Dan,

 

What, exactly, did we do with WWII?  I am awaiting your historical revisionism.

Dan,

 

We did not enter the European Front until 1944, 5 years after the battle began.  Millions of Russians, French, and others perished fighting while we were only dealing with Japan.

 

Russia absorbed the greatest blow and, if it weren't for her (and Hitler's idiocy in attacking the eastern front before securing the western front), Europe would have fallen before we got there.

Dan,

 

We did not enter the European Front until 1944, 5 years after the battle began.  Millions of Russians, French, and others perished fighting while we were only dealing with Japan.

 

Russia absorbed the greatest blow and, if it weren't for her (and Hitler's idiocy in attacking the eastern front before securing the western front), Europe would have fallen before we got there.

 

you're kidding right?  You really think we did nothing until 44?

Dan,

 

We did not enter the European Front until 1944, 5 years after the battle began. Millions of Russians, French, and others perished fighting while we were only dealing with Japan.

 

Russia absorbed the greatest blow and, if it weren't for her (and Hitler's idiocy in attacking the eastern front before securing the western front), Europe would have fallen before we got there.

 

I'm sure that fact is comforting to the US veterans of that war (including my father). I'm not sure what your point is...are you saying that we weren't necessary in defeating the Axis powers or are you just saying that our participation wasn't significant enough to warrant any future gratitude?

Dan,

 

We did not enter the European Front until 1944, 5 years after the battle began.  Millions of Russians, French, and others perished fighting while we were only dealing with Japan.

 

Russia absorbed the greatest blow and, if it weren't for her (and Hitler's idiocy in attacking the eastern front before securing the western front), Europe would have fallen before we got there.

 

I'm sure that fact is comforting to the US veterans of that war (including my father). I'm not sure what your point is...are you saying that we weren't necessary in defeating the Axis powers or are you just saying that our participation wasn't significant enough to warrant any future gratitude?

 

What the he!! are you talking about?  Both of my grand-fathers were in WWII.  My point is that our involvement on the European Front did not begin until 1944, 5 years after it started.  Russia and the rest of the Allies had already taken the brunt of the Nazis.  That's a fact. 

 

And where did I say our participation didn't warrant "future gratitude?"  I said it doesn't warrant a blank check for us to go around the world doing as we please.  That is what I said. 

 

You should read a little more carefully.

  We can't tell people don't have nukes or don't nuke civilians when we've already done it.

 

Of course we can.  They can't stop us, and the nukes we dropped saved more than 1,000,000 lives.

Where did you get that 1 million number-- the Bureau of Hypothetical Timelines?  And if we can stop anyone from doing anything, we too can be stopped.  The "we're better than you" posturing works great as long as it's our foot on their throats. 

An Invasion Not Found in the History Books

by James Martin Davis

reprinted from the Omaha World Herald, November 1987

 

  Deep in the recesses of the National Archives in Washington, D.C., hidden for nearly four decades lie thousands of pages of yellowing and dusty documents stamped "Top Secret". These documents, now declassified, are the plans for Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan during World War II. Only a few Americans in 1945 were aware of the elaborate plans that had been prepared for the Allied Invasion of the Japanese home islands. Even fewer today are aware of the defenses the Japanese had prepared to counter the invasion had it been launched. Operation Downfall was finalized during the spring and summer of 1945. It called for two massive military undertakings to be carried out in succession and aimed at the heart of the Japanese Empire.

 

In the first invasion - code named Operation Olympic - American combat troops would land on Japan by amphibious assault during the early morning hours of November 1, 1945 - 50 years ago. Fourteen combat divisions of soldiers and Marines would land on heavily fortified and defended Kyushu, the southernmost of the Japanese home islands, after an unprecedented naval and aerial bombardment.

The second invasion on March 1, 1946 - code named Operation Coronet - would send at least 22 divisions against 1 million Japanese defenders on the main island of Honshu and the Tokyo Plain. It's goal: the unconditional surrender of Japan. With the exception of a part of the British Pacific Fleet, Operation Downfall was to be a strictly American operation. It called for using the entire Marine Corps, the entire Pacific Navy, elements of the 7th Army Air Force, the 8 Air Force (recently redeployed from Europe), 10th Air Force and the American Far Eastern Air Force. More than 1.5 million combat soldiers, with 3 million more in support or more than 40% of all servicemen still in uniform in 1945 - would be directly involved in the two amphibious assaults. Casualties were expected to be extremely heavy.

 

 

 

Admiral William Leahy estimated that there would be more than 250,000 Americans killed or wounded on Kyushu alone. General Charles Willoughby, chief of intelligence for General Douglas MacArthur, the Supreme Commander of the Southwest Pacific, estimated American casualties would be one million men by the fall of 1946. Willoughby's own intelligence staff considered this to be a conservative estimate.

 

During the summer of 1945, America had little time to prepare for such an endeavor, but top military leaders were in almost unanimous agreement that an invasion was necessary.

 

While naval blockade and strategic bombing of Japan was considered to be useful, General MacArthur, for instance, did not believe a blockade would bring about an unconditional surrender. The advocates for invasion agreed that while a naval blockade chokes, it does not kill; and though strategic bombing might destroy cities, it leaves whole armies intact.

