PDA

View Full Version : WWII-Invasion of Japan.



SOG
08-24-2003, 08:38 PM
possibly starting a heavy inland bombing campaign, see how they like that, possibly getting the emporer to take not surrendering action but a ceasefire. it would leave some dignity intact for them. if that wouldnt work then after a short naval battle in thier harbours mopping up rogue ships and finishing a half hearted air fight id start a relentless off shore pounding and airial bombing not committing troops for quite some time.

nail every factory and important target. possibly start targeted bombing of national treasures, palaces etc. make them think about thier past and losing a lot of tradition. beyond that it may just get darker. i see no reason to start a land campaign overly when you could have all sides of the islands surrounded with carriers and other boats and directing strikes round the clock. possibly even pushing in and making a heavily defended land base but that could end bad in a suicide push. if they say no to a ceasefire multiple times i would change it to unconditional surrender and adjust tactics accordingly.

part of the problem with a ceasefire would be: would japan rebuild and we'd have a arms race with them also? would russia have a new allie in them?

id tend to push for a surrender. air campaign all the way.

James
08-24-2003, 10:49 PM
A few ideas crossed my mind... I'll start with the least likely.

A special operation by whatever units were capable, with the objective of capturing the emperor and withdrawing. Perhaps the emperor could have been made to broadcast a radio message to Japan from the U.S.S. Missouri.

My other thought would have been to form an enormous blockade. This could be combined with daily fighter/bomber sweeps over the home islands, even if there weren't any targets designated for strikes. The civilians would simply see that we could come and go as we pleased. I would also have ordered a massive leaflet campaign to let the Japanese know that we weren't the monsters we had been made out to be - remember the mass civilian suicides on Saipan. Finally, after a couple of months, depending on what intell was available, I might order the Air Force to start dropping foodstuffs to the civilian population. My goal would be to get them to realize that they were defeated in every sense of the word, but also to show them that we were merciful and wouldn't cause them to suffer needlessly. Hopefully, they would agree to a surrender.

Another alternative, something I would be very reluctant to do, but might have done if we had had to invade - massive use of chemical weapons against military targets. I would try and spare the civilian population as much as possible, but...

Years ago I read something about the plan for invading Japan. I think all 6 Marine Divisions were to land on D-Day. The plans made no mention of the 2nd MarDiv after D+2, and no mention of any of them after I think D+7. The planners believed that they would simply have been destroyed.

This is a hard question to answer in 2003. My goal would be to affect a Japanese surrender with the minimum loss of life on both sides.

Desert-Fox
08-25-2003, 08:21 AM
Finally something about WWII....

XASA
08-25-2003, 02:19 PM
I think the above posts have covered almost all of the hypothetical bases, here are a few points/corrections:

The Russians didn't enter the war until after Hiroshima; on August 8th they invaded Japanese-held Manchuria with a million men. Hirohito was probably more concerned about their entry in the war than the atomic bombings, although they certainly caught his attention. If the bombs hadn't been dropped, would the Russians have had more say in post WWII Japan, therefore setting up another potential Cold War battlefield in a divided Japan?

Americans were also contemplating using chemical weapons against die-hard Japanese holding out in bunkers if the islands were ever invaded, which would have set a very bad precedent for later wars.

We could have bombed, strafed and landed a million men but it would have taken months if not years to defeat the Japanese at great cost to both sides. As horrible as they were, dropping the bombs were almost humane acts when one considers the other options.

Finally, my father was in transit on a troop ship just outside Hawaii when Hiroshima was bombed. He had just finished a 30 day leave after earning five battle stars in Europe with a combat engineer unit. He said the men on the ship laughed and cried hysterically when they got the news because they all knew they were headed for the invasion of Japan. Those are the men who should be asked their opinion whenever pacificistic revisionists argue about whether or not Truman should have given the order.

James
08-25-2003, 10:53 PM
A qoute from "With The Old Breed", by E.B. Sledge - USMC veteran of Peleliu and Okinawa, upon hearing news of the Atomic bombs and Japan's surrender.

"We received the news with quiet disbelief coupled with a sense of relief. We thought the Japanese would never surrender. Many refused to believe it... Except for a few widely scattered shouts of joy, the survivors of the abyss sat hollow-eyed and silent, trying to comprehend a world without war."

ogukuo72
08-26-2003, 05:03 AM
I have read some stuff written by revisionistic historians about how the decision to bomb was racist. Let me just say that if my grandfather was alive, he would have been really livid with anger. He is Chinese, and he really suffered under Japanese occupation in China. Although he was just a teacher, he was arrested and tortured by the Japanese. I still remember how he walked with a distinctive limp.

We are sad that hundreds of thousands of Japaneses had to die, but let's put it in perspective - with only rifles and baynoes, the Japanese Imperial Army killed 300,000 people in Nanking in 1937. How many died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Which is more terrible?

Let me say that a lot of people in Asia appreciated the fact that the Americans had dropped the atom bombs on Japan and ended the war. Many of us Asians believed that the atom bombs finally convinced the war lords in Tokyo to stop fighting, and thus shorten the war. It ended the suffering of millions of people in Asia who were under Japanese occupation.

Rantanplan
08-30-2003, 05:08 PM
Does anybody know a Site with Pictures of the WW2 Pacific-War Scenario?
Especialy of the Japanese Forces.

Seiyuuki
08-31-2003, 03:13 AM
First bomb, August 6, second bomb, August 9. Between the two bombs, a simple message of surrender could have been sent, but it wasn't...So, a second bomb.

People have to understand, in our entire existence, Japan had never surrender, that concept to us was worse than death and you don't have to be in the military to understood that. After the first bomb, a majority were still determine to fight to the death, though in the end, we had to swallow a lot more than our pride.

ogukuo72
08-31-2003, 03:20 AM
So sorry, but I disagree. You have to drop it on a heavily populated city to create maximum casualties. Only the destruction of tens of thousands of people with a single bomb could create the kind of impact to shake the hold the military hierarchy had over the nation. Read a book called "Japan's Longest Day".

It's not written by Americans, but by Japanese themselves. You will see that even with the second bomb, the military wanted to carry on fighting. But the bombs and the huge civilian casualties gave the peace faction the necessary leverage, and - more importantly - convince the Emperor that surrender was the only alternative.

You have to understand that the Japanese were not a rational people. Demonstrating the POTENTIAL of the bomb would not have worked. Only demonstrating the EFFECT of the bomb would.

