I found a somewhat disturbing article, or to be or exact, two articles, on the web today describing the defensive measures that the japanese were about to put up against the planned american invasion.
here you go
Invasion of the home islands
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
Invasion of the home islands
Surface combat TF fanboy
-
cyberwop36
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 7:22 pm
- Location: Valparaiso, Indiana
RE: Invasion of the home islands
No links, try agian.
I thank god we didn't. My father would have been in one of the 1st waves.
I thank god we didn't. My father would have been in one of the 1st waves.
RE: Invasion of the home islands
ORIGINAL: cyberwop36
No links, try agian.
Click on 'here you go'.
Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home
RE: Invasion of the home islands
And that's why we invented the A bomb[:D][;)]
-
cyberwop36
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 7:22 pm
- Location: Valparaiso, Indiana
RE: Invasion of the home islands
ORIGINAL: witpqs
ORIGINAL: cyberwop36
No links, try agian.
Click on 'here you go'.
Duh, sorry christmas dain bramage.
The way my Dad told the story they were all keyed up for the invasion. After surviving the Phillippes [including the Battle of Manila] campaign and Okinawa and all the kamikazie attacks. [sorry my spelling is so bad [:'(] ]. They pretty much figured none of them would survive a invasion of the home islands. We would win but it would be several different goups of replacements standing there at the end.
When it ended one guy ran thru the base shouting the war was over. They caught him and beat the sh!t out of him, thinking he was joking. Then they confiscated all there weapons and drank themselves silly for several days.
Dad had a few stories about fighting the japenese [he only told them if he had more than a few drinks in him]. He hated them til the day he died. He liberated the Bataan survivers and saw many atrocities in Manila. He said what we hear about the jap troops not surrendering, well we weren't too interested in taking prisoners either.
-
Hornblower
- Posts: 1361
- Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 1:02 am
- Location: New York'er relocated to Chicago
RE: Invasion of the home islands
this too. http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/war.term/olympic.html
It has both the invasion plans and how the IJN/IJA planned on opposing it.
It has both the invasion plans and how the IJN/IJA planned on opposing it.
RE: Invasion of the home islands
I have heard the same (about US unwillingness to take Japanese prisoners from WWII vets) and (not the same family) their wives. The Marines were told that they would have to feed prisoners from their personal food rations, etc. (BTW, I'm not that old.)
One interesting thing to note is that the US captured Bataan Death March films fairly early in the war. Like the Nazis, the Japanese were very fond of filming their atrocities. The US government could not decide whether to release the film footage or not, for fear it would demoralize the public. Finally, early in 1943, they showed the film to specially-targeted segments of the public, and discovered that it enraged the viewing public. Thereafter, it became mandatory viewing for US forces in the Pacific.
While US losses from the planned Operation Olympic (Shokaku invasion) and Operation Coronet (Honshu invasion) would have been horrific, the result would have been the fulfillment of Admiral Halsey's statement that, at the end of the war, "The Japanese language will only be spoken in Hell." Everybody focuses on projected US casualties (dead AND wounded) for Olympic being over one million - nobody pays attention to the fact that projected Japanese casualties were "estimated" at 6 million-plus. Take a look at the Okinawa statistics - 10:1 ratio for Japanese casualties vs. US casualties. We had learned the hard way from Saipan and Iwo Jima. We (the US) weren't in a charitable mood. We knew the Japanese civilians were being trained to attack our tanks with explosives on bamboo sticks. The answer to that trick is simply to kill everybody.
The Japanese are incredibly fortunate that they surrendered when they did.
I have friends of Japanese ancestry, and they agree (privately). I have no animosity for Japanese who survived the war, but I wouldn't hesitate in the slightest to eradicate the Japanese race as might have been necessary under the circumstances of the time. The Japanese of the time were no different than the Nazis of the same era (the Japanese didn't have designated "extermination camps" like the Nazis, but Allied POW deaths under the Japanese were 50%, versus 5% (for non-Russians) under the Nazis). The atomic bomb was "designed" to be dropped on the Nazis - they just surrendered too soon. The Japanese weren't as lucky.
I probably spent more than my two cents worth here.
One interesting thing to note is that the US captured Bataan Death March films fairly early in the war. Like the Nazis, the Japanese were very fond of filming their atrocities. The US government could not decide whether to release the film footage or not, for fear it would demoralize the public. Finally, early in 1943, they showed the film to specially-targeted segments of the public, and discovered that it enraged the viewing public. Thereafter, it became mandatory viewing for US forces in the Pacific.