 

So on May 25, 1945, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, after extensive deliberation, issued to General MacArthur, Admiral Chester Nimitz, and Army Air Force General Henry Arnold, the top secret directive to proceed with the invasion of Kyushu. The target date was after the typhoon season.

 

 

 

President Truman approved the plans for the invasions July 24. Two days later, the United Nations issued the Potsdam Proclamation, which called upon Japan to surrender unconditionally or face total destruction. Three days later, the Japanese governmental news agency broadcast to the world that Japan would ignore the proclamation and would refuse to surrender. During this sane period it was learned -- via monitoring Japanese radio broadcasts -- that Japan had closed all schools and mobilized its schoolchildren, was arming its civilian population and was fortifying caves and building underground defenses.

 

Operation Olympic called for a four pronged assault on Kyushu. Its purpose was to seize and control the southern one-third of that island and establish naval and air bases, to tighten the naval blockade of the home islands, to destroy units of the main Japanese army and to support the later invasion of the Tokyo Plain.

 

The preliminary invasion would began October 27 when the 40th Infantry Division would land on a series of small islands west and southwest of Kyushu. At the same time, the 158th Regimental Combat Team would invade and occupy a small island 28 miles south of Kyushu. On these islands, seaplane bases would be established and radar would be set up to provide advance air warning for the invasion fleet, to serve as fighter direction centers for the carrier-based aircraft and to provide an emergency anchorage for the invasion fleet, should things not go well on the day of the invasion. As the invasion grew imminent, the massive firepower of the Navy - the Third and Fifth Fleets -- would approach Japan. The Third Fleet, under Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, with its big guns and naval aircraft, would provide strategic support for the operation against Honshu and Hokkaido. Halsey's fleet would be composed of battleships, heavy cruisers, destroyers, dozens of support ships and three fast carrier task groups. From these carriers, hundreds of Navy fighters, dive bombers and torpedo planes would hit targets all over the island of Honshu. The 3,000 ship Fifth Fleet, under Admiral Raymond Spruance, would carry the invasion troops.

 

Several days before the invasion, the battleships, heavy cruisers and destroyers would pour thousands of tons of high explosives into the target areas. They would not cease the bombardment until after the land forces had been launched. During the early morning hours of November 1, the invasion would begin. Thousands of soldiers and Marines would pour ashore on beaches all along the eastern, southeastern, southern and western coasts of Kyushu. Waves of Helldivers, Dauntless dive bombers, Avengers, Corsairs, and Hellcats from 66 aircraft carriers would bomb, rocket and strafe enemy defenses, gun emplacements and troop concentrations along the beaches.

 

The Eastern Assault Force consisting of the 25th, 33rd and 41st Infantry Divisions would land near Miyaski, at beaches called Austin, Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Chrysler, and Ford, and move inland to attempt to capture the city and its nearby airfield. The Southern Assault Force, consisting of the 1st Cavalry Division, the 43rd Division and Americal Division would land inside Ariake Bay at beaches labeled DeSoto, Dusenberg, Essex, Ford, and Franklin and attempt to capture Shibushi and the city of Kanoya and its airfield.

 

On the western shore of Kyushu, at beaches Pontiac, Reo, Rolls Royce, Saxon, Star, Studebaker, Stutz, Winston and Zephyr, the V Amphibious Corps would land the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Marine Divisions, sending half of its force inland to Sendai and the other half to the port city of Kagoshima.

 

On November 4, the Reserve Force, consisting of the 81st and 98th Infantry Divisions and the 11th Airborne Division, after feigning an attack of the island of Shikoku, would be landed -- if not needed elsewhere -- near Kaimondake, near the southernmost tip of Kagoshima Bay, at the beaches designated Locomobile, Lincoln, LaSalle, Hupmobile, Moon, Mercedes, Maxwell, Overland, Oldsmobile, Packard and Plymouth.

 

Olympic was not just a plan for invasion, but for conquest and occupation as well. It was expected to take four months to achieve its objective, with the three fresh American divisions per month to be landed in support of that operation if needed.

 

If all went well with Olympic, Coronet would be launched March 1, 1946. Coronet would be twice the size of Olympic, with as many as 28 divisions landing on Honshu.

 

All along the coast east of Tokyo, the American 1st Army would land the 5th, 7th, 27th, 44th, 86th, and 96th Infantry Divisions along with the 4th and 6th Marine Divisions.

 

At Sagami Bay, just south of Tokyo, the entire 8th and 10th Armies would strike north and east to clear the long western shore of Tokyo Bay and attempt to go as far as Yokohama. The assault troops landing south of Tokyo would be the 4th, 6th, 8th, 24th, 31st, 37th, 38th and 8th Infantry Divisions, along with the 13th and 20th Armored Divisions.

 

Following the initial assault, eight more divisions - the 2nd, 28th, 35th, 91st, 95th, 97th and 104th Infantry Divisions and the 11th Airborne Division -- would be landed. If additional troops were needed, as expected, other divisions redeployed from Europe and undergoing training in the United States would be shipped to Japan in what was hoped to be the final push.

 

Captured Japanese documents and post war interrogations of Japanese military leaders disclose that information concerning the number of Japanese planes available for the defense of the home islands was dangerously in error.

