N.M. and learn expectations of Allied Bombing of Japan. Numbers easily justified the dropping of the A-Bombs, no need to justify with overestimating our casualties.The conventional bombing would have caused so much greater numbers of casualties in that country. The a-bombs were massive but still remained lower than the totals the conventional bombing was attaining and was expected to continue to rack up. There is "revisionist" history out there confusing many people so beware! My dad was enroute for the invasion of Japan when the bomb was dropped. Him and my mom agreed our family would most likely not have existed if the A Bomb had not been dropped. As he was to land ahead of invasion to string communications and select gun placement sites he did not expect to survive his mission. My mom became a bit angry at the confusing assertions about our not having a need to drop the A Bomb or the second Bomb as the real facts behind the dropping of them so fully are justifiable both to minimize our casualties and also minimize the enemy's casualties with the big hits(atomic) that did not add up to the totals expected from conventional bombing. Our leaders made totally honorable decisions based on what was known and an in "depth" study easily bears this out. If you follow closely the films and displays in Albuquerque you can capture the gist of this. If you study the estimates made about casualties keep in mind what Berlin looked like after our bombing there and realize we had somewhat more effective tactics, airplanes, and conventional bombs that were being used and would be continued to be used for the duration of an invasion of Japan and it will easily add up to "The A-Bomb reducing the longterm bombing and casualties of both sides. I am here because of the A-Bomb along with many other descendants of those that would have had to invade. This would have been by far our largest and longest invasion. I have a degree in U.S. History and have studied this and concluded these facts. Believe it or become a part of the "Revisionists" of which there are many. An opinion is easily made, a fact must be documented and researched. Which is easier to do?

 

'Olympic' would have FAILED!

Do a 'Google' on 'Operation Ketsu-Go' and be informed.



John.

 

The massive US military would have ensured success. But it still would have been a question of how much of a bloodbath it would be. Kind of like asking what was bloodier. Kursk, Stalingrad or Lenningrad.