Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The US Invasion of Japan

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Guess View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 01-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 141
  Quote Guess Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The US Invasion of Japan
    Posted: 31-Mar-2008 at 03:41
Lets say the United States was not able to develop the atomic bomb. My understanding is that Japan guessed right and had large numbers of soldiers where the United States planned to invade.

Would the US public have been willing to sustain these levels of casualties?
Would we have ended the war without a Japanese surrender?
Would we have waited for the Soviets to be able to invade at the same time?
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Mar-2008 at 11:59
Would the US public have been willing to sustain these levels of casualties?
 
No.
 
Would we have ended the war without a Japanese surrender?
 
After the defeat of Germany, it would have been a Total War. I think the Russians were moving across the continent to attack the Japanese, meaning both sides would crawl up and down the island nation until they were completely and comprehensively defeated. It could have taken years.
 
Would we have waited for the Soviets to be able to invade at the same time?
 
I think that was the idea.
Back to Top
Illirac View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 23-Jun-2007
Location: Ma vlast
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 526
  Quote Illirac Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Mar-2008 at 19:17
Originally posted by Guess



Would the US public have been willing to sustain these levels of casualties?

As parnell wrote before: no.
Originally posted by Guess


Would we have ended the war without a Japanese surrender?

The Americans would have not dropped the bomb if the Japanese were not so "eager to die". Because of this, the Americans planed that a war with Japan would end around 1946-47, that meant more death, and the Japanese had still an army.
Originally posted by Guess


Would we have waited for the Soviets to be able to invade at the same time?

Probably, so that the USA would have less deaths, and the little isle would be smashed between two.
For too long I've been parched of thirst and unable to quench it.
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Mar-2008 at 20:03
It was 1945 not 2005, casualties in war were not a big issue and certainy hadn't been any problem for the US army or public up to then. The Soviets may have had the inclination to invade Japan, but certainly lacked the amphibeous resources. Japan had offered to surrender several times before the US dropped the Atom Bomb. The most likely scenario is the US wold a prepped to invade and firebombed cities instead (just as deadly). Possibly the Japs could have surrendered before a troop touched their soil anyway.

Edited by Paul - 31-Mar-2008 at 20:05
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 11:57
Japan had offered a surrender before the 1945 bomb? Have you a link or something to that? Excuse me ignorance.
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 13:03
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591
  Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 13:40
Regrettabl David Irving is not the most reliable of authors. However, whilst it is fair that the Japanese civilians were considereing HOW to make peace, the military were much less sanguine. Their proposals fell far short of what the allies were looking for and it was the atom bomb which finally made up the Japanese minds
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 14:00
I don't know about that. From what I've read/heard, he is a hard working historian who was well respected for stuff other than his crazy view on the Holocaust.
Back to Top
Peteratwar View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 17-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 591
  Quote Peteratwar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 15:19
You can lose a reputation gained by years of hard work in 5 minutes of folly
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 16:37
He knows his historical research is always going to come under 1000 times more scrutiny than any other author, for his political views.
 
 
In this case many other authors, usually left wing not right, have written of the Japanese attempts at surrender. Just Irving is the only one to put first hand evidence on a website.
 
 


Edited by Paul - 02-Apr-2008 at 16:38
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke

Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1962
  Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 17:23
Originally posted by Parnell

Japan had offered a surrender before the 1945 bomb? Have you a link or something to that? Excuse me ignorance.
A Japanese authored book I read stated the same thing. The only problem was that the Cabinet members from the Japanese Army and Navy high command were insisting on a conditional surrender.
 
The conditions they wanted ranged from unrealistic to somewhat workable. Some of them were...
1. No military occupation of Japan, limited administrative occupation
2. War criminals are tried by Japanese courts
3. Japanese troops overseas disarm under their own authority and return home
4.  Allies guarantee Japanese existance as a soveriegn nation.
5. Emperor issue
 
In the final "unconditional yet conditional surrender", only 5 was granted, but 4 was strongly implied in a radio broadcasts. 1 and 3 were practiced in in relative degrees.
 
Originally posted by Parnell

 
Would we have waited for the Soviets to be able to invade at the same time?
 
I think that was the idea.
Probably not. The United States was determined to limit Communist influence in Asia.  
A starvation bolockade was rejected due to fears an increased communsit influence during the time it took the blockade to work. The invasion was going to be launched very quickly and with very limited assistance from the Soviets (to limit their post war role in Japan). 


Edited by Cryptic - 02-Apr-2008 at 19:49
Back to Top
Cataln View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 03-Jan-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 178
  Quote Cataln Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 18:17
In regards to projected casualties for an invasion of Japan, AFAIK the tallies conjured up during the early post-war period are horribly disproportionate.  Not that this says much about what I just mentioned, but this is in general a good paper on projected casualties of a U.S. invasion of Japan:
 
 
Would we have waited for the Soviets to be able to invade at the same time?
 