 

During the sea battle at Okinawa alone, Japanese kamakaze aircraft sank 32 Allied ships and damaged more than 400 others. But during the summer of 1945, American top brass concluded that the Japanese had spent their air force since American bombers and fighters daily flew unmolested over Japan.

 

What the military leaders did not know was that by the end of July the Japanese had been saving all aircraft, fuel, and pilots in reserve, and had been feverishly building new planes for the decisive battle for their homeland.

 

As part of Ketsu-Go, the name for the plan to defend Japan -- the Japanese were building 20 suicide takeoff strips in southern Kyushu with underground hangars. They also had 35 camouflaged airfields and nine seaplane bases.

 

On the night before the expected invasion, 50 Japanese seaplane bombers, 100 former carrier aircraft and 50 land based army planes were to be launched in a suicide attack on the fleet.

 

The Japanese had 58 more airfields in Korea, western Honshu and Shikoku, which also were to be used for massive suicide attacks.

 

Allied intelligence had established that the Japanese had no more than 2,500 aircraft of which they guessed 300 would be deployed in suicide attacks.

 

In August 1945, however, unknown to Allied intelligence, the Japanese still had 5, 651 army and 7,074 navy aircraft, for a total of 12, 725 planes of all types. Every village had some type of aircraft manufacturing activity. Hidden in mines, railway tunnels, under viaducts and in basements of department stores, work was being done to construct new planes.

 

Additionally, the Japanese were building newer and more effective models of the Okka, a rocket-propelled bomb much like the German V-1, but flown by a suicide pilot.

 

When the invasion became imminent, Ketsu-Go called for a fourfold aerial plan of attack to destroy up to 800 Allied ships.

 

While Allied ships were approaching Japan, but still in the open seas, an initial force of 2,000 army and navy fighters were to fight to the death to control the skies over kyushu. A second force of 330 navy combat pilots were to attack the main body of the task force to keep it from using its fire support and air cover to protect the troop carrying transports. While these two forces were engaged, a third force of 825 suicide planes was to hit the American transports.

 

As the invasion convoys approached their anchorages, another 2,000 suicide planes were to be launched in waves of 200 to 300, to be used in hour by hour attacks.

 

By mid-morning of the first day of the invasion, most of the American land-based aircraft would be forced to return to their bases, leaving the defense against the suicide planes to the carrier pilots and the shipboard gunners.

 

Carrier pilots crippled by fatigue would have to land time and time again to rearm and refuel. Guns would malfunction from the heat of continuous firing and ammunition would become scarce. Gun crews would be exhausted by nightfall, but still the waves of kamikaze would continue. With the fleet hovering off the beaches, all remaining Japanese aircraft would be committed to nonstop suicide attacks, which the Japanese hoped could be sustained for 10 days. The Japanese planned to coordinate their air strikes with attacks from the 40 remaining submarines from the Imperial Navy -- some armed with Long Lance torpedoes with a range of 20 miles -- when the invasion fleet was 180 miles off Kyushu.

 

The Imperial Navy had 23 destroyers and two cruisers which were operational. These ships were to be used to counterattack the American invasion. A number of the destroyers were to be beached at the last minute to be used as anti-invasion gun platforms.

 

Once offshore, the invasion fleet would be forced to defend not only against the attacks from the air, but would also be confronted with suicide attacks from sea. Japan had established a suicide naval attack unit of midget submarines, human torpedoes and exploding motorboats.

 

The goal of the Japanese was to shatter the invasion before the landing. The Japanese were convinced the Americans would back off or become so demoralized that they would then accept a less-than-unconditional surrender and a more honorable and face-saving end for the Japanese.

 

But as horrible as the battle of Japan would be off the beaches, it would be on Japanese soil that the American forces would face the most rugged and fanatical defense encountered during the war.

 

Throughout the island-hopping Pacific campaign, Allied troops had always out numbered the Japanese by 2 to 1 and sometimes 3 to 1. In Japan it would be different. By virtue of a combination of cunning, guesswork, and brilliant military reasoning, a number of Japan's top military leaders were able to deduce, not only when, but where, the United States would land its first invasion forces.

 

Facing the 14 American divisions landing at Kyushu would be 14 Japanese divisions, 7 independent mixed brigades, 3 tank brigades and thousands of naval troops. On Kyushu the odds would be 3 to 2 in favor of the Japanese, with 790,000 enemy defenders against 550,000 Americans. This time the bulk of the Japanese defenders would not be the poorly trained and ill-equipped labor battalions that the Americans had faced in the earlier campaigns.

 

The Japanese defenders would be the hard core of the home army. These troops were well-fed and well equipped. They were familiar with the terrain, had stockpiles of arms and ammunition, and had developed an effective system of transportation and supply almost invisible from the air. Many of these Japanese troops were the elite of the army, and they were swollen with a fanatical fighting spirit.

 

Japan's network of beach defenses consisted of offshore mines, thousands of suicide scuba divers attacking landing craft, and mines planted on the beaches. Coming ashore, the American Eastern amphibious assault forces at Miyazaki would face three Japanese divisions, and two others poised for counterattack. Awaiting the Southeastern attack force at Ariake Bay was an entire division and at least one mixed infantry brigade.

 

On the western shores of Kyushu, the Marines would face the most brutal opposition. Along the invasion beaches would be the three Japanese divisions , a tank brigade, a mixed infantry brigade and an artillery command. Components of two divisions would also be poised to launch counterattacks.