As for the bomb in Nagasaki, it was only six days after that bomb, and nine days after the Hiroshima that the Japanese surrendered. In the meantime, the surrender demand of the Allies was politely ignored. The second bomb was absolutely necessary.

Don't blame the Americans for dropping the bomb. Blame the bull-headed Japanese military.

txajas
08-31-2003, 03:55 AM
The only thing the 2nd bomb did, IMHO, was to speed up the outcome of the 1st bomb. 3 days is not enough time for the effects of the 1st one to have fully settled. Also the 2nd bomb would have been dropped to force the Japanese to an unconditional surrender, which the 1st one may not have done the trick.

I believe that the bomb did not only defeat Japan, but gave the US the stick big enough it needed to slow down/stop the Russians.

But this is quite a moot point really, as it is impossible to argue "what ifs" when it comes to history.

Waterman
11-08-2008, 02:08 AM
An invasion of the Japanese home islands would have likely resulted in (to parphrase an American General) the Japanese language only being spoken in hell.

An invasion and pacification of the islands would have required killing virtually every person on them (if the actions of both Japanese military and civillians on the smaller islands that we invaded were used as an indicator).

US casualties would have been high, at least initially.....but as they encountered less and less well armed, equipped and trained forces, it would have taken been a slaughter (I will leave the psychological implications of that on our forces to others).

Since the effects of nuclear weapons on people not killed in the blast were really mostly unknown (hence the experiments in the late 1940's and 1950's where troop concentrations were exposed to nuke tests); the US could have been using nukes to "soften up" major population centers prior to invasion or as a precursor bombardment prior to amphibious landings.

Most likely only a handful of Japanese would have remained alive at the conclusion of the campaign....presuming that the military was never held in check by the civillian leaders and ordered to stop "before the job was done".

Then throw in the wild card of the Soviets advancing into Japan from the north (they still control parts of the Bonin Islands as a part of their push into Japan late in the war). When Soviet and US forces met in Japan, would there be the same result as when they met in Germany ? Or would they run head long into one another and have the bullets keep flying ? Or would we end up with a divided Japan that would have added another front to the cold war ? (To say nothing of the volitile dimension that would have posed if the conflict in Korea still happened in '51 !)

Connaught Ranger
11-08-2008, 07:01 AM
Spare us, McNamara's a Known Douchebag, I wouldnt trust word one he ever said. Too Bad when that Vietnam Vet attempted to throw him off the Ferry he didnt succeed.

1- WW2 for the USA was Started by the Japanese

2- WW2 for the USA was ended by the Bombs

3- Lesson learned? Dont F_ck with us if you cant hang

4- Millions of American & Japanese Lives saved in the Long run*

5- Thus endeth the lesson

Please do not casually disregard the fact that the Allies were involved in the campaign as well.

LineDoggie
11-08-2008, 11:58 AM
Please do not casually disregard the fact that the Allies were involved in the campaign as well.

No Intent to do that.

Australias Men fought a series of Hard but Vital Battles in the campaign. If it werent for them, many US advances might not have happened. Their Fights in New Guinea, Borneo, Bouganville, New Britain were the stuff that an earlier age would have made into Saga's.

The RN had the BPF (British Pacific Fleet, or TF57 to the USN). Their Contibution is nothing to sneeze at by any means. Theri Carrier Decks also had the advantage of Being Armored whilst the USN decks were timber
Aircraft carriers

HMS Colossus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Colossus_(1943)): 24 Corsairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F4U_Corsair), 18 Barracudas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Barracuda)
HMS Formidable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Formidable_(R67)): approximate airgroup 36 Corsairs, 15 Avengers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TBF_Avenger)
HMS Glory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Glory_(R62)): 21 Corsairs, 18 Barracudas
HMS Illustrious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Illustrious_(R87)): approximate airgroup 36 Corsairs, 15 Avengers
HMS Implacable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Implacable_(R86)): 48 Seafire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Seafire), 21 Avenger, 12 Firefly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Firefly)
HMS Indefatigable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Indefatigable_(R10)): 40 Seafire, 18 Avenger, 12 Firefly
HMS Indomitable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Indomitable_(R92)): 39 Hellcats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F6F_Hellcat), 21 Avengers
HMS Venerable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Venerable_(R63)): 21 Corsairs, 18 Barracudas
HMS Vengeance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vengeance_(R71)): 24 Corsairs, 18 Barracudas
HMS Victorious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Victorious_(R38)): 36 Corsairs, 15 Avengers, plus Walrus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Walrus) amphibian
HMS Pioneer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Pioneer_(R76)) maintenance carrier for aircraft repair
HMS Unicorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Unicorn_(I72)) maintenance carrier for aircraft repair

Escort Carriers

HMS Arbiter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Arbiter_(D31))
HMS Chaser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Chaser_(D32))
HMS Fencer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Fencer_(D64))
HMS Ruler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ruler_(D72))
HMS Reaper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Reaper_(D82))
HMS Slinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Slinger_(D26))
HMS Speaker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Speaker_(D90))
HMS Striker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Striker_(D12))
HMS Vindex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vindex_(D15))
Battleships

HMS Howe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Howe_(32))
HMS King George V (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_King_George_V_(41))
HMS Duke of York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Duke_of_York_(17)) arrived in July 1945
HMS Anson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Anson_(79)) arrived in July 1945
Cruisers

HMNZS Achilles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMNZS_Achilles_(70))
HMS Argonaut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Argonaut_(61))
HMS Belfast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Belfast_(C35))
HMS Bermuda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Bermuda_(C52))
HMS Black Prince (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Black_Prince_(81))
HMS Euryalus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Euryalus_(42))
HMNZS Gambia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Gambia_(C48))
HMS Newfoundland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Newfoundland_(C59))
HMCS Ontario (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Ontario_(C53))
HMS Swiftsure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Swiftsure_(08))
HMCS Uganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Uganda_(C66))
Minelayers

HMS Apollo (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Apollo_(M65)&action=edit&redlink=1)
HMS Ariadne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ariadne_(M01))
HMS Manxman (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Manxman_(M70)&action=edit&redlink=1)
AA Escort

HMCS Prince Robert (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMCS_Prince_Robert&action=edit&redlink=1)
Destroyers

