Even without A-bombs could US take home islands?

[Feinder]

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]

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.

[DuckofTindalos]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Obligatory Wiki Link:

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

[DuckofTindalos]

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]

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-

[DuckofTindalos]

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]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

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]

ORIGINAL: Feinder

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]

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]

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.

[DuckofTindalos]

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

[DuckofTindalos]

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]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: Terminus

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]

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]

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).