 

If not needed to reinforce the primary landing beaches, the American Reserve Force would be landed at the base of Kagoshima Bay November 4, where they would be confronted by two mixed infantry brigades, parts of two infantry divisions and thousands of naval troops.

 

All along the invasion beaches, American troops would face coastal batteries, anti-landing obstacles and a network of heavily fortified pillboxes, bunkers, and underground fortresses. As Americans waded ashore, they would face intense artillery and mortar fire as they worked their way through concrete rubble and barbed-wire entanglements arranged to funnel them into the muzzles of these Japanese guns.

 

On the beaches and beyond would be hundreds of Japanese machine gun positions, beach mines, booby traps, trip-wire mines and sniper units. Suicide units concealed in "spider holes" would engage the troops as they passed nearby. In the heat of battle, Japanese infiltration units would be sent to reap havoc in the American lines by cutting phone and communication lines. Some of the Japanese troops would be in American uniform, English-speaking Japanese officers were assigned to break in on American radio traffic to call off artillery fire, to order retreats and to further confuse troops. Other infiltration with demolition charges strapped on their chests or backs wold attempt to blow up american tanks, artillery pieces and ammunition stores as they were unloaded ashore.

 

Beyond the beaches were large artillery pieces situated to bring down a curtain of fire on the beach. Some of these large guns were mounted on railroad tracks running in and out of caves protected by concrete and steel.

 

The battle for Japan would be won by what Simon Bolivar Buckner, a lieutenant general in the Confederate army during the Civil War, had called "Prairie Dog Warfare." This type of fighting was almost unknown to the ground troops in Europe and the Mediterranean. It was peculiar only to the soldiers and Marines who fought the Japanese on islands all over the Pacific -- at Tarawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

 

Prairie Dog Warfare was a battle for yards, feet and sometimes inches. It was brutal, deadly and dangerous form of combat aimed at an underground, heavily fortified, non-retreating enemy.

 

In the mountains behind the Japanese beaches were underground networks of caves, bunkers, command posts and hospitals connected by miles of tunnels with dozens of entrances and exits. Some of these complexes could hold up to 1,000 troops.

 

In addition to the use of poison gas and bacteriological warfare (which the Japanese had experimented with), Japan mobilized its citizenry.

 

Had Olympic come about, the Japanese civilian population, inflamed by a national slogan - "One Hundred Million Will Die for the Emperor and Nation" - were prepared to fight to the death. Twenty Eight Million Japanese had become a part of the National Volunteer Combat Force. They were armed with ancient rifles, lunge mines, satchel charges, Molotov cocktails and one-shot black powder mortars. Others were armed with swords, long bows, axes and bamboo spears. The civilian units were to be used in nighttime attacks, hit and run maneuvers, delaying actions and massive suicide charges at the weaker American positions.

 

At the early stage of the invasion, 1,000 Japanese and American soldiers would be dying every hour.

 

The invasion of Japan never became a reality because on August 6, 1945, an atomic bomb was exploded over Hiroshima. Three days later, a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Within days the war with Japan was at a close.

 

Had these bombs not been dropped and had the invasion been launched as scheduled, combat casualties in Japan would have been at a minimum of the tens of thousands. Every foot of Japanese soil would have been paid for by Japanese and American lives.

 

One can only guess at how many civilians would have committed suicide in their homes or in futile mass military attacks.

 

In retrospect, the 1 million American men who were to be the casualties of the invasion, were instead lucky enough to survive the war.

 

Intelligence studies and military estimates made 50 years ago, and not latter-day speculation, clearly indicate that the battle for Japan might well have resulted in the biggest blood-bath in the history of modern warfare.

 

Far worse would be what might have happened to Japan as a nation and as a culture. When the invasion came, it would have come after several months of fire bombing all of the remaining Japanese cities. The cost in human life that resulted from the two atomic blasts would be small in comparison to the total number of Japanese lives that would have been lost by this aerial devastation.

 

With American forces locked in combat in the south of Japan, little could have prevented the Soviet Union from marching into the northern half of the Japanese home islands. Japan today cold be divided much like Korea and Germany.

 

The world was spared the cost of Operation Downfall, however, because Japan formally surrendered to the United Nations September 2, 1945, and World War II was over.

 

The aircraft carriers, cruisers and transport ships scheduled to carry the invasion troops to Japan, ferried home American troops in a gigantic operation called Magic Carpet.

 

In the fall of 1945, in the aftermath of the war, few people concerned themselves with the invasion plans. Following the surrender, the classified documents, maps, diagrams and appendices for Operation Downfall were packed away in boxes and eventually stored at the National Archives. These plans that called for the invasion of Japan paint a vivid description of what might have been one of the most horrible campaigns in the history of man. The fact that the story of the invasion of Japan is locked up in the National Archives and is not told in our history books is something for which all Americans can be thankful.

 

 

Dan,

 

We did not enter the European Front until 1944, 5 years after the battle began.  Millions of Russians, French, and others perished fighting while we were only dealing with Japan.

 

Russia absorbed the greatest blow and, if it weren't for her (and Hitler's idiocy in attacking the eastern front before securing the western front), Europe would have fallen before we got there.

