The US Invasion of Japan

Originally posted by Sparten Yes. And wrong. The US operations in both Normandy and Northern France were essentially Frontal Assults, indeed Pattons plans for the operations in Germany which were rejected were also frontal assualts.

Wrong?
First off, the statement - if read in its entirety ended in "where they can be avoided".  That is, frontal assaults are the last resort, and even when used, are supported with massive firepower (e.g., the waves of B-17s pummeling the front prior to the attempt to breakout of Normandy; the pummeling of Pacific Islands prior to their assault).

Secondly, arguments that Normandy was a frontal assault don't negate what I said.  We didn't invade like the Japanese did theirs in 1941.   The American way of war showed with a massive invasion fleet, complete air superiority, massive firepower.  We conducted a major deception campaign to confuse enemy of our main thrust.  Our logistics tail was enormous, with much specialty engineering being developed - and all this to get us a lodgement on the continent, in order to plant our mechanized and armoured forces ashore, to conduct a war of maneuver on the enemy in THE strategic theater of the war.

In fact, Normandy is a great example of the American way of war.

The American way of war generally?  Mechanization, use of technology, of firepower, or airpower - anything but frontal assaults where they can be avoided.  US naval operations in WW2 were done with the largest navy that has ever existed, and with amphibious assault capabilities that were incredible in size and complexity for the day.

I trust this is what you referred to.

"Where are all your examples?  Where are the sources?  Is it possible that we have not heard much about Soviet amphibious warfare in the Second World War because there wasn't much?  I don't think there was.  If you think so, you need to support that.  "

It's not cross-lake, or cross-river operations to look at.  Look at the fighting in the Crimea in particular.  tens of thousands of troops brought across and dumped on the beaches.  It was horrific, brutal, haphazard, but it was the Soviet way.  They didn't do these things in the American way, it was the soviet way of war.  But they did so, more than once.

Also, while smaller, the Soviets also did amphibious operations in Baltic (Estonia, for ex.), along north coast of Korea, and small landings in support of their seizure of southern Sakhalin (in addition to Kurile operations).

t

Hey all - I just stumbled upon you in a google search.  Am having this same debate over on the history channel forums.

Have you all read Richard Frank's Downfall?  Awesome book.

Some of his research gives different specifics than I have seen cited here.
Hokkaido was defended by 2 1/3 Japanese divisions.  Those forces were faced EAST toward a feared American invasion, not WEST toward the soviet invasion spots.
Soviet plan to invade was in AUGUST (or was moved forward, perhaps), and only delayed by fierce Japanese resistance on Sakhalin.  The Soviet general charged with the invasion requested permission to launch the invasion, but was eventually told to stand down by Stalin - who was told by Truman that their invasion of Hokkaido was not in keeping with the Potsdam plans, and to stick with the plan.  They relented.

Their invasion was nothing like US operations, to be sure.  One regiment is the first wave, followed by more regiments brought over by the soviet navy in far east.  Their intention was to take Hokkaido with 3 divisions, though more were available if needed.

I'm really wanting to find Glantz' paper in Military History Quarterly, Spring 1995, "The Soviet Invasion of Japan".  Like Frank, Glantz believes the soviet invasion would have worked (or was likely to have worked).

Some information about the Soviet amphibious operations in the West. Landing in Bornholm, Danish island in the Baltic Sea.

Originally posted by Sparten Kyushu was going to be a death ride for the US Sixth and Tenth Armys, the Japanese had positioned troops and aircraft (kamikazis) perfectly, the landing forces would have been cut to bits assualting prepared positions. Of course this is the OPLAN as it stood on 15th August, perhaps by Nov 1st the US would have changed its plans once more intel on the Japanese troop positions became known.   All this is presuming that Japan could even last till November. The US governments Strategic Bombing survey did not think so.   Originally posted by US Strategic Bombing Survey Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated   http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm#teotab

The US government planned operation downfall, which was aimed at toppling the Japanese regime on the Japanese mainland for good. It was to be put to plan from 1945 to 1946. The whole plan was scrapped with the Japanese surrender after the dropping of the Atomic bombs.
The Japanese did not surrender because the government had continuously fueled its people with imperial propaganda. The people were brainwashed into thinking that they would be exterminated by the Americans if they surrendered, and thus their hatred grew, and they thought the west was full of ruthless barbarians. We all know that in truth, it was them who committed much of the brutal crimes during the pacific war.
The americans expected great resistance during operation downfall, with a vast amount of civilians fighting alongside the Japanese. If the Japanese Emperor had not surrendered, millions of old men, women and children would have been killed in the crossfire. There would have been millions of Allied casualties. If the Soviets joined the war, they would probably have worked from Hokkaido down to Tohoku. The Americans planned to land at nagasaki and the coasts facing the Pacific.



wikipedia: The Japanese planned an all-out defense of Kyūshū, with little left in reserve for any subsequent defense operations. Casualty predictions varied widely but were extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties, and tens of millions for Japanese casualties.
You can check the page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall


Edited by Vasileios - 06-Jun-2008 at 10:17

Catalan, Nice long post. 

Edited by pikeshot1600 - 04-Apr-2008 at 21:44

Look up Operation August Storm on Wikipedia.