Like I mentioned in another thread, one of the reasons for dropping the nuclear bomb probably had to do with preempting a Soviet invasion of the Japanese home islands (I forgot which author specifically refers to archival evidence, but I believe it's David M. Glantz - an invasion of the Japanese home islands by part of the Red Army, that is).  The Red Army was probably willing to sustain the casualties which it would endured in a private invasion of one of the Japanese home islands, and it would have caused Japan to be split up into two zones ... something the United States was not particularly fond of, especially after Roosevelt's death.
 
That said, I don't think the United States was in a position to diplomatically block a Soviet invasion of Japan, since previously the United States had asked the Soviet Union to help against Japanese forces in Manchuria.
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 19:00
How would the Red Army have got to Japan?
 
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 19:09
with the ships they used to take the Kuriles and Sachalin i guess. why everyone thinks the Red Pacific Navy was just paperships?
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 19:42
It took the two largest and most powerful navies in the world, air supremacy and more than 2 years of building and planning just to cross the English channel.
 
Unless Stalin had a few hundred landing ships capable of crossing the Sea of Japan, a way to protect them on the journey, the specialist beach fighting equipment, trained landing troops, commandoes, decoys ect.


Edited by Paul - 02-Apr-2008 at 19:43
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Cataln View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 03-Jan-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 178
  Quote Cataln Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 19:44
Originally posted by Paul

How would the Red Army have got to Japan?
 
 
Amphibious landing.
Back to Top
Cataln View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 03-Jan-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 178
  Quote Cataln Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 19:47
Originally posted by Paul

It took the two largest and most powerful navies in the world, air supremacy and more than 2 years of building and planning just to cross the English channel.
 
It took Spain about three months of planning to commit to the largest amphibious landing in Spanish history, with really no previous experience in 'amphibious operations' (as in, with breakout operatins included) - an obsolete air force, and a small navy (two battleships).  Admittedly, against a much less capable enemy.  But, the Red Army and Red Navy had much more experience in amphibious operations (see their amphibious landings on several Japanese islands north of the four main home islands).
 
Also, as aforementioned, the Red Army was more willing to withstand the casualties which would have come from a less well planned amphibious assault.  Furthermore, Soviet intentions would have been more limited than the United States'.  IMO, the Soviet Union was not interested in defeating Japan as much as claiming part of it in their sphere of influence; the United States was there to do the main work.
 
Unless Stalin had a few hundred landing ships capable of crossing the Sea of Japan, a way to protect them on the journey, the specialist beach fighting equipment, trained landing troops, commandoes, decoys ect.
 
Well, he did. Smile
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 20:28
Originally posted by Paul

It took the two largest and most powerful navies in the world, air supremacy and more than 2 years of building and planning just to cross the English channel.
 
Unless Stalin had a few hundred landing ships capable of crossing the Sea of Japan, a way to protect them on the journey, the specialist beach fighting equipment, trained landing troops, commandoes, decoys ect.


i fail to see whats that got to do with anything. you failed to explain why japan couldn't prevent the taking of Sachalin and Kuriles despite it being sacred japanese soil (like Iwo Jima) while Normandy wasn't even bordering Germany....
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 22:04
This has been addressed before.  The Soviet Union landing relatively light forces in the Kuriles is not an amphibious assault of the Home Islands.  Any aquatic craft can be used to load and ferry soldiers, and even some equipment.  The USSR had poured heart and soul into the European war, and had little left for the far East until mechanized forces in large numbers could be transported there (after Germany's surrender).  Virtually all marine construction had been suspended in the USSR when the war began, and they could not cause naval assault craft, and all the support navies need, to appear by party edict. 
 
Not only the rail transport facilities but the port and harbor facilities in the East were inadequate for an operation of that magnitude, and the USSR had precious little experience and expertise in amphibious operations, and insufficient naval capability there.  I am not aware of any plan, discussion of, or intent to invade by the USSR.  The domination of the north Asian land mass was certainly sufficient for Soviet security needs, and was consistent with their capabilities.  The USSR under Stalin was not capable of projecting power through amphibious operations.
 
Germany was the issue for Russia.  Certainly they would take what was available in the East, but it was secondary.  Japan was ruined and no threat to them, so why go through all that if someone else will do it?  That is the way the western Allies felt about Berlin. 
 
In 1945, Russia had no interest in butting heads with the US.  Conflicts over Japan would not have served Russia's interests, and might have caused problems for them in Europe where their more vital interests were concentrated.  (That's my opinion, but still...)
 
As to the location of Normandy, it was close to the huge port and diversified infrastructure resources that were needed to service such a complicated endeavor.  Russia didn't have that 5,000 miles from Europe.  
 
 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 02-Apr-2008 at 23:46
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1409
  Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 12:47
Look up Operation August Storm on Wikipedia.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.