 

I'm sure that fact is comforting to the US veterans of that war (including my father). I'm not sure what your point is...are you saying that we weren't necessary in defeating the Axis powers or are you just saying that our participation wasn't significant enough to warrant any future gratitude?

 

What the he!! are you talking about?  Both of my grand-fathers were in WWII.  My point is that our involvement on the European Front did not begin until 1944, 5 years after it started.  Russia and the rest of the Allies had already taken the brunt of the Nazis.  That's a fact. 

 

And where did I say our participation didn't warrant "future gratitude?"  I said it doesn't warrant a blank check for us to go around the world doing as we please.  That is what I said. 

 

You should read a little more carefully.

 

No, you were implying, in response to Dan's statement, that our involvement was after the war was pretty much won. You're backtracking now. Anyway, it's off topic, so forget it.

What I said:

 

We did not enter the European Front until 1944, 5 years after the battle began.  Millions of Russians, French, and others perished fighting while we were only dealing with Japan.

 

Russia absorbed the greatest blow and, if it weren't for her (and Hitler's idiocy in attacking the eastern front before securing the western front), Europe would have fallen before we got there."

 

Yes, I am implying that we entered the European Front after the worst was over.  If you do not reach that conclusion, even though the war had been raging for 5 years, and ended within a year of Normandy, then so be it.

 

 

**It's not back-tracking if it is in response to you putting words in my mouth.

Cross-posted:

 

Dan, thanks for posting that, I'll give it a closer look tonight.  The number seems arbitrary even in its original context.  It appears to be a hi-range accumulation of several hi-range estimates.  More importantly-- to the extent it's valid, the same line of reasoning could be used to justify nuking us too.  There's no way we'd go down easy to an invasion.

Million seems high.

 

Prior to the A-bomb, Admiral LeMay complained about having nothing to fire bomb in Tokyo except trash can lids.

 

William Blum authored the counter to Dan's argument.  I think it's useful to get both sides. 

 

http://mediafilter.org/CAQ/caq53.hiroshima.html

That it took two A-bomb attacks to convicne the Japanese to surrender pretty much tells me they were willing to fight a bitter last stand.  They didnt know how many nukes we had, so they could see us obliterating their country, city by city, via atomic attack.

I thought it relatively well-known that Japan had attempted to surrender before getting nuked.  Our doing it anyway served a much broader global agenda, one that required generalized intimidation.  Bottom line, isn't it possible that we could have demonstrated our new weapon just as effectively on a herd of goats? 

they didn't get the message from Hiroshima, a few goats wouldn't have mattered!

I hadn't heard that before, and seeing a mediafilter url doesn't inspire me with any more confidence on a controversial subject than a Drudge Report one would.  If this is such common knowledge, there should be some more mainstream and reliable sources for this information.

What message they got when is factually debatable, as discussed.  Are you saying there were no attempts to surrender beforehand?  It isn't like we're pulling that from thin air.

 

Japan certainly had a better defensive position than Germany.  But they were also a 3rd world country by comparison at that time.  Their equipment reflected that.  So I have trouble believing it would have been so much harder to finish them off than Germany.

Japan made overtures through the Soviet Union for Conditional Surrender, that they be allowed the maintain their prewar empire.  Sort of a DO OVER, lets pretend the war never happened.

 

No president could ever accept that offer.

I hadn't heard that before, and seeing a mediafilter url doesn't inspire me with any more confidence on a controversial subject than a Drudge Report one would. If this is such common knowledge, there should be some more mainstream and reliable sources for this information.

 

I googled it and quickly found references to several books.  Most theorize that the bombs were dropped to impress Russia rather than Japan.  Whether those books would be mainstream and reliable ones is hard to say.  At this point it's probably for individuals to decide based on all the info available.  The same could be said for estimates of losses from an invasion of Japan.

No, not quite the same.  There is a lot of revisionist history taking place.  Just another series of conspiracy theories.

Estimates are by definition... estimates, so I don't understand how you can be so certain of your numbers.  There is also significant evidence suggesting that Pearl Harbor was no surprise.  Is that liberal revisionism as well?  What about our pre-WWII history of relations with Japan?  Were they shelling LA or were we shelling Edo?  Is it fatally liberal to even bring that up?

The only thing I'm certain of is that at the time, all they had were estimates based on previous history throughout the war.  We obviously will never know, but it is a good bet that many more Americans would have died.

 

http://www.essortment.com/all/presidenttruman_rywp.htm

 

A joint war plans committee comprised of the army and navy came to the conclusion that 46,000 Americans would die in an invasion of Kyushu and later Honshu. The number of American wounded averaged three to one during the later years of the war, so according to this estimate, 175,000 American casualties were not out of the question. However, these figures were based on such tentative intelligence that George Marshall, the army’s chief of staff, bluntly rejected them.

 

A second estimate proposed by Admiral Leahy was much higher. The invasion of Iwo Jima caused 6,200 American deaths, and the U. S. outnumbered the Japanese by four to one. Okinawa cost 13,000 U. S. servicemen, and they outnumbered the Japanese by two and one-half to one. These 13,000 men made up more than 35% of the U. S. landing force. Consequently, Admiral Leahy came to the conclusion that it was absurd to think that any less than 35% of the American force that invaded Japan would be killed. Based on the estimate of 560,000 Japanese soldiers on Kyushu as of early August, Leahy predicted that at very minimum over 250,000 American soldiers would lie dead as a result of an invasion of the Japanese islands.