HMCS Algonquin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Algonquin_(R17))
HMS Barfleur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Barfleur_(D80))
HMS Grenville (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Grenville_(R97))
HMS Kempenfelt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Kempenfelt_(R03))
HMAS Napier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Napier_(G97))
HMAS Nepal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Nepal_(G25))
HMAS Nizam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Nizam_(G38))
HMAS Norman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Norman_(G49))
HMS Quadrant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Quadrant_(G11))
HMS Quality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Quality_(G62))
HMAS Queenborough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Queenborough_(G70))
HMAS Quiberon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Quiberon_(G81))
HMAS Quickmatch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Quickmatch_(G92))
HMS Teazer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Teazer_(R23))
HMS Tenacious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Tenacious_(R45))
HMS Termagant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Termagant_(R89))
HMS Terpsichore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Terpsichore_(R33))
HMS Troubridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Troubridge_(R00))
HMS Tumult (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Tumult_(R11))
HMS Tuscan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Tuscan_(R56))
HMS Tyrian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Tyrian_(R67))
HMS Ulster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ulster_(R83))
HMS Ulysses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ulysses_(R69))
HMS Undaunted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Undaunted_(R53))
HMS Undine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Undine_(R42))
HMS Urania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Urania_(R05))
HMS Urchin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Urchin_(R99))
HMS Ursa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ursa_(R22))
HMS Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Wager_(R98)&action=edit&redlink=1)
HMS Wakeful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Wakeful_(R59))
HMS Wessex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Wessex_(R78))
HMS Whelp (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Whelp_(R37)&action=edit&redlink=1)
HMS Whirlwind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Whirlwind_(R87))
HMS Wizard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Wizard_(R72))
HMS Wrangler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Wrangler_(R48))
Frigates

HMS Aire (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Aire_(K262)&action=edit&redlink=1)
HMS Avon (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Avon_(K97)&action=edit&redlink=1)
HMS Barle (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Barle_(K298)&action=edit&redlink=1)
HMS Bigbury Bay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Bigbury_Bay_(K606))
HMS Derg (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Derg_(K257)&action=edit&redlink=1)
HMS Findhorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Findhorn_(K301)&action=edit&redlink=1)
HMS Helford (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Helford_(K252)&action=edit&redlink=1)
HMS Odzani (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Odzani_(K356)&action=edit&redlink=1)
HMS Parret (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Parret_(K304)&action=edit&redlink=1)
HMS Plym (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Plym_(K271))
HMS Usk (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Usk_(K295)&action=edit&redlink=1)
HMS Veryan Bay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Veryan_Bay_(K651))
HMS Whitesand Bay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Whitesand_Bay_(K633))
HMS Widemouth Bay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Widemouth_Bay_(K615))
Sloops

HMS Alacrity (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Alacrity_(U60)&action=edit&redlink=1)
HMS Amethyst (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Amethyst_(U16))
HMS Black Swan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Black_Swan_(L57))
HMS Crane (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Crane_(U23)&action=edit&redlink=1)
HMS Cygnet (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Cygnet_(U38)&action=edit&redlink=1)
HMS Enchantress (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Enchantress_(U56)&action=edit&redlink=1)
HMS Erne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Erne_(U03))
HMS Flamingo (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Flamingo_(L18)&action=edit&redlink=1)
HMS Hart (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Hart_(U58)&action=edit&redlink=1)
HMS Hind (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Hind_(U39)&action=edit&redlink=1)
HMS Opossum (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Opossum_(U33)&action=edit&redlink=1),
HMS Pheasant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Pheasant_(U49))
HMS Redpole (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Redpole_(U69)&action=edit&redlink=1)
HMS Starling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Starling_(U66))
HMS Stork (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Stork_(U81)&action=edit&redlink=1)
HMS Whimbrel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Whimbrel_(U29))
HMS Woodcock (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Woodcock_(U90)&action=edit&redlink=1)
HMS Wren (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Wren_(U28)&action=edit&redlink=1)
Corvettes

HMNZS Arbutus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMNZS_Arbutus_(K_403))
HMAS Ballarat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Ballarat_(J184))
HMAS Bendigo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Bendigo_(J187))
HMAS Burnie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Burnie)
HMAS Cairns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Cairns_(J183))
HMAS Cessnock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Cessnock_(J175))
HMAS Gawler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Gawler_(J188))
HMAS Geraldton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Geraldton_(J178))
HMAS Goulburn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Goulburn)
HMAS Ipswich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Ipswich_(J186))
HMAS Kalgoorlie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Kalgoorlie)
HMAS Launceston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Launceston_(J179))
HMAS Lismore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Lismore_(J145))
HMAS Maryborough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Maryborough_(J195))
HMAS Pirie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Pirie_(J189))
HMAS Tamworth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Tamworth_(J191))
HMAS Toowoomba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Toowoomba_(J157))
HMAS Whyalla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Whyalla_(J153))
HMAS Wollongong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Wollongong_(J172))
Submarines

HMS Porpoise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Porpoise_(N14)) Minelayer
HMS Rorqual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Rorqual_(N74)) Minelayer
HMS Sanguine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sanguine_(P266))
HMS Scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Scotsman_(P243))
HMS Sea Devil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sea_Devil_(P244))
HMS Sea Nymph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sea_Nymph_(P223))
HMS Sea Scout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sea_Scout_(P253))
HMS Selene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Selene_(P254))
HMS Sidon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sidon_(P259))
HMS Sleuth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sleuth_(P261))
HMS Solent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Solent_(P262))
HMS Spark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Spark_(P236))
HMS Spearhead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Spearhead_(P263))
HMS Stubborn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Stubborn_(P238))
HMS Stygian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Stygian_(P249))
HMS Supreme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Supreme_(P252))
HMS Taciturn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Taciturn_(P314))
HMS Tapir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Tapir_(P335))
HMS Taurus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Taurus_(P399))
HMS Terrapin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Terrapin_(P323))
HMS Thorough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Thorough_(P324))
HMS Thule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Thule_(P325))
HMS Tiptoe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Tiptoe_(P332))
HMS Totem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Totem_(P352))
HMS Trenchant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Trenchant_(P331))
HMS Trump (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Trump_(P333))
HMS Tudor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Tudor_(P326))
HMS Turpin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Turpin_(P354))
HMS Virtue (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Virtue_(P75)&action=edit&redlink=1) Antisubmarine training
HMS Voracious (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Voracious_(P78)&action=edit&redlink=1) Antisubmarine training
HMS Vox (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Vox_(P73)&action=edit&redlink=1) Antisubmarine training
Landing Ships

