Even without A-bombs could US take home islands? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Feinder -> Even without A-bombs could US take home islands? (10/10/2007 9:14:17 PM)

With due respect to the PM thread (some -very- interesting stuff there), I'm curious what y'all would have to add on Operation Olympic, the invasion of Japan.

I don't know much about it, other than what it is, they expected very heavy casualties given recent experience at Okinama and Iwo Jima. But it was obviously something they were gearing up for, and fully expected to have to undertake.

For starters, anybody got some good links on Operation Olympic, so I can get a little more educated? How long did they think it would be necessary to secure Japan's surrender? Given the length of time it took to secure Iwo (a certainly limited square milage compared to all of Japan!), I would think we would have been there for *LONG* time.

Discussion?
-F-



niceguy2005 -> RE: Even without A-bombs could US take home islands? (10/10/2007 9:35:13 PM)

Interesting question Feinder.  I know nothing about the plans for either side, only that they expected it to be horrifically bloody. 

I think Okinawa would be a good standard by which to measure what the fighting would have been like.  As I understand it the defenses on Okinawa were well prepared and the Japanese had plenty of supply.  What were the casualties?  Something like 250,000 of which I understand 150,000 were civilian.  I think what really concerned the Allies (and probably the Japanese too) was the horrendous loss of civilian life.

As to could the Allies conquer the Home Islands...yes I think they could have.



Terminus -> RE: Even without A-bombs could US take home islands? (10/10/2007 9:41:21 PM)

It would have been bloody, but maybe a little less than conventional wisdom seems to indicate. Japanese defences were quite strong around the landing sites (they'd identified the landing areas on Kyushu 100% correctly), but once ashore, the US would eventually have won. Some sources indicate that once the outer layer had been cracked, there wasn't much left for the Japanese to do.

The whole Jap strategy was to bleed the US so heavily that the US political leadership would be forced to seek a conditional peace, rather than unconditional surrender. I doubt very seriously that such casualties could be inflicted, and Japan would have ceased to exist as a nation if the invasion had taken place.



Feinder -> RE: Even without A-bombs could US take home islands? (10/10/2007 9:57:18 PM)

I think we -could- have taken Japan, but geeze, how long, and at what cost (civilian and military).

I remember seeing an interview with a (US) vet of a Chem Warfare Btn.  Yeah, yeah, chem warfare = bad, and we made the rule.  But it's my understanding that chem weapons -were- indeed on the table if we did have to actually go with invading Japan.  Boy -that- would have been messy.

-F-



Mike Scholl -> RE: Even without A-bombs could US take home islands? (10/10/2007 9:58:32 PM)

The real Japanese problem at the time (August of '45) was the entire homeland was on the verge of starvation. The civilian diet was already at about 70% of what was needed just to function, and imports at a standstill (Japan couldn't feed itself without imports). Even without the A-Bombs and the Russians, it's quite doubtfull Japan could have held on until the end of 1945. By then almost all of the inhabitants would have been reduced to the emaciated state of Nazi Concentration Camps inmates.



Ike99 -> RE: Even without A-bombs could US take home islands? (10/10/2007 10:05:21 PM)

No doubt the Allies could have taken the home islands. Allied casualties would have been very high but these would pale in comparison to the disgustingly high Japanese civilian casulties that would have occured. Starvation and malnutrition would have been widespread.

No doubt without the Emporers address they would have fought on though. Many still wanted to fight on. I undestand his recorded address was tried to be destroyed before it went out on the radio. Even after the address I read a story where 2 guys fought with Samurai swords to the death as if they should surrender or not.



Feinder -> RE: Even without A-bombs could US take home islands? (10/10/2007 10:23:53 PM)

That brings an interesting point.  Not to hijack my own thread, but when we say "total war", I'm talking Sherman (*spit*) style.  Being from south of Mason Dixon, I've been raised to hate Sherman.  Indeed, he was an utter b_stard.  -BUT- he knew what he was doing.  Many in the South were starving by 1864, and Sherman went forward with the "total war" mindset with a full head of steam (indeed, he brought definition to it that hadn't been seen since Rome vs. Carthage).  He burned whatever cotton fields were left, and what livestock he didn't apprehend, he shot.  People and soldiers that are truely starving, don't fight, or at least, they don't fight very well. 

But if faced with a military and civilain population that is starving but will "resist to the end", between chem weapons and all the other nasties, you could "attack" the agricultural production, and -THAT- would hurt (esp an already starving populace). 

Yes, it's mean and nasty, and we'd lose the moral high-ground.  But if it were me in the oval office, and the invasion was bogged down, my troops were dying, and no A-bomb, and the US the public was tired.  I'm not gonna lie, if "total war" is the fastest option to get the resister to give up, I'd be looking for responses at the next cabinet meeting.  I'm not talking about a couple of bombers over London that only strengthens resolve.  I'm talking arial mining of rice fields and doing whatever you do to kill the coastal fish.  Get your protein from bugs.  You can throw me in with Sherman and call me a b_stard for the next 150 years, but if it saves the lives of -my- soldiers, I could give a crap about those that continue to resist.