 

It was later found that the troop strength on Kyushu was greatly under-estimated, and that by August 6 the Japanese had over 900,000 men stationed on Kyushu, nearly twice as many as thought. Leahy’s estimates that the Americans would have a preponderance, when in fact the 767,000 American soldiers who would comprise the landing force were already greatly outnumbered three months before Operation Olympic was actually to begin. By November, Japanese troop strength could easily double or triple, making between 500,000 and 1,000,000 American deaths conceivable.

 

These numbers do not even begin to account for the Japanese dead. In Okinawa, twice as many Japanese were killed as Americans. It is therefore plausible that between 100,000 (according to the earliest estimate) and two million soldiers would die in an invasion. This number does not include Japanese civilians dead, which could conceivably have been even higher than the number of dead soldiers.

 

The Japanese army was already training its civilians to fight with sharpened bamboo poles. According to samurai tradition, there was no more honorable way to die than to do so for Japan and the emperor, and the civilians were quite prepared to take this philosophy to heart. Using sharpened pikes the Japanese could easily prevent a military government from being effective in those towns which the U. S. captured. Futher, and even more brutal, was the training of young children to be “Sherman carpets.” Japanese children were to be strapped with TNT and throw themselves under American tanks, thereby dying in the most honorable way possible--by killing the enemy. It can be assumed that at least as many civilians would have died as soldiers, bringing the totals somewhere around 200,000 to four million Japanese dead, along with the 50,000 to one million American dead, totaling 250,000 to five million total dead.

 

It was hoped that the Japanese military would capitulate once American forces occupied the Tokyo Plain, but it is possible that they would fight to the last man. On Saipan, nearly 900 Japanese killed themselves rather than be taken prisoner by Americans. Such was the Japanese philosophy to fight to the last man. If an entire nation was compelled to launch suicide attacks against the occupying army, it is conceivable that many, many millions of Japanese civilians would die.

 

I'dve preferred goats:

 

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2adka_hiroshima-documentaires-documentari_events

Modified a bit:  "According to American tradition, there was no more honorable way to die than to do so for America and democracy, and the civilians were quite prepared to take this philosophy to heart."  It's easy to make humans sound like mindless killer bees in the context of defending their homeland.  But the same thing would happen if we were invaded.  Conquering anyone long-term is rough work because people don't like being conquered.

 

Extending the logic:  if we have nukes in 1942, do we need to nuke Berlin?

 

 

I don't have the source to confirm this, but I am fairly certain that the Japanese suffered more casualties during the fly-over bombing campaign of Tokyo in 1945 than it did with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  I am pretty sure that one day of non-atomic bombing caused 100,000 deaths.  Just saying that the Japanese had plenty of incentive to surrender sans the use of nuclear weapons.  Admittedly, whether they actually would have without us using the nukes is pure speculation.

Modified a bit: "According to American tradition, there was no more honorable way to die than to do so for America and democracy, and the civilians were quite prepared to take this philosophy to heart."   It's easy to make humans sound like mindless killer bees in the context of defending their homeland. But the same thing would happen if we were invaded. Conquering anyone long-term is rough work because people don't like being conquered.

 

A facile argument, as the "reverse the roles" argument always is, but I don't think that is actually very accurate.  We don't have a samurai tradition, which very effectively turned the the Japanese military into a death cult if need be.  There is no similar precedent in the Western military tradition, at least none that survives as an effective ideology today.  Even Western knights were usually happy to surrender if they were losing, and the option was allowed.  To a samurai, that would be unthinkable, far worse than death.  Bushido still guided the WWII-era Japanese military in a way that chivalry hadn't since the Middle Ages.  What's more debatable is if the Japanese civilian would have bought into that ideology with enough fervor to go up against rifles with pikes or throw their children under tanks.  But would we even consider that in America?  I doubt it.

Have we noticed that everyone America fights turns out to be some sort of inhuman death cult?  One that can't be reasoned with and has to be wiped out like smallpox?  How do we keep finding these cults?  First the Indians, then the Japs, the commies, now it's the Arabs.  I'm just saying, it's been awfully convenient to keep finding these death cults over the years.  Makes it look like we're never wrong.

 

And I'm hard pressed to think of a nation or culture currently getting its butt kicked that doesn't "let" kids participate in its defense.  As for throwing kids under tanks, there are smarter ways to bomb tanks and I'm sure the Japanese would have thought of them at some point.  I'm not saying there was never any samurai or bushido tradition, or that it didn't have some of the implications described... but we can't use that as a moral blank check.

I hadn't heard that before, and seeing a mediafilter url doesn't inspire me with any more confidence on a controversial subject than a Drudge Report one would. If this is such common knowledge, there should be some more mainstream and reliable sources for this information.

 

Some people might similarly dismiss the New Yorker, but it's certainly mainstream.  I'd guess that the conventional history of the Japanese surrender is the predominant one among informed historians, but I don't think the dissenters are nearly as marginal as, say, the scientists who dissent from climate change orthodoxy.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1995/07/31/1995_07_31_040_TNY_CARDS_000373616

"That it took two A-bomb attacks to convicne the Japanese to surrender pretty much tells me they were willing to fight a bitter last stand.  They didnt know how many nukes we had, so they could see us obliterating their country, city by city, via atomic attack. "

 

Just to make a quick modification, Japan was willing to surrender after the first A-Bomb attack.  The only real contention was the nature of the surrender; the Allies demanded an unconditional one, which was not agreed to by the Japenese.  Hence the second bomb.