HMS Glenearn (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Glenearn&action=edit&redlink=1) - Landing Ship, Infantry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Ship,_Infantry) (Large)
HMS Lothian (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Lothian&action=edit&redlink=1) - Landing Ship, Headquarters (Large)
Fleet Train

HMS Adamant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Adamant_(1940)) Submarine depot ship
HMS Aorangi (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Aorangi&action=edit&redlink=1) Accommodation ship
HMS Artifex (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Artifex&action=edit&redlink=1) Repair ship
HMS Asistance (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Asistance&action=edit&redlink=1) Repair ship
RFA Bacchus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFA_Bacchus_(A103)) Distilling ship
HMS Bonaventure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Bonaventure_(F139)) Submarine depot ship
HMS Berry Head (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Berry_Head&action=edit&redlink=1) Repair ship
HMS Deer Sound (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Deer_Sound_(F99)&action=edit&redlink=1) Repair ship
HMS Diligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Diligence&action=edit&redlink=1) Repair ship
HMS Dullisk Cove (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Dullisk_Cove&action=edit&redlink=1) Repair ship
RNH Empire Clyde (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RNH_Empire_Clyde&action=edit&redlink=1) Hospital ship
HMS Empire Crest (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Empire_Crest&action=edit&redlink=1) Water carrier
HMS Fernmore (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Fernmore&action=edit&redlink=1) Boom carrier
HMS Flamborough Head (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Flamborough_Head&action=edit&redlink=1) Repair ship
HMS Fort Colville (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Fort_Colville&action=edit&redlink=1) Aircraft store ship
HMS Fort Langley (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Fort_Langley_(A230)&action=edit&redlink=1) Aircraft store ship
RNH Gerusalemme (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RNH_Gerusalemme&action=edit&redlink=1) Hospital ship
HMS Guardian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Guardian_(1932)) Netlayer
HMNZS Kelantan (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMNZS_Kelantan&action=edit&redlink=1) Repair ship
HMS King Salvor (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_King_Salvor&action=edit&redlink=1) Salvage ship
HMS Lancashire (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Lancashire&action=edit&redlink=1) Accommodation ship
HMS Leonian (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Leonian&action=edit&redlink=1) Boom carrier
HMS Maidstone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Maidstone_(1937)) Submarine depot ship
NZHS Maunganui (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NZHS_Maunganui&action=edit&redlink=1) Hospital ship
HMS Montclare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Montclare_(F85)) Destroyer Depot Ship
RNH Oxfordshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RNH_Oxfordshire&action=edit&redlink=1) Hospital ship
HMS Resource (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Resource&action=edit&redlink=1) Repair ship
HMS Salvestor (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Salvestor&action=edit&redlink=1) Salvage ship
HMS Salvictor (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Salvictor&action=edit&redlink=1) Salvage ship
HMS Shillay (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Shillay&action=edit&redlink=1) Danlayer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danlayer)
HMS Springdale (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Springdale&action=edit&redlink=1) Repair ship
HMS Stagpool (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Stagpool&action=edit&redlink=1) Distilling ship
RNH Tjitalengka (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RNH_Tjitalengka&action=edit&redlink=1) Hospital ship
HMS Trodday (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Trodday&action=edit&redlink=1) Danlayer
HMS Tyne (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Tyne_(F24)&action=edit&redlink=1) Destroyer Depot Ship
HMS Vacport (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Vacport&action=edit&redlink=1) Water carrier
RNH Vasna (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RNH_Vasna&action=edit&redlink=1) Hospital ship
Oilers

RFA Arndale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFA_Arndale_(A133))
RFA Bishopdale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFA_Bishopdale_(A128))
RFA Brown Ranger (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RFA_Brown_Ranger_(A152)&action=edit&redlink=1)
RFA Cederdale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFA_Cederdale_(A380))
RFA Eaglesdale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFA_Eaglesdale_(A104))
RFA Green Ranger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFA_Green_Ranger_(A152))
RFA Olna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFA_Olna_(A216))
RFA Rapidol (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RFA_Rapidol&action=edit&redlink=1)
RFA Serbol (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RFA_Serbol&action=edit&redlink=1)
RFA Wave Emperor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFA_Wave_Emperor)
RFA Wave Governor (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RFA_Wave_Governor&action=edit&redlink=1)
RFA Wave King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFA_Wave_King_(A264))
RFA Wave Monarch (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RFA_Wave_Monarch&action=edit&redlink=1)


Aase Maersk
Carelia
Darst Creek
Golden Meadow
Iere
Loma Nova
San Adolpho
San Amado
San Ambrosia
Seven Sisters
Store ships

Bosporus
City of Dieppe
Corinda
Darvel
Edna
Fort Alabama
Fort Contantine
Fort Dunvegan
Fort Edmonton
Fort Providence
Fort Wrangell
Gudrun Maersk
Hermelin
Heron
Hickory Burn
Hickory Dale
Hickory Glen
Hickory Steam
Jaarstrom
Kheti
Kistna
Kola
Marudu
Pacheco
Prince de Liege
Princess Maria Pia
Prome
Robert Maersk
San Andres
Sclesvig
Thyra S


Fleet Air Arm Squadrons

801 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/801_Naval_Air_Squadron) (Seafire, Implacable)
812 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=812_Naval_Air_Squadron&action=edit&redlink=1) (Barracuda, Vengeance)
814 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/814_Naval_Air_Squadron) (Barracuda, Venerable)
820 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/820_Naval_Air_Squadron) (Avenger, Indefatigable)
827 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=827_Naval_Air_Squadron&action=edit&redlink=1) (Barracuda, Colossus)
828 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/828_Naval_Air_Squadron) (Avenger, Implacable)
837 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=837_Naval_Air_Squadron&action=edit&redlink=1) (Barracuda, Glory)
848 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/848_Naval_Air_Squadron) (Avenger, Formidable)
849 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/849_Naval_Air_Squadron) (Avenger, Victorious)
854 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/854_Naval_Air_Squadron) (Avenger, Illustrious)
857 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/857_Naval_Air_Squadron) (Avenger, Indomitable)
880 (Seafire, Implacable)
885 (Hellcat, Ruler)
887 (Seafire, Indefatigable)
888 (Hellcat, Indefatigable till January 1945)
894 (Seafire, Indefatigable)
899 (Seafire, Seafire pool)
1770 (Firefly, Indefatigable)
1771 (Firefly, Implacable)
1772 (Firefly, Indefatigable)
1790 (Firefly, Vindex from August 1945)
1830 (Corsair, Illustrious)
1831 (Corsair, Glory)
1833 (Corsair, Illustrious)
1834 (Corsair, Victorious)
1836 (Corsair, Victorious)
1839 (Hellcat, Indomitable)
1840 (Hellcat, Speaker)
1841 (Corsair, Formidable)
1842 (Corsair, Formidable)
1844 (Hellcat, Indomitable)
1846 (Corsair, Colossus)
1850 (Corsair, Vengeance)
1851 (Corsair, Venerable)