While US losses from the planned Operation Olympic (Shokaku invasion) and Operation Coronet (Honshu invasion) would have been horrific, the result would have been the fulfillment of Admiral Halsey's statement that, at the end of the war, "The Japanese language will only be spoken in Hell." Everybody focuses on projected US casualties (dead AND wounded) for Olympic being over one million - nobody pays attention to the fact that projected Japanese casualties were "estimated" at 6 million-plus. Take a look at the Okinawa statistics - 10:1 ratio for Japanese casualties vs. US casualties. We had learned the hard way from Saipan and Iwo Jima. We (the US) weren't in a charitable mood. We knew the Japanese civilians were being trained to attack our tanks with explosives on bamboo sticks. The answer to that trick is simply to kill everybody.
The Japanese are incredibly fortunate that they surrendered when they did.
I have friends of Japanese ancestry, and they agree (privately). I have no animosity for Japanese who survived the war, but I wouldn't hesitate in the slightest to eradicate the Japanese race as might have been necessary under the circumstances of the time. The Japanese of the time were no different than the Nazis of the same era (the Japanese didn't have designated "extermination camps" like the Nazis, but Allied POW deaths under the Japanese were 50%, versus 5% (for non-Russians) under the Nazis). The atomic bomb was "designed" to be dropped on the Nazis - they just surrendered too soon. The Japanese weren't as lucky.
I probably spent more than my two cents worth here.
"Casualties many. Percentage of dead not known. Combat efficiency - we are winning."
-- Col. David M. Shoup, Tarawa, Nov. 21, 1943
-- Col. David M. Shoup, Tarawa, Nov. 21, 1943
-
Mike Scholl
- Posts: 6187
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
- Location: Kansas City, MO
RE: Invasion of the home islands
Bob The most telling statistic I've seen to explain American Feelings toward Japan is this.
Of all American POWs taken by the Germans in WWII, 1% died in captivity. For Americans
in the hands of the Japanese, it was 40%.
Of all American POWs taken by the Germans in WWII, 1% died in captivity. For Americans
in the hands of the Japanese, it was 40%.
RE: Invasion of the home islands
Civilian casualties in the Ryukyus (Okinawa) were over 100,000, which was about 33% of the population. This came about for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the air raids, bombardment and battle consumed about 40 million tons of ordenance. That's about 1 million boxcars full. We blew the crap out of that island, which is only about 300 square miles.
Secondly the Japanese Army significantly increased the civilian casualties in several ways. A lot of effort was put into propoganda which deemed death as the only honorable way for civilians, and backed it up with propoganda which outlined hideous abuses which could be expected at the hands of the allied forces for anyone who was too cowardly to surrender. They also used civilians to screen their own attempts to get behind the American lines as the battle dragged on, resulting in many casualties at checkpoints both directly and indirectly. Of course the initial disposition of Japanese forces put them squarely in the most densely populated portions of the island, which increased the civilian casualties from the pre-invasion air raids and bombardments.
I lived on Okinawa for 6 years in the 1960s, and in an average year 5-10 people would die from (previously) unexploded munitions. I found human remains on more than one occasion, and hand grenades and small arms ammunition on numerous occasions. This was 20 years after the war in a fairly populated area. Every Okinawan we knew lost family members, and many were traumatized for life.
One of my uncles joined the Marines in 1942 at 17 years of age. He fought on Guadalcanal (mop up), Saipan and was severely wounded on Okinawa. He spent 8 months in the hospital. In all of his experience he never saw more than a few Japanese prisoners taken, and indeed these may have been Korean slave laborers for all he knew. His platoon killed several Okinawan civilians in a confused firefight with Japanese infiltrators, and another woman at a checkpoint at night where they fired at a noise and listened to the woman scream almost all night. At dawn they found her body. This scene haunted my uncle for years afterward (it probably still does, as he is still alive). During the Korean War he and his wife adopted 4 Korean children who were orphaned, I guess as a way of making amends to the children of the woman they killed on Okinawa.
This is all my way of saying that I'm glad that we didn't invade the mainland. While one cannot predict with certainty that the fighting would have produced the sorts of casualty rates that Okinawa did, if it was anything close to that then the atom bombs saved a lot of lives on both sides in the aggregate.