It's easy to look back now and say "well we should have done this" with hindsight. Yes, dropping two A-bombs on civilian cities was horrific, and caused long term detriment to many people. Yes, Japan had made some overtures through an intermediary. But the fact is, Japan decided that it wanted to expand its sphere of influence and felt that the US was in its way. The fact is that it attacked Pearl Harbor and inflicted up until 9/11 the worst attack on US soil, ever. The fact is that dropping those two bombs ended the war instantly.

 

I guess I'm wondering what we're debating here. Are we saying that the US used too much force in Japan, and not enough (came late) in Europe? Would we be arguing the opposite if they had gotten in early into Europe and didn't use the bombs in Japan? What are we trying to resolve with this discussion?

Hts is right, the firebombing of Tokyo was far more deadly than dropping the atomic bombs. There are real questions about our choice of cities - esp. Nagasaki which is historically the most pro-Western and Christian city in Japan. The first bomb is usually gets a pass from historians, but generally the second bomb is where the argument gets more complicated. Some think it was necessary to show that this wasn't one off, some argue it was directed toward Russia (as some have mentioned). Considering the greater racial intensity of the Pacific Front, it would seem that the U.S. would have been less likely to use the Bomb in Europe.

I'd add that claiming that we didn't enter the European theater of war until 1944 to be tendentious. North Africa and Italy were both certainly part of the European theater if they weren't part of the Western Front. The Russians certainly wanted a Western Front earlier and they lost a lot trying to hold the Nazi's but we were actively involved in the European theater from late 42 onward. 

For them that asked, the thread started with debating whether the nukings were necessary.  That's pretty much where it still sits.

 

Pearl Harbor was not on US soil, it was an occupied territory halfway between US soil and Japan.  Hawaii was a nation situated on a Pacific archipeligo (like Japan) which the US had recently overrun (like some other Pacific archipeligo nations during this period).  Was it Japan or the US that had a fleet stationed halfway between the two nations?  It was us.  What happened between the US Civil War and Pearl Harbor?  Did we ignore Japan?  Did we give them free money and leave?  Or did we mess with them incessantly, afraid to lose ground to the European powers who each had at least one Asian nation to call their own?

Here's an interesting rundown on the historical issues on a site administered by GW:

 

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm

I am not arguing for a land invasion, which would have likely wiped out thousands of Americans, like my grandpa.  What I'm saying is that I don't think the 2 A-bombs were necessary.  We could've just kept fire-bombing, etc.  The point of the A-Bomb was to let Russia know what was going down and establish our sphere of influence.

 

327, good observations on the US always finding enemies that need to be eliminated.  I often wonder how different things would have turned out if they had employed this same idea against the South.  Totally different set of circumstances, but would there not be the inequalities that persist today if we had just lynched and obliterated the South, instead of letting them linger around and eventually regroup?  I'm not saying I would have liked to have seen this, but I always wonder about it.

They didn't have nukes back then, but they did the best they could with Atlanta.  That was pretty close to mass destruction.  Could you imagine if the south had won Gettysburg and made it to NYC?  :shoot:

I meant more in regards to Reconstruction.  Although you're right, Sherman didn't exactly take it easy on the ATL.  I think Grant starved Vicksburg into submission, too. 

Have we noticed that everyone America fights turns out to be some sort of inhuman death cult?  One that can't be reasoned with and has to be wiped out like smallpox?  How do we keep finding these cults?  First the Indians, then the Japs, the commies, now it's the Arabs.  I'm just saying, it's been awfully convenient to keep finding these death cults over the years.  Makes it look like we're never wrong.

 

And I'm hard pressed to think of a nation or culture currently getting its butt kicked that doesn't "let" kids participate in its defense.  As for throwing kids under tanks, there are smarter ways to bomb tanks and I'm sure the Japanese would have thought of them at some point.  I'm not saying there was never any samurai or bushido tradition, or that it didn't have some of the implications described... but we can't use that as a moral blank check.

 

Bushido calls for a warrior to die before surrendering.  You say that has implications on one hand, then dismiss it as propaganda on the other.  It seems to me that it is very valid consideration when evaluating the difficulty of invading and occupying Japanese territory, does it not?  I'm not looking for a moral blank check, I'm looking at what facts I have at hand and trying to reason if our leadership found what was the least murderous way to end the war.  I know nobody likes nuclear weapons, but dead is dead, whether by nuke, firebomb, infantry assault or starvation.  Not dropping "the bomb" isn't a moral blank check to kill people by other methods.

Lincoln had a much more benevolent reconstruction plan, but it went down when he did.  How much further could they have gone, with the punishment?  At that point, since the north had won, it would be like hitting yourself in the face.  And it's not like everyone in the north was a passionate abolitionist or anything like that. 

 

Are we gonna need a new thread for every war?  Apparently we all like to talk war history, but somebody needs to hurry up and build a building...