Interesting point about the deprivation.  I think Knavey just got himself a book on the (Japanese) civilian side of WW2.  Says it was much worse than we figure it was.  I'll have to borrow it once I finish "Forgotten Fleet" (RN in Pacific 44-45).

-F-



mlees -> RE: Even without A-bombs could US take home islands? (10/10/2007 10:31:18 PM)

Obligatory Wiki Link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall



Terminus -> RE: Even without A-bombs could US take home islands? (10/10/2007 10:54:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

The real Japanese problem at the time (August of '45) was the entire homeland was on the verge of starvation. The civilian diet was already at about 70% of what was needed just to function, and imports at a standstill (Japan couldn't feed itself without imports).


That's another nail in the coffin of the mass civilian militia attacks myth.



Feinder -> RE: Even without A-bombs could US take home islands? (10/10/2007 11:02:09 PM)

quote:

That's another nail in the coffin of the mass civilian militia attacks myth.


I'm not familiar with that myth (I presume you mean militia divisions or kids with bombs). Which is the island where the civilians were jumping off the cliffs? Okinawa? -THAT- is what I was thinking of in terms of civilian casualties. Sure, there'd be some that charged with bamboo-spears. But I when I think of the cause of civilian casualties in Japan, I think of the suicides at Okinawa(?), or, if you did use chem weapons (or even basic urban fighting, with only conventional weapons), the civilians not evacuating, because frankly, they don't have any place to go.

-F-



Terminus -> RE: Even without A-bombs could US take home islands? (10/10/2007 11:12:51 PM)

I'm talking about the human-wave civilian attacks with bamboo spears. More than a few Japanese officers were quick to debunk it after the war, claiming that no serious planning ever went into raising that sort of unit, though that could certainly just be revisionism.



niceguy2005 -> RE: Even without A-bombs could US take home islands? (10/10/2007 11:41:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

The real Japanese problem at the time (August of '45) was the entire homeland was on the verge of starvation. The civilian diet was already at about 70% of what was needed just to function, and imports at a standstill (Japan couldn't feed itself without imports).


That's another nail in the coffin of the mass civilian militia attacks myth.

I never give much credence to those ideas. In the era of "modern" warfare civilians don't stand a snowballs chance in heck against machine guns and tanks...its mass slaughter every time someone tries.



niceguy2005 -> RE: Even without A-bombs could US take home islands? (10/10/2007 11:44:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

quote:

That's another nail in the coffin of the mass civilian militia attacks myth.


I'm not familiar with that myth (I presume you mean militia divisions or kids with bombs). Which is the island where the civilians were jumping off the cliffs? Okinawa? -THAT- is what I was thinking of in terms of civilian casualties. Sure, there'd be some that charged with bamboo-spears. But I when I think of the cause of civilian casualties in Japan, I think of the suicides at Okinawa(?), or, if you did use chem weapons (or even basic urban fighting, with only conventional weapons), the civilians not evacuating, because frankly, they don't have any place to go.

-F-

WHen I think of civilian casualties in such an operation I think of simply those caught in the line of fire. When an opposing army is moving down your street where do you go? How do you hide from the bombs, flame throwers and machine guns? Typical tactics for an army squad would be to toss a hand grenade or two into through a door before entering.



rtrapasso -> RE: Even without A-bombs could US take home islands? (10/10/2007 11:47:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I'm talking about the human-wave civilian attacks with bamboo spears. More than a few Japanese officers were quick to debunk it after the war, claiming that no serious planning ever went into raising that sort of unit, though that could certainly just be revisionism.



Dunno about units - but my Dad was in Japan immediately after the surrender - and what he saw there scared him... he had kids turning in caches of spears. He was also impressed that the Japanese had set up big pillbox fortifications in the middle of factories.

i suspect that any bamboo spear attacks would have been mown down but even if 100 spear wielders died for each US soldier, i suspect the Japanese might have been willing to make the exchange.



Rainer -> RE: Even without A-bombs could US take home islands? (10/11/2007 12:26:04 AM)

I think it was Palau where civilians (including a pregnant women in the process of giving birth) jumped off the cliffs.
I believe these civilians were not natives of the island but Japanese people, but I'm not sure about that.
There is newsreel movie material about the whole tragic event.



Terminus -> RE: Even without A-bombs could US take home islands? (10/11/2007 12:26:10 AM)

Hmm... My reaction to reading the above-mentioned denial was "yeah, right", but still...



