Ushijima-gallant defender of Okinawa

[zed]

defended Okinawa for 2 1/2 months against overwhelming allied resources. Convinced Allied commanders that invasion of Japan was impossible.

[tanjman]

Originally posted by zed
defended Okinawa for 2 1/2 months against overwhelming allied resources. Convinced Allied commanders that invasion of Japan was impossible.

I disagree with the last sentence. Okinawa convinced President Truman that invading Japan was not imposslible, just not cost effective in terms of Allied casualties. Intead he ordered the use of the atomic bomb (once he found out about it) instead of invading Japan. If enough atomic bombs weren't available or the ones available (and used) hadn't convinced Japan to surrender, I feel the blockade of Japan would have continued and most of her people would have starved to death during the winter of 45/46. Then invasion would have been carried out in the spring/early summer of 1946 against a much weakened Japan.

So in the end more people (mostly Japanese) would have died. For what? Japan had already lost the war, Tojo & company just lacked the moral courage to surrender. Ushijima may have been gallant, but it was gallantry in the service of evil. By prolonging the war, more of his people died, all in the name of honor.

This doesn't mean I won't be playing WitP, I can't wait to play.

[Zakhal]

Tojo & staff lost because they were bad, im going to win and kick some american playboy' asses! Woohoo!

With so much pacific stuff missing from uv and it still easily been one of the best wargames to date, i can hardly imagine what witp will bring alone. In the least ill learn the geography of the pacific.

[Jeremy Pritchard]

Tojo was fired back in 1943... A common misconception about Japan was that it was just like Germany, with an evil leader. In reality it was a military government, much like what tried to get rid of Hitler in 1944... There were those in the military government that were trying to find an honourable way to end the war, but with Unconditional Surrender on the table, they had to either wait for invasion or the threat of possible annihilation, either of which would have sufficed for honour being served.

The atomic bombs offered Japan a way out of the war, as if they fought, the US could just sit back and annihilate Japan, without any fighting by soldiers. Japanese hardliners were hoping for a land war, which would have enabled Japan to fight until totally subdued. The atomic bomb showed these, and the Emperor, that the war could now be fought at a different level, where Japanese soldiers would not fight an enemy, and the civilian population would now bear the brunt of the war.

Looking upon Japan of the 1940's in the eyes of a 21st Century Westerner will not allow you to understand why history went as it did. Should Russia have given up when the Germans were at the gates of Moscow? Should England have given up in 1940 after losing their army and facing an onslaught by an undefeated enemy who severely outnumbered them?

Japan was hoping for a miracle. Kamikaze's were supposed to be their miracle, like Radar was England's, and the 1941-42 blizzard was Russia's. It is absurd to us for Japan to hold on so long because they lost their gamble, and we knew that they would because it happened decades after we were born. In fact, more people believed that Russia and England would fall at their respective weak points then Japan would at theirs.

The main reason why people play wargames is to create their own miracles, so the defeated are not defeated, and the victors are victorious years before they actually were.

[Admiral DadMan]

Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
...Tojo was fired back in 1943...

His cabinet resigned on 18 Jul 44 the day the loss of Saipan was announced.

[mdiehl]

Ushijima: The ineffective leader who managed by skulking in caves to delay the message "Island Secured" by six weeks. The man who ordered his troops to fight, in vain, to the last. The man who had leaflets printed that caused Okinawan civilians to believe they would be systematically desecrated and violated (which, if the US soldiers had been Japanese, might have been true), causing them thereby to engage in a self-inflicted effort at mass extinction. The man who convinced the US that it was better to fry a million Japanese civilians with incendiaries and nukes than kill ten million of them in ground combat and in incredibly stupid and futile suicidal defense.

Ushijima: not merely your garden variety thug.

[CynicAl]

originally posted by zed:
Convinced Allied commanders that invasion of Japan was impossible.

originally posted by tanjman:
Okinawa convinced President Truman that invading Japan was not imposslible, just not cost effective in terms of Allied casualties.

Mac was dismissive of casualty figures from Okinawa when planning his attack on Kyushu. He convinced Marshall, and Marshall convinced Truman, that successive invasions of Kyushu and Honshu were necessary and that US losses would be "acceptable." Based on the information available to him when he began planning for OLYMPIC, he may have been correct.