Secondly the Japanese Army significantly increased the civilian casualties in several ways. A lot of effort was put into propoganda which deemed death as the only honorable way for civilians, and backed it up with propoganda which outlined hideous abuses which could be expected at the hands of the allied forces for anyone who was too cowardly to surrender. They also used civilians to screen their own attempts to get behind the American lines as the battle dragged on, resulting in many casualties at checkpoints both directly and indirectly. Of course the initial disposition of Japanese forces put them squarely in the most densely populated portions of the island, which increased the civilian casualties from the pre-invasion air raids and bombardments.
I lived on Okinawa for 6 years in the 1960s, and in an average year 5-10 people would die from (previously) unexploded munitions. I found human remains on more than one occasion, and hand grenades and small arms ammunition on numerous occasions. This was 20 years after the war in a fairly populated area. Every Okinawan we knew lost family members, and many were traumatized for life.
One of my uncles joined the Marines in 1942 at 17 years of age. He fought on Guadalcanal (mop up), Saipan and was severely wounded on Okinawa. He spent 8 months in the hospital. In all of his experience he never saw more than a few Japanese prisoners taken, and indeed these may have been Korean slave laborers for all he knew. His platoon killed several Okinawan civilians in a confused firefight with Japanese infiltrators, and another woman at a checkpoint at night where they fired at a noise and listened to the woman scream almost all night. At dawn they found her body. This scene haunted my uncle for years afterward (it probably still does, as he is still alive). During the Korean War he and his wife adopted 4 Korean children who were orphaned, I guess as a way of making amends to the children of the woman they killed on Okinawa.
This is all my way of saying that I'm glad that we didn't invade the mainland. While one cannot predict with certainty that the fighting would have produced the sorts of casualty rates that Okinawa did, if it was anything close to that then the atom bombs saved a lot of lives on both sides in the aggregate.
RE: Invasion of the home islands
War with Japan could have ended in 1944 without the Atom Bomb. Some scholars defend that Japan was ready to sue for peace by then, with the only condition being keeping the Emperor.
But then Mr. Roosevelt and Churchill had the bright idea of telling everybody since Feb 1943 that they would only accept an unconditional surrender, and would accept no isolated peace settelements. Therefore, they told Germany and Japan to fight to the end, as anything could happen.
Dumbest and most tragic declaration of the century. What's the problem on saying "here's what we require: we'll occupy Germany and Japan, we'll try the war criminals, Hitler will step down, Tojo will step down, Hirohito may stay, the industrialists may stay and will prosper". Could have saved a few million people.
Freaking politicians
F.
But then Mr. Roosevelt and Churchill had the bright idea of telling everybody since Feb 1943 that they would only accept an unconditional surrender, and would accept no isolated peace settelements. Therefore, they told Germany and Japan to fight to the end, as anything could happen.
Dumbest and most tragic declaration of the century. What's the problem on saying "here's what we require: we'll occupy Germany and Japan, we'll try the war criminals, Hitler will step down, Tojo will step down, Hirohito may stay, the industrialists may stay and will prosper". Could have saved a few million people.
Freaking politicians
F.
I'm running out of jokes...
RE: Invasion of the home islands
Pick a delusion, any delusion - I bet I can find "some scholars" to swear it's the Gospel truth. This one is much the same. Try Richard Frank's Downfall for a very good treatment of the subject, from primary sources.
In the real world:
Prior to July 1945, several Japanese diplomats in Europe had started trying to sound out various neutral powers about mediating an end to the war. None of those efforts were sanctioned by the Japanese government, which vigorously quashed each such attempt as soon as it was discovered. (The Allies were kept abreast of these developments via decryption of Japanese diplomatic message traffic.)
Finally, in July 1945, Minister Sato at the Japanese Embassy in Moscow was directed by Tokyo to try to secure the good offices of the USSR - to mediate a settlement, or even to gain a formal alliance. But when he wired back to ask what terms the Suzuki government would find acceptable, he received only vaguely-worded platitudes in return. He wired back again, specifically asking whether the Government would consider surrender on the sole condition that the Emperor be retained. This time, the reply was swift, direct, and unequivocal: NO. Specifically, "we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever."
That went out from Tokyo on July 21, 1945. By then, even the Japanese realized they had lost, and the only question was how much. So why on Earth would you think they'd have settled for those same terms in 1944, when they still had delusions of winning?
Freaking hippies.
In the real world:
Prior to July 1945, several Japanese diplomats in Europe had started trying to sound out various neutral powers about mediating an end to the war. None of those efforts were sanctioned by the Japanese government, which vigorously quashed each such attempt as soon as it was discovered. (The Allies were kept abreast of these developments via decryption of Japanese diplomatic message traffic.)