How DARE you criticize the North's tactics. Why my great great great grandfather was an officer in the North's Army under Grant....

 

No, I'm kidding. I think my great great great grandfather was probably a herring fisherman off the coast of Norway...but I find it funny that a thread that was started as an off-topic hijacking is turning into an off topic hi-jacking again. I have dibs on turning the Civil War thread into a discussion of the Franco-Prussian war!

What we need are meta-threads.  That way I could be confronted in a Civil War discussion with something I said about Thailand.

I'd add that claiming that we didn't enter the European theater of war until 1944 to be tendentious. North Africa and Italy were both certainly part of the European theater if they weren't part of the Western Front. The Russians certainly wanted a Western Front earlier and they lost a lot trying to hold the Nazi's but we were actively involved in the European theater from late 42 onward.

 

I think with dramatic battles like D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge the "Mediterreanan Front": North Africa and Italy, is sort of overlooked.  There was some pretty important battles there like Anzio and Monte Cassino.

 

I have dibs on turning the Civil War thread into a discussion of the Franco-Prussian war!

 

Common denominator: Napoleon III

 

 

 

 

Bushido calls for a warrior to die before surrendering.  You say that has implications on one hand, then dismiss it as propaganda on the other.  It seems to me that it is very valid consideration when evaluating the difficulty of invading and occupying Japanese territory, does it not?  I'm not looking for a moral blank check, I'm looking at what facts I have at hand and trying to reason if our leadership found what was the least murderous way to end the war.  I know nobody likes nuclear weapons, but dead is dead, whether by nuke, firebomb, infantry assault or starvation.  Not dropping "the bomb" isn't a moral blank check to kill people by other methods.

 

OK the Japanese were less likely than normal people to surrender.  Or to surrender fully in a way that loses all face.  Something we could have accounted for in our overtures, which has been mentioned.  Decency to the losers after WWI would probably have prevented Hitler's rise. 

 

We were the ones who told Japan to drop all that samurai stuff and become a modern power with an army and a navy and a sphere of influence.  We could have let them down easier.  China and SE Asia was the logical place for them to expand, so set the wheels in motion and KABOOM we just liberated China and SE Asia.  You're welcome.  Same with Kuwait.  KABOOM you're liberated, even though we had practically green lighted the invasion ourselves. 

 

Everyone played games with Asia during the late colonial period, Europe and Russia and the US.  The US played it differently by establishing, as near as possible, a direct proxy.  Still have it.  Hello Russian and Chinese coasts, would you like some sushi?

 

Back to the bomb:  terrible idea.  First of all it's awkward, since we are still there and have a "special relationship" with Japan.  Right now they remain constitutionally emasculated-- but imagine how pissed they'll be when they finally get over it, bearing in mind all those samurai traditions.  Every cartoon they've made for 30 years involves some massive holocaust.  It's bad form to disgrace a fallen enemy.  Same reason some people don't consider the war between the states over with.

 

But more importantly, NO, death isn't just death anymore.  It's widespread lingering death, quite possibly the end of the world.  They could have shot that thing off on a herd of goats for everyone to see and never crossed the line they did.  But they did.  And now there can't be another serious war. 

 

I saw an old Star Trek recently where these two planets changed their war into a computer simulation.  Every day it told them how many people died, and each side marched those people into a gas chamber to die.  This way they could avoid all the nasty side effects of war, like famine, expense, property loss, and the possible end of days.  As a result their war had lasted for centuries and didn't seem so bad anymore.  Making their war easier had made it much much worse.  After smashing their computer, Captain Kirk pointed out that we humans know ourselves to be vicious murderers.  We've done it every day of our existence and we may never stop.  The most we can do is say today, just today, I am a killer but I won't kill.  No promises about tomorrow.

 

That's the way the world has to be now.  We got too good at killing each other and the only way forward is to stop.                             

 

We did not enter the European Front until 1944, 5 years after the battle began.  Millions of Russians, French, and others perished fighting while we were only dealing with Japan.

 

What the he!! are you talking about?  Both of my grand-fathers were in WWII.  My point is that our involvement on the European Front did not begin until 1944, 5 years after it started.  Russia and the rest of the Allies had already taken the brunt of the Nazis.  That's a fact. 

 

 

Had it not been for what we were doing behind the scenes, the Russians, French, British and others would not have been able to hold out until we got there.  Also, someone else has already said it, but do you really think North Africa and Italy were cakewalks?

 

Ever hear of Lend-Lease?

 

Also, just curious, if you were with either or both of your grandfathers, and they asked you to bow your head in memory of their fallen comrades; would you do it?

If they asked me to bow my head, of course I would do it.  When my girlfriend wants to get married in a Catholic Church, I will do it.  That is quite different from my government telling me to do it.  0 points there.

 

Yes, I have heard of lend-lease.  If you want to consider lend-lease as full-scale involvement, then so be it.  Virtually every historical analysis states that our involvement in the Western Front began full-scale on Normandy. 

We were involved in strategic bombing starting in 1942.

 

When you say "Western Front" you could say there wasn't a western front in the ground war after the Brits evacuated Dunkirk, assuming one doestn count North Africa and Italy as part of the western front.  Until Normandy the western front consisted of naval operations against the U-boats and the strategic air campaing against Germany.  The US was involved with both of these.