However, in 1945 the Japanese largely stripped the rest of the Home Islands to reinforce southern Kyushu for KETSU-GO, their planned counter to OLYMPIC. When MAGIC intercepts revealed in July 1945 that what had been anticipated as a large Allied numerical superiority in the invasion area would by the time of attack become approximately parity, with terrain favoring the the defenders, OLYMPIC got shelved in favor of continuing with the bombardment/blockade strategy.

originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard:
There were those in the military government that were trying to find an honourable way to end the war, but with Unconditional Surrender on the table, they had to either wait for invasion or the threat of possible annihilation, either of which would have sufficed for honour being served.

The atomic bombs offered Japan a way out of the war, as if they fought, the US could just sit back and annihilate Japan, without any fighting by soldiers. Japanese hardliners were hoping for a land war, which would have enabled Japan to fight until totally subdued. The atomic bomb showed these, and the Emperor, that the war could now be fought at a different level, where Japanese soldiers would not fight an enemy, and the civilian population would now bear the brunt of the war.

There were also those in the Japanese military government who sincerely believed that racial extinction was preferable to bending the knee in surrender, "unconditional" or otherwise. It is often claimed that Japan would have surrendered had Allied demands for unconditional surrender been modified to guarantee the preservation of the Emperor. However, Foreign Minister Togo (generally considered one of the more peace-minded members of Japan's Big Six) explicitly rejected exactly those terms when they were proposed to him in a telegram from Ambassador Sato in Moscow in mid-July 1945, despite Sato's advice that those terms were the best Japan could hope for.

[Nihon Teikoku]

Gallant? don't say that near me, he isn't too popular in Uchinaa (Okinawa).

Col. Yahara, the Chief of Operations, was the one who did 99% of the planning for the entire defense of Okinawa. The 1% that he didn't do was Cho's ill-fated counter-attack in May that severely weakened the Japanese ability to hold the island. Most of the time Ushijima could be found in his dug-out or cave at Mabuni drinking sake, looking important, and listening to local geishas sing. These geishas he obligingly killed before committing suicide.

Every document I have ever read stated that the invasion of Japan would have still occurred in November 1945. There was no serious argument against the invasion, except in some lower SWNCC meetings where there were some advocates for waiting until the spring to invade. Diaries and of higher ranking folks (Truman, MacArthur, Marshall) say nothing about delaying the invasion.

Ushijima translated means "Cow Island." Fitting name for someone that milked the lives of 80,000 Japanese, 15,000 Americans, and 150,000 Okinawans

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by mdiehl
Ushijima: The ineffective leader who managed by skulking in caves to delay the message "Island Secured" by six weeks. The man who ordered his troops to fight, in vain, to the last. The man who had leaflets printed that caused Okinawan civilians to believe they would be systematically desecrated and violated (which, if the US soldiers had been Japanese, might have been true), causing them thereby to engage in a self-inflicted effort at mass extinction. The man who convinced the US that it was better to fry a million Japanese civilians with incendiaries and nukes than kill ten million of them in ground combat and in incredibly stupid and futile suicidal defense.

Ushijima: not merely your garden variety thug.

A-Freaking-Men, mdiehl.

[mikewj]

Hi,

Just reading through the posts about the high casualties of an invasion of Japan and mention of the Atomic bomb...

I've read, and always felt, that the two A-bombs, were not used to finish off Japan. The US knew they were defeated and as someone has already said earlier, US command was ready to invade anyway.

Japan was finished and it was only a matter of time before they surrended. From what I've read, no senior US miliary officer agreed on the use of the bomb (though I could be wrong there).

I always thought the bombs were a political statement to the Soviets that we had the bomb - they didn't - and the Hiroshima and Nagasaki were simply technological statements to the next enemy.

Mike

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by mikewj
Hi,

Just reading through the posts about the high casualties of an invasion of Japan and mention of the Atomic bomb...

I've read, and always felt, that the two A-bombs, were not used to finish off Japan. The US knew they were defeated and as someone has already said earlier, US command was ready to invade anyway.