Mordoror
11-08-2008, 01:51 PM
concerning the main inland forces of Japan it was poor, badly equiped and badly led
The most powerful japanese army corps were crushed days ago by the russians in Mandchuria
Soviets have begun to land in Kouriles and Sakhaline successfully even if they were not very used to amphibious and combined assault
so after all-out strategical bombings to disrupt reinforcements and coordination of the japanese troops i am rather inclined to say that the landing would have been not too difficult (not even massive shore bombing would have been necessay, moreover as it was clearly demonstrated that these off shore bombing were non efficient or few efficient)

After landing ot the Marines unit with armor support and under a friendly sky (no more japanses pilots with experience, low level of fuel and spare parts, low level of ammos) the seizing of the vicissinity of Tokyo would have been somewhat easy
and the losses would have been lower than expected

now the question remaining are : in that case would have the Jap still fought inside the cities and towns leading to urban battle that have a high level of attrition for both beliigerants

once the shore areas seized by US troops would have set up resistance points in the mountains and far inland

the first question is the more important as that would have led to a huge amount of casualties both for Allied troops, Japanse troops and civilians
The second question is less crucial, mountain resistance points being easilly, when far from reinforcment surrounded, pounded by airforce and crushed by combined assault (like it was seen in the Austrian alps at the end of the Reich)

Connaught Ranger
11-08-2008, 02:27 PM
(like it was seen in the Austrian alps at the end of the Reich)

There was virtually zero resistance in the Austrian / Bavarian Alps at the end of WW2.

Fact:- Massive resistance by the Japanese population was planned and set to be implemented

under orders of the Japanese High Command.

Mordoror
11-08-2008, 03:08 PM
There was virtually zero resistance in the Austrian / Bavarian Alps at the end of WW2.

yes but it was planned and implemented by the OKH and OKW

what i want to say is that without ammo, without guns, without reinforcements and without a clear battle plan you can implement any kind of resistance you want, it will never last long enough in front of a professional offensive done by veteran troops with heavy air/artillery/armor support

Connaught Ranger
11-08-2008, 03:15 PM
yes but it was planned and implemented by the OKH and OKW

what i want to say is that without ammo, without guns, without reinforcements and without a clear battle plan you can implement any kind of resistance you want, it will never last long enough in front of a professional offensive done by veteran troops with heavy air/artillery/armor support

There was a far different mentality between the German mindset and the Japanese, the Japanese were experts in obeying without questions orders towards protecting their living God.

Old Adolf never commanded that type of respect except for the minority of nazi fanatic's

Mordoror
11-08-2008, 04:59 PM
the Japanese were experts in obeying without questions orders towards protecting their living God.

I understand that but let's take some examples

Tarawa, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima were slaughter houses for both sides but most of the marine losses were in the early phases of the battle when the Japs had still a coordinated defensive line and ammo
Latter, even if they make those islands hells by charging with baionets at night, they took slap after slap after slap on their infantry and marine corps

charging with saber and baionets with empty carabines and rifles a US marine held machine gun nest is an good example of fanatism and a quick way to die
In one night on Iwo Jima the Japs had more than 300 men lost for not an half hand of Marines killed

Hence my conclusion. Given the fact that japanese forces on the main Japanese islands were on the same state that their forces at the end of the cited battles above (short of supply, short of fuel, short of ammo, without good armor or armor at all), they would have resisted with ferocity with the following consequences
1- resisting without ammo implies to leave defensive position and go to contact exposing to heavy machine gun and artillery fire the attacker
2- that associated that the majority of the Jap forces were rookies
3- associated that at that time collateral damage were not an issue
4- associated that using massive means of killing (like carpet bombing, cluster ammos, napalm and flame throwers)
5- associated that the sky would have been US, hence making any jap concentration of troops exposed to air bombing

would have made the japanese lossed tremedous in a matter of days
when they would have lost most of their military including MP and Kempetei, i don't think that starving terrified and shocked civilians would have continued the battle
and even if i am wrong, old women and young boys attackings a sherman-flamethrpwer with bamboo spikes and bolt action rifle would have finished in only on eway
Sherman 50 - Japs 0

Connaught Ranger
11-08-2008, 05:07 PM
I understand that but let's take some examples

Tarawa, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima were slaughter houses for both sides but most of the marine losses were in the early phases of the battle when the Japs had still a coordinated defensive line and ammo
Latter, even if they make those islands hells by charging with baionets at night, they took slap after slap after slap on their infantry and marine corps

charging with saber and baionets with empty carabines and rifles a US marine held machine gun nest is an good example of fanatism and a quick way to die
In one night on Iwo Jima the Japs had more than 300 men lost for not an half hand of Marines killed

Hence my conclusion. Given the fact that japanese forces on the main Japanese islands were on the same state that their forces at the end of the cited battles above (short of supply, short of fuel, short of ammo, without good armor or armor at all), they would have resisted with ferocity with the following consequences
1- resisting without ammo implies to leave defensive position and go to contact exposing to heavy machine gun and artillery fire the attacker
2- that associated that the majority of the Jap forces were rookies
3- associated that at that time collateral damage were not an issue
4- associated that using massive means of killing (like carpet bombing, cluster ammos, napalm and flame throwers)
5- associated that the sky would have been US, hence making any jap concentration of troops exposed to air bombing

would have made the japanese lossed tremedous in a matter of days
when they would have lost most of their military including MP and Kempetei, i don't think that starving terrified and shocked civilians would have continued the battle
and even if i am wrong, old women and young boys attackings a sherman-flamethrpwer with bamboo spikes and bolt action rifle would have finished in only on eway
Sherman 50 - Japs 0

All that aside, the closer to the Japanese mainland the more fanatical the fighting became, as well as the example of the mass civilian suicide on IWO JIMA for one, all because they were told the Americans would eat them.