Terminus -> RE: Even without A-bombs could US take home islands? (10/11/2007 12:27:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainer

I think it was Palau where civilians (including a pregnant women in the process of giving birth) jumped off the cliffs.
I believe these civilians were not natives of the island but Japanese people, but I'm not sure about that.
There is newsreel movie material about the whole tragic event.



Saipan. Pelileu might have happened too, but the newsreel footage was from Saipan.



String -> RE: Even without A-bombs could US take home islands? (10/11/2007 12:30:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

The real Japanese problem at the time (August of '45) was the entire homeland was on the verge of starvation. The civilian diet was already at about 70% of what was needed just to function, and imports at a standstill (Japan couldn't feed itself without imports).


That's another nail in the coffin of the mass civilian militia attacks myth.

I never give much credence to those ideas. In the era of "modern" warfare civilians don't stand a snowballs chance in heck against machine guns and tanks...its mass slaughter every time someone tries.


Indeed. I can see them giving a mild headache in close quarters and at night though.



witpqs -> RE: Even without A-bombs could US take home islands? (10/11/2007 12:38:07 AM)

Terminus mentioned that Japan would have ceased to exist as a nation. Consider the timing that was involved. The Soviets had already declared war, invaded mainland Asia areas, and invaded the northern Kuriles (either just before or just after surrender). If the US & allies had invaded, that would have included the Soviets one way or another (meaning either cooperatively or - more likely - separately). That's a big factor. Japan certainly would have ceased to exist, for quite some time at least.



m10bob -> RE: Even without A-bombs could US take home islands? (10/11/2007 1:05:35 AM)

In that the Japanese were experimenting with chemical/biological agents in China, and had a philosophy to include sacrificial warfare, I have no doubt my brother and I would have never been born.
I am also certain Mr Truman did the right thing, for the most people, (us and them).



niceguy2005 -> RE: Even without A-bombs could US take home islands? (10/11/2007 1:07:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Terminus mentioned that Japan would have ceased to exist as a nation. Consider the timing that was involved. The Soviets had already declared war, invaded mainland Asia areas, and invaded the northern Kuriles (either just before or just after surrender). If the US & allies had invaded, that would have included the Soviets one way or another (meaning either cooperatively or - more likely - separately). That's a big factor. Japan certainly would have ceased to exist, for quite some time at least.

As I read up on some basic information about the operation this started coming to mind. The Soviets were definitely in the picture at this point.

Operation Coronet (who names their operation after a paper plate [;)]) would have required some pull of troops from the European theater.

1. How would this have influenced immediate post-war relations between the U.S.S.R. and Europe?
2. With both the Soviet military and the Allies still at war with Japan this increases the chance for confrontation between the two, in particular if the Soviets move into what became South Korea.



hgilmer -> RE: Even without A-bombs could US take home islands? (10/11/2007 1:47:54 AM)

    With complete air control, wouldn't we have at least tried to bomb them with conventional bombing and then regardless of whether they were attacking us with spears, their losses would have been in the millions?



Terminus -> RE: Even without A-bombs could US take home islands? (10/11/2007 1:58:22 AM)

That's what LeMay wanted...



wworld7 -> RE: Even without A-bombs could US take home islands? (10/11/2007 2:38:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hgilmer

    With complete air control, wouldn't we have at least tried to bomb them with conventional bombing and then regardless of whether they were attacking us with spears, their losses would have been in the millions?


What would you have bombed?

Yes, millions of of Japanese would have died. Does that balance if the Allies only lost a million lives? Or a half million?

At what point is victory too expensive?






Joe D. -> RE: Even without A-bombs could US take home islands? (10/11/2007 2:49:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

In that the Japanese were experimenting with chemical/biological agents in China, and had a philosophy to include sacrificial warfare, I have no doubt my brother and I would have never been born ...


After Germany surrendered, some of my father's Tank Destroyer brigade were doing amphibious landing practice in France in prep for the invasion of Japan. I suspect that a significant number of present posters wouldn't be here if that invasion went on as planned.

HoI2(D) has a (hypothetical) Olympic scenario, but has anyone in WitP not developed the A-bomb and instead invaded the Japanese home islands? If so, what happened?



Yamato hugger -> RE: Even without A-bombs could US take home islands? (10/11/2007 2:53:52 AM)

Well just as a starter, Okinawa saw about 1100 kamakazies and it inflicted about 10% of the US Navys casulties during WWII and their primary target was the carriers. Okinawa has hundreds of miles of open sea in all directions to see incoming aircraft on radar.

For Olympic, the Japs were preparing 10,000 (yes, ten thousand) kamakazies. Their target was to be troop ships, and they would have been coming in over land where they would probably be on their targets before radar even saw them. Most were based in caves and tunnels so interdiction would have had minimal effect. To say it would have been bloody is an understatement. US figures estimated 500,000 American casulties alone, and thats before they knew how many kamakazies there were and what their target was.