Japan was finished and it was only a matter of time before they surrended. From what I've read, no senior US miliary officer agreed on the use of the bomb (though I could be wrong there).

I always thought the bombs were a political statement to the Soviets that we had the bomb - they didn't - and the Hiroshima and Nagasaki were simply technological statements to the next enemy.

Mike

Absolute nonsense. The US may have "known" that Japan was finished, but Japan knew nothing of the kind. There was no indication from any Japanese source in July 1945 that Japan was anywhere near even thinking about surrendering.

HST approved use of atomic weapons because, and strictly because, they were in the weapons pipeline and available.

Anyone who has seen film of Harry playing the piano (or, hell, for that matter, just walking down the street) knows that this gentleman had no sense for the subtleties of the differences among weapons. He was of a people who, during their time, believed that "the Japs" were the heathen, marginally human enemy and that this enemy deserved any horrible fate that befell it after Pearl Harbor, the Bataan death march, and any other atrocities that could be delved up to support America's united, fervid hatred of anything even remotely Japanese. Besides, this country was sick of war and hungry for the healing that would only come from absolute victory.

My mother (1921-2000) was typical of that generation. I have a quote from her preserved on tape that sums up the prevailing attitude of the day quite nicely:

"Japs. I hope the whole island (sic) sinks into the ocean. Nobody done nothin' better than to drop the bomb on them slanty-eyed yellow bastards. Tell it to the boys on the Arizona."

Atomic weapons were a way for America to stomp the last breath out of a defeated enemy that had yet to admit it was defeated. Remember that Americans were dying every day from suicide attacks by a people that seemed to Americans to have no regard for the sanctity of human life (chillingly familiar when put in those terms, isn't it?

---------------------------------

I will now proceed to entangle the entire area

[mikewj]

I can agree that Atomic weapons were in the pipeline, but I'm still trying to push through the emotionalism of war and quoting our parents and grandparents is no way to dissect the politics, power, oil, etc of a global conflict.

It's like the trouble in the Middle East now -- the swirling convergence of oil, power, money, religion, etc shows that it isn't just simply 'hey, they hurt some of us, let's hurt some of us' and that's it. That isn't analysis -- that's the emotion that political/economic leaders use to get their population behind them.

I didn't see any response to the idea that the Atomic bombs might have had more than one utility: killing people. They also told another expanding, ideologically driven empire that there was a weapon that they should think about as they expanded...

War is definitely more than just the population saying 'let's beat the crap out of them cause they did it to us'. If that's all it was, then we'd be having the Olympics every year.

Mike

[CynicAl]

Mike - If you're interested in the subject, I highly recommend Richard Frank's excellent Downfall (ISBN: 0141001461 ), which is probably the best single source for the political and strategic events leading up to the Japanese surrender. Lots of stuff in there from declassified MAGIC documents, personal diaries, and other contemporary sources which go a long way to describe what was going on in the minds of political and military leaders - US and Japanese - in the summer of 1945. Well worth the cover price.

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by mikewj
I can agree that Atomic weapons were in the pipeline, but I'm still trying to push through the emotionalism of war and quoting our parents and grandparents is no way to dissect the politics, power, oil, etc of a global conflict.

It's like the trouble in the Middle East now -- the swirling convergence of oil, power, money, religion, etc shows that it isn't just simply 'hey, they hurt some of us, let's hurt some of us' and that's it. That isn't analysis -- that's the emotion that political/economic leaders use to get their population behind them.

I didn't see any response to the idea that the Atomic bombs might have had more than one utility: killing people. They also told another expanding, ideologically driven empire that there was a weapon that they should think about as they expanded...

War is definitely more than just the population saying 'let's beat the crap out of them cause they did it to us'. If that's all it was, then we'd be having the Olympics every year.

Mike

You miss my point entirely. If you want to analyze the actions of a generation, you have to see the world through their eyes, not the lens of your over-intellectualized, historical revisionism. It was, indeed, a time of kill or be killed, and Americans saw the Japanese as a real threat to the survival of civilization.

------------------------------

I will now proceed to entangle the entire area

[mikewj]

I don't think I'm over-intellectualizing when I say it was more than 'kill or be killed' that motivates conflict.