BAF
11-08-2008, 06:48 PM
arent Steven Spielbergh and Tom Hanks filming another band of brothers about this?

James
11-08-2008, 07:34 PM
What happened in Okinawa was a single event. Okinawa was a backwater. It was the Japanese version of the Appalachian Mountains.

It was a backwater that took more than 2 months to subdue, a backwater where more than 12,000 Americans and more than 100,000 Japanese (more than 200,000 if you include Okinawan civilians) were killed. One has to wonder what the cost would have been in a place that wasn't a backwater.

LineDoggie
11-08-2008, 07:47 PM
That is a big myth. By late 1944 the military establishment had lost power and the Japanese were actively looking for ways to end the war, there was mass anti-war protests in Tokyo. The population had had enough of it.

Whilst the Japanese Army would of battled to the end the civilian population would have keeled over the same as any other civilian population does when invaded.

What happened in Okinawa was a single event. Okinawa was a backwater. It was the Japanese version of the Appalachian Mountains. Large Japanese Anti War Protests? And the Kempi Tai was doing what?

James
11-08-2008, 07:56 PM
Probably a lot less casualty wise.

I'm not saying an invasion of Honshu/Tokyo plain would have been easy. I just can't see how the cosmopolitan areas of Japan would of resisted in the same way as what occurred in Okinawa.

Your line of reasoning is pretty much the opposite of mine. I think if the Japanese fought so hard for a backwater (that's what you called it), they would most certainly have fought even more ferociously, not less, against an invasion of the home islands.

We can even take the civilians completely out of the equation; I recall from a book or class long ago that the Japanese still had 9 million men under arms in the home islands. That's about 8.9 million more than they had on Okinawa.

the39steps
11-08-2008, 08:18 PM
I have a neighbour who lives three houses up the road, and her husband flew Seafires in the Pacific during the war. He died a few years ago and she still hates the Japanese with a passion. I didn't ask why as I didn't want to bring up any past history.
He survived the war and wasn't taken prisoner as far as I'm aware, but I do recall her saying that they (the Navy) were getting ready for the invasion of Japan.

LineDoggie
11-08-2008, 08:19 PM
2,350,000 Officers & Men in the Imperial Japanese Army (Regulars) in the Home islands Proper.
53 Infantry Divisions
25 Infantry Brigades
2 Armored Divisions
7 Armored Brigades

in addition
2,250,000 Army Labor Troops
1,300,000 Navy Labor Troops

Militia;

28,000,000 Men & Women broken down into 3 groups

Special Guard Forces: Ex-Reg's mostly
Independent Companies: Reserve List
Civilian Volunteer Corps: The entire adult Population between 15 & 60 years old

I dont have numbers for Imperial Japanese Naval forces & the SNLF units.

Mordoror
11-09-2008, 08:37 AM
Yes that's huge numbers
BUT : how did they were dispatched on the different highlands Honshu/Kyushu/Hokkaido
as you shouldn't forget that a soviet invasion of the North Archipelago of japan was expected after the fall of Sakhaline

second point : what was their readiness ? Their were most rookies and drafties that had never seen fire. Come on Japan even sent fresh naval cadets as officers on their most powerful ship the Yamato. They didn't have any skilled pilot. Thei infantry officers with some experience were bogged in China or in the way for soviet prisoners camps from Mandchuria

At least the battles on Iwo Jima, Tarawa and Okinawa were done against regular and skilled (sometimes even elite) troops. And the kill ratio is somewhat between 1 - 6 to 1- 10 against strong defensive positions

Once you have overwhelmed those positions a war of movement could even lower the losses (and that war movement is possible on the Japanese main Island)

Anyway for me you can discard the militia
look at the efficiency of the german volksturm. As i said badly trained badly equiped troops and badly led would have been no match for heavy marine units and nothing much to fear.

I understand the fear of the US brass about the US losses but my deep feel is that it is grossely exagerated. The Japanese army was on the edge of collapsing, after the massive club hit of soviet action in Mandchuria that led to the destruction of the most powerful and efficient army corps of the Japanese forces. Except for some hard liner the Japaneses leaders were already seeking agreements to stop the war (because of a mix of pragmatism and fear of soviet invasion which would have been less merciful than a US occupation)

Moreover given the very pyramidal way of the Japanese society, IMO, the reduction of all the islands of the Jap archipelago would not have been necessary. A trust to Tokyo and the seizing of the Emperor and the war cabinet would have led to collapse of all the remaining military forces on the main islands

Jacknola
11-17-2008, 10:35 PM
I might as well post the actual plan that was already being prepared. This map and text are from the West Point Atlas of American Wars. For the invasion, many units were being transferred from Europe and preparations were advanced.

http://inlinethumb50.webshots.com/36529/2862719450103673033S600x600Q85dotjpg (http://news.webshots.com/photo/2862719450103673033vdoQFO)

http://inlinethumb49.webshots.com/4400/2196681290103673033S600x600Q85dotjpg (http://news.webshots.com/photo/2196681290103673033ISdSzr)

The report to Truman indicated that the US Army expected about 1 million US casualties and that was thought to be conservative. The estimates of casualties among the Japanese was 5-10 million at the minimum. Those in this line that say the Japanese were about to surrender are not students of history…but just revisionists trying to re-write history.

Morodor, I'm sorry but your heartfelt "wishful thinking" is not a substitute for the hard facts of 1945. I wonder why your somewhat fatuous alternative military "plan," with it's blustering threats and signals substituing for action, reminds me of McNamara's "rolling thunder" campaign in Vietnam...with multiple "signals" to the enemy, all ignored. Your "plan" goes against 2,000 years of military science and history, especially as the US only had two bombs total. Extensive research indicates no credible scholorship supports your views.

See this site (among others) for some details.

http://www.waszak.com/japanww2.htm

Cobber15-08
11-17-2008, 11:08 PM
Firstly why would any USA ground troops or any one else be necessary. Why? when you had MacArthur and his cronies, they personally won all the battles they were involved in yes? :roll:

Sorry people joke.:)


It wasn't just the USA who were to invade their were many many Brit, Aussie, Canadian troops their already and their were so many more on way from Europe.
I believe their would of been a major campaign in the Jap home Islands, and many from all sides would of been killed, in a campaign that could of lasted months or longer.