My father was scheduled for wave 1 of Olympic. I for one am damn glad they dropped them bombs, or frankly I probably wouldnt be here. He likely would have died right there in or off Japan in 1945.



Joe D. -> RE: Even without A-bombs could US take home islands? (10/11/2007 2:56:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

That's what LeMay wanted...


That's what LeMay did w/an incendiary bombing campaign that burned up Japanese cities and factories as if they were made of paper, which they mostly were.

And in the process, our bombers accidentilly discovered the jet stream; LeMay then simply lowered their altitude.



Canoerebel -> RE: Even without A-bombs could US take home islands? (10/11/2007 3:05:34 AM)

Several American conventional bombings - I think all of them incendiary - exacted higher death tolls than either of the atomic bombs.

There's no question the Allies would have conquered Japan.  Eventually, when all aspects of waging war - the military, civilians, agriculture, hygiene, supply - reach a state sufficiently bad, the will to wage war suddenly and completely collapses.  Feinder's example of the end of the American Civil War is a fair example.  The Army of Northern Virginia might have escaped to the mountains and waged a guerilla war at some cost to the Union, but the South was defeated.  Everything had failed and the country collapsed.  That sort of collapse would have occurred in Japan too. 



Ike99 -> RE: Even without A-bombs could US take home islands? (10/11/2007 3:49:44 AM)

quote:

I am also certain Mr Truman did the right thing, for the most people


I agree totally. In all the news items I have seen of the time the Allies always insist upon the ¨unconditional surrender¨ of Germany and Japan.

While Germany did surrender unconditionaly Japan did not. As the war went along and the dream of a greater Asia faded the protection of the Emporer became the cause for the Japanese.

The whole Japanese military was engrained with protecting and serving the Emporer. Surrending to the Allies unconditionally and serving up the Emporer to the Allies was unthinkable and they (as a people) would rather die.

Once the Allies dropped the unconditional surrender demand and guaranteed the status of the Emporer Japanese ¨honor¨ was satisfied enough and the war was quickly concluded. I think in the same week actually IIRC.

This surrender clause ended the war, not the atomic bombs.

If they hadn´t done this the Allies would have captured Japan eventually but the casualties would have been terrible.



Big B -> RE: Even without A-bombs could US take home islands? (10/11/2007 4:53:19 AM)

It's merely an exorcise in rhetoric at this distant point - but, even without the Atom-Bomb Japan was slipping fast regardless.
Iwo Jima had horrific casualties, but remember - Okinawa saw the first large scale surrender of Japanese forces, it was the only battle of the war where the Japanese surrendered in the thousands instead of individually.

MacArthur and Nimitz among others claimed the atomic bomb was not necessary. I believe even if the allies had not relented to MacArthur's advice to leave the emperor intact, the Japanese would have had to surrender without the million allied casualties feared.

The Japanese war machine was being effectively starved, her industries and cities burned-out, and in a short while - no kamikaze's would have been flying - for lack of fuel if nothing else. With the USA, British Empire, and Soviet Union having nothing better to do than keep everyone employed in industry by destroying Japan conventionally, I can't really see how Japan could have kept the war going much longer anyway. This no-doubt is the reason for the post-war guilt felt over dropping the bomb. Starvation alone would have laid Japan low in a much shorter time than would have been necessary by fighting them all.

Honestly, I can't imagine that it could have gone on more than a few more months, no matter how suicidal some Japanese would have been willing to be...we are talking modern war - and that is all logistics no matter how fervent your army is.

Of all the misguided romantic notions about war in general, the idea that the Japanese would have/could have fought to the death with bamboo sticks and sharpened poles - is the most misguided of all. Like it or not, their time was done, the most that could have been achieved by a few Japanese die-hards was a guerrilla war of hopelessness that the average Japanese civilian would have quickly and wisely rejected.

And for all those who think of the casualties that may have been inflicted on the invading American Armies - I submit that everyone should reflect on the comparative casualties between the ETO and the PTO...there is no comparison. Eisenhower lost more men in a month in the 'Battle of the Bulge' than MacArthur lost in the entire Pacific War....as many Americans died and were wounded taking San Pietro in 5 days in Dec 1943 (just to batter their way into the Liri Valley...not to mention taking Monte Cassino) than Guadalcanal cost in 6 months, as many men died in two nights trying to cross the Rapido River in Italy in Jan 1944 as died taking Tarawa. In short, the price paid in the MTO-ETO was Always vastly higher than paid in the PTO...but it did not deter the Allies, and remember - that was the same war and the same price tag as willing to be paid. In short, the Germans were far more capable of inflicting casualties on the Allies than the Japanese were, yet that did not save the Germans.

my 2c.

B



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.59375