I had one grandfather fight in the Atlantic and another in the Canadian Army. I had three great uncles on my mother's side fight at Stalingrad. I understand that soliders and societies defend themselves when at war. I have a vast respect for those who fight for their countries... I'm just willing to think that they are often fighting for the reasons of others.

I just know that if we don't put a lot of effort into analyzing why nations go to war, then we'll continually repeat them.

Take for example what's going on with Iraq. Call me a cynical, but there's a part of me that thinks that domestic political reasons will push American to attack Iraq.

Mike

[Ranger-75]

We started Japan's post war economic boom with two wartime booms.

The A-bomb was used, on the direction of the President,after long intensive deliberations with CIVILIAN advisors. The military was trained and directed to be ready if and when authorization came.

There was likely a little bit of everything in the reasnoing that led up to the final decision, but it then end there can be little disagreement that using it spared not only thousands of US and Allied lives but also probably MILLIONS of Japanese lives.

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by mikewj
I don't think I'm over-intellectualizing when I say it was more than 'kill or be killed' that motivates conflict.

I had one grandfather fight in the Atlantic and another in the Canadian Army. I had three great uncles on my mother's side fight at Stalingrad. I understand that soliders and societies defend themselves when at war. I have a vast respect for those who fight for their countries... I'm just willing to think that they are often fighting for the reasons of others.

I just know that if we don't put a lot of effort into analyzing why nations go to war, then we'll continually repeat them.

Take for example what's going on with Iraq. Call me a cynical, but there's a part of me that thinks that domestic political reasons will push American to attack Iraq.

Mike

A lot of good sense in what you say, Mike. Thank you. I agree wholeheartedly that "who ignores history is condemned to relive it."

Your Iraq comment is, sadly, right on, my friend. Bushes seem to think that the way to success is to conjure up a bogeyman, play on whatever fear is available, and turn the situation into political capital. George senior seems to have been crestfallen that he didn't win the Nobel peace prize for fighting a war (anybody remember the old anti-war slogan, "Fighting for peace is like f***ing for chastity?")

One last thing about America's WWII generation and how they saw the world - Ma's attitudes were partly informed by the loss of two of her brothers during the war, one in the Pacific and one in Europe. Her racism and confounding, bullheadedly ignorant attitudes were, from the way I read that generation, the norm rather than the exception.

An enlightening artifact from the era is the series of "Superman" radio dramas. A friend of mine who is a professor at the University of Iowa school of broadcasting has a partial collection of tapes of these. In one of them, Superman is depicted as clad in red, white, and blue standing (using the arms akimbo stance adopted for use in the George Reeves TV series a decade or so later, no doubt) in front of the arched entrance (hymenal arch? You decide) to the village of a simple Polynesian people. The Japanese about to attack the place come across as a mindless swarm of large, menacing, yellow insects bent on plunder, pillage, and rape (not necessarily in that order). Of course America and "freedom" triumph in the end. Media hype? You bet. It ain't nothin' new.

For my money, when patriotism rather than reason drives foreign policy, disaster awaits.

-------------------------------

I will now proceed to entangle the entire area

[U2]

Originally posted by Ranger-75
We started Japan's post war economic boom with two wartime booms.
.

Hi

Actually Japan's post war economic succes was due to its military industrial complex which had allready build the foundation. It was just a simple matter of restarting it for civilian use after the war. For sure the American presence and the Korean War helped but it just does not explain everything. For the best post war Japan book, according to me, read John W. Dower's Embracing Defeat

There are two fields of study in this matter and one I have just explained and the other is the "because of USA" explenation. That one is just way too simple and is somewhat racist since it takes away credit from the Japanese.

Dan

[pasternakski]

And how could any people not prosper under the enlightened stewardship of His Excellency Douglas MacArthur?

----------------------------

I will now proceed to entangle the entire area

[U2]

Originally posted by pasternakski
And how could any people not prosper under the enlightened stewardship of His Excellency Douglas MacArthur?

Hi

He was well liked and respected in Japan. At times it would seem as much as the emperor. I wish he had stayed in Japan and not gone to Korea. Inchon was a masterpiece but his wish to nuke cities was just too much.

Dan