Jacknola
11-18-2008, 02:27 PM
Re: British, Aussie, NZ, et. al.: Note the text from the West Point Atlas of American Wars posted above. It briefly discusses the contribution of the Allies to the invasion. A three-division "Commonwealth Corp" composed of British, NZ, Aussie, et. al. was to be included in the forces for Operation Coronet.

Chalkblock
11-18-2008, 03:20 PM
Just to clarify DoD was not created until 1947. During 1945, specific plans for the proposed DoD were put forth by the Army, the Navy, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Chiefs_of_Staff). In a special message to Congress on December 19, 1945, President Harry Truman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Truman) proposed creation of a unified Department of National Defense. A proposal went to Congress in April 1946, but was held up by the Naval Affairs Committee hearings in July 1946, which raised objections to the concentration of power in a single department. I believe it would of been the United States Department of War, sometimes also called the War Office, that would of ordered the Puple Hearts.

Chalkblock
11-18-2008, 03:23 PM
But they may of been rookies, but a rookie can kill just as good as a Vet. Not all of them would of ran away, a lot, but not enough to not be a problem for the US Forces.

James
11-18-2008, 11:25 PM
But they may of been rookies, but a rookie can kill just as good as a Vet. Not all of them would of ran away, a lot, but not enough to not be a problem for the US Forces.

The way the Japanese put their guys on islands where they all died meant that there were never any veterans. They basically all died in their first battle. Slaughtering Chinese women and children doesn't count...

Connaught Ranger
11-19-2008, 04:50 AM
What seems to be missing here is the comprehension that the Japanese people will fight harder to defend their homeland, particularly as it was their heritage and conditioning to obey their "Living God," even if in this case the Japanese Imperial Military Command were running the show.*

The entire Japanese area of the two main home islands had been structured into military districts, with all civilians being enrolled into Home Defence Units, they had been trained to fight and die from very early on.

Forget the Japanese troops in China, they played no role in this picture, it was all about taking the islands with the least amount of casualties to the Allies, which is any commanders wish to avoid, they (the Japanese) received warnings of what would happen if there was NOT and UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, but they did not heed the warnings and so reaped the whirlwind.

Why so many people spend their time pushing the agenda that the use of the bombs was so wrong is beyond me, they say nothing against the atrocities caused throughout Asia by the Japanese Imperial Forces, mass murder perpetrated against the military forces & men, women & children of many countries, from China, Philippines, Burma, Indo-China (Vietnam), Malaysia, Indonesia, Papau New Guinea, Korea, Solomon Islands, Micronesia, etc..etc.. Even today they tend to gloss over what was actualy done in WW2 by their forces.

Do they not realise that if Japan had produced such a weapon it would have been used without any warning?

(* much as in the same way Luddendorf and Hindenburg had taken over, while Prussian Military Commanders in WW1, sidelining the Prussian Kaiser.)

Connaught Ranger.

Connaught Ranger
11-19-2008, 07:34 AM
So because one nation participates in atrocities it's ok for it's enemy to do likewise?

Might as well throw all international law out of the window and go back to the time when entire cities were wiped out and the population sold into slavery when their armies were defeated

The use of these devices does not constitute an atrocity in my book.:roll:

Legitimate use of new military technology to save hundreds of thousands lives of Allied soldiers.

Connaught Ranger.:)

Alfacentori
11-19-2008, 07:47 AM
I agree with Connaught Ranger on this one.

I think there is a tendency in our new 'evolved' PC age to look back and judge what was done in the past as immoral which is just silly. You have to consider the context in which it was done and the mindset of the people of the time. There had been a world war of aggression started by the Axis powers, 5 years of war and millions had already died. The allied and US commanders had seen how the Japanese had fought in the Pacific and weren't going to lose one more allied soldiers life then was necessary to achieve victory. All this PC 'they should have invaded instead' and lost tens if not hundreds of thousands of more lives, on both sides, is a load of crap frankly.

The decision to use the A Bomb on Japan was regretable but was the right decision to end the war quickly with minimum loss of lives, including civilians. As opposed to launching a full invasion with all the ground combat, artillery, naval and air bombardment that that would have entailed.

Alfa

gaijinsamurai
11-19-2008, 09:00 AM
Agree with Alphacentori. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tragedies, and I wish they hadn't have had to happen. But, the alternative would have been far costlier to both Japan and the Allies.

In the end, the Japanese Government and military really had nobody to blame but themselves for what happened.

James
11-19-2008, 01:29 PM
So because one nation participates in atrocities it's ok for it's enemy to do likewise?

Might as well throw all international law out of the window and go back to the time when entire cities were wiped out and the population sold into slavery when their armies were defeated

First, no. Nothing excuses atrocities.

Second, and this is likely what you will take issue with, I don't think using the atomic bombs was an atrocity. I think it was a sound military decision. Had I been in Truman's shoes in the spring of 1945, I wonder if I would even have taken the number of potential Japanese casualties, military and civilian, into account when weighing the factors for and against use of the bomb. I would have asked two questions - Will it save American lives? Will it end the war sooner than invading Japan?

In the end, I think it was tragic, but not regrettable. It was the right thing to do. I also feel the need to point out that after the Japanese surrendered, the United States did not plunder the country or take its citizens into slavery. We also spent the next 45 years doing everything we could to avoid another war in which nuclear weapons might have been used.

BugHunt
11-19-2008, 11:25 PM
I agree that at the time the decision was made to drop the atomic bombs it did appear to be the correct decision to do. I like to the question the "moral authority" we in the West have over such matters though.



Wut?

WW2 and fighting against the Japanese government/armed forces in particular was about as moral and just as you CAN GET in war.

They launched a war of aggression against races and nations they felt were inferior and there end objective was to control subjugate and exploit.

And there massacres, warcrimes and abuses were LEGION......particularly against civilian populations.

Unlike allied bombing campaignes and the nukes there werent even a shred of a honourable justification for practically all Japanese abuses.


Thats not revisionist its plain wrong min.

Britboy
11-19-2008, 11:56 PM
I thought that at the time the bombs were dropped the Japanese were already putting out feelers diplomatically for an end to hostilities... Op August Storm was A Bad Thing for them, for sure (or was that between the bombs...). Not sure if it would've been a ceasefire/armistice/or the full unconditional surrender, and not sure what channels they had gone through (third parties?) but that was the impression I was under, anyone else heard this?

I also wonder what the effect would've been if Japanese leaders were invited to one of the test detonations of the atomic bomb in the US beforehand, or if a 'show of force' was put on, using the bomb offshore or in a depopulated area of Japan to basically make the point that they should throw in the towel before worse things happened...