Finally, in July 1945, Minister Sato at the Japanese Embassy in Moscow was directed by Tokyo to try to secure the good offices of the USSR - to mediate a settlement, or even to gain a formal alliance. But when he wired back to ask what terms the Suzuki government would find acceptable, he received only vaguely-worded platitudes in return. He wired back again, specifically asking whether the Government would consider surrender on the sole condition that the Emperor be retained. This time, the reply was swift, direct, and unequivocal: NO. Specifically, "we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever."
That went out from Tokyo on July 21, 1945. By then, even the Japanese realized they had lost, and the only question was how much. So why on Earth would you think they'd have settled for those same terms in 1944, when they still had delusions of winning?
Freaking hippies.
Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.
Some days you're the bug.
RE: Invasion of the home islands
ORIGINAL: CynicAl
Pick a delusion, any delusion - I bet I can find "some scholars" to swear it's the Gospel truth. This one is much the same.
While you're right to point out that Japan's eagerness to surrender appears to be overblown by some revisionist scholars, I think most people would agree with fbastos' point - the unconditional surrender policy was bad policy. It had the very negative (and unintented) effect of ensuing that many, in both Japan & Germany, would fight to the end.
Even more strangley, the Allies ended up breaking their own policy. Japan's "unconditional surrender" was only accepted by the Japanese based on the condition that the emperor would remain as a figurehead.
RE: Invasion of the home islands
Seems like a cultural misunderstanding. The West often paints things in black and white absolute terms while Eastern culture is more subtle and nuanced. Even today, people wonder when Japan says yes, whether they mean yes, no, or maybe.
________________________________________
I feal so dirty when I sink convoys with 4E bombers, makes porn feal wholsome. - Brady, Founding Member of the Japanese Fanboy Club
RE: Invasion of the home islands
Retaining the Emperor was not a condition of the Japanese surrender, which was unconditional. That was a decision taken later by MacArthur's occcupation forces. On a pragmatic note, it made the occupation and reconstruction of Japan much easier. On an idealistic note, it accorded with the principles of the Atlantic Charter - self-determination of nations. On a greasy political note, we owed Hirohito one after he stepped in and ordered the Suzuki Cabinet to surrender when they had still had every intention of fighting on, even after Nagasaki.
In the Pacific, at least, I don't think the unconditional surrender policy added much if anything to the cost of the war. The warped version of bushido adopted by Imperial Japan from the 1920's on was much more responsible for that - much like National Socialism in Germany, it was the philospohy that excused, even encouraged, everyone's worst impulses.
In the Pacific, at least, I don't think the unconditional surrender policy added much if anything to the cost of the war. The warped version of bushido adopted by Imperial Japan from the 1920's on was much more responsible for that - much like National Socialism in Germany, it was the philospohy that excused, even encouraged, everyone's worst impulses.
Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.
Some days you're the bug.
unconditional surrender
Then again, consider the fact that Hitler got a lot of mileage out of convincing the Germans that they hadn't actually lost WWI. An unconditional surrender removes all doubts and takes the wind out of the sails of revisionist politicians.
/Greyshaft
RE: unconditional surrender
What were the estimates of casualties in conquering Germany in 1945? They had also plenty of troops, planes and tanks left and they were swearing to fight to the end and arm civilians etc., but once the assault began, lines quickly collapsed, civilians didn't fight and the war ended quickly.
RE: unconditional surrender
ORIGINAL: metto_x
What were the estimates of casualties in conquering Germany in 1945? They had also plenty of troops, planes and tanks left and they were swearing to fight to the end and arm civilians etc., but once the assault began, lines quickly collapsed, civilians didn't fight and the war ended quickly.
there is a slight geographical difference between the open plains of northern germany (and even the more hilly southern part) and rocky mountainous islands with urbanized or swampy (rice paddies) narrow stretch of coastline.
Surface combat TF fanboy
RE: unconditional surrender
Also, German civilians were not supposed to fight till' the last man. Especially at hte end of the war, both Army and Citizenship were opposing to the Nazi regime, that not was happening in Japan.
ORIGINAL: String
ORIGINAL: metto_x
What were the estimates of casualties in conquering Germany in 1945? They had also plenty of troops, planes and tanks left and they were swearing to fight to the end and arm civilians etc., but once the assault began, lines quickly collapsed, civilians didn't fight and the war ended quickly.
there is a slight geographical difference between the open plains of northern germany (and even the more hilly southern part) and rocky mountainous islands with urbanized or swampy (rice paddies) narrow stretch of coastline.