This is not to say I don't understand why the bomb was dropped at the time, it is offensive realism at its best ('in uncertain times, go all out to win by force of arms, you can't trust anyone else and you must give it your max effort'). I also remember a bloke who was a veteran who instructed at our air cadets when I was a sprog; his sqn of Spitfire had been sent after VE to 'teach the Japanese airforce a lesson', it was widely assumed the Spitfire was the mutts nuts, but they soon had the great majority of the sqn shot down :(

Just exploring what some possible other outcomes could have been.

Any thoughts?

James
11-20-2008, 01:28 AM
Min, I'm not saying this to offend you, but sometimes you seem overly idealistic. I think some of your ideas need to be tempered with a dose of reality.


I agree that at the time the decision was made to drop the atomic bombs it did appear to be the correct decision to do. I like to the question the "moral authority" we in the West have over such matters though.

Well, all I can say is that we in the West (The Commonwealth as well as the U.S.) made great efforts to avoid war. Neville Chamberlain has gone down in history as a weakling for staying off war, even if only for a few months. When someone chooses to start a war with us and become our enemy, be it Germany or Japan in 1941 or militant Islam today, they need to understand the stakes. There is no compromise. I suppose the easiest wy to explain it is that someone had to take the moral authority, and better us than someone else.


All major participants done some ****ed up things. No side can truly be innocent of what occurred and unless all sides take share in the guilt of what happened in WW2 the same mistakes and barbarity will happen time and time again in the future.

I think I agree with you, and I also think this is why there hasn't been another nuclear attack since 1945. It hasn't happened time and time again in the future since 1945. Rather, nations with nuclear weapons have gone to great lengths to avoid such a holocaust.


Yeah sure the Germans and Japanese launched wars of aggression. But unlike any war in human history it was truly a war in which the civilian population on both sides of the conflict suffered. I highly doubt a civilian in London, Berlin, Rotterdam, Tokyo, Warsaw, Dresden, Leningrad, Hiroshima and Nanking give a **** who was right or wrong. They have seen hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens killed.

I agree with you, but wringing our hands 60+ years after the fact accomplishes nothing. Instead, learning from our past and making an effort to avoid repeating the same tragedies seems to have gone pretty well.


Is it any wonder that both the Germans and Japanese battled as tenaciously as they did with the utter destruction that was reigned from above high?

I think we agree here. I know that a raid of only a few hours on a single base in 1941 made the American people supremely angry. The Blitz and the Japanese attacks on Darwin certainly didn't cause the Brits and you lot to lose the will to fight - they made us all more defiant. In the grander scheme of things, I think much of the Allied strategic bombing effort was a dismal failure.


Germany collapsed in WW1 whilst still occupying a large part of France. Nothing had really changed in the preceding 20 years to cause them to fight to the bitter end so it begs the question. Was this destruction needed at the level it was brought up the people if at all?

Having seen the results of an armistice in 1918, the leaders of the Allies agreed early on that both Germany and Japan must surrender unconditionally. They had to know that they were completely and utterly conquered. There were many people in Germany who thought that they hadn't really lost in 1918.


Some people may call this revisionist thinking. So be it. But unless we look back at this time, learn from it then we the human race have nothing but a bleak future to look forward.

As I stated earlier, I think we have learned - we haven't had any sort of nuclear exchange since 1945. Modern nations with liberal western values no longer tend to go to war for territorial or material gain. Now it's for ideals. Quite a bit has changed.

James
11-20-2008, 03:39 AM
Thats cool. We are pretty much on the same page.

No! Argue with me, damn you!

I find myself craving a reasoned, articulate debate. Or not - have a good one. ;)

Connaught Ranger
11-20-2008, 04:24 AM
I thought that at the time the bombs were dropped the Japanese were already putting out feelers diplomatically for an end to hostilities... Op August Storm was A Bad Thing for them, for sure (or was that between the bombs...). Not sure if it would've been a ceasefire/armistice/or the full unconditional surrender, and not sure what channels they had gone through (third parties?) but that was the impression I was under, anyone else heard this?

I also wonder what the effect would've been if Japanese leaders were invited to one of the test detonations of the atomic bomb in the US beforehand, or if a 'show of force' was put on, using the bomb offshore or in a depopulated area of Japan to basically make the point that they should throw in the towel before worse things happened...

This is not to say I don't understand why the bomb was dropped at the time, it is offensive realism at its best ('in uncertain times, go all out to win by force of arms, you can't trust anyone else and you must give it your max effort'). I also remember a bloke who was a veteran who instructed at our air cadets when I was a sprog; his sqn of Spitfire had been sent after VE to 'teach the Japanese airforce a lesson', it was widely assumed the Spitfire was the mutts nuts, but they soon had the great majority of the sqn shot down :(

Just exploring what some possible other outcomes could have been.

Any thoughts?

Hallo Britboy, IMHO with regards "feelers of peace" the people involved in this, had no control over the Imperial Military High Command, who were running the show, and who showed no sign of stopping, until after two bombs were used.

As for a demo, well as there were only two bombs in existence at the time,
what if the drop turned out to be a dud! Not very productive or likely to have much convince factor. Could have quite the opposite effect convincing the Japanese representatives that the Allies were bluffing.

Japan was always overcrowded, hard to find a depopulated area, I would imagine.

I doubt the Japanese Imperial Military High Command would have bothered to attend, they would have viewed it as some form of kidnap attempt, remember they did not sign up for the Geneva Convention or recognise it so no safe passage under a flag of truce would have been considered.

Connaught Ranger.

Britboy
11-20-2008, 05:34 AM
Fair one, I suppose its an attractive 'what if' now, but was hardly likely with the 1940s zeitgeist.

namvet46
11-20-2008, 09:58 AM
arent Steven Spielbergh and Tom Hanks filming another band of brothers about this?

yes they are. the pacific. due to be released in 09. from the canal to the A bombs.

link (link)

ishbara
11-20-2008, 10:25 AM
Japans were good and proud warriors.They had to be won the ww2.

namvet46
11-20-2008, 10:34 AM
US military ests were 1 million American dead to invade. these ests were always low balled. Japan was not going to surrender. the Army tried to prevent surrender by stealing the emperors surrender tape. is was not going to be broadcast. the A bombs were the only way to end it. even after the first one was dropped the Army insisted the US could not mass produce them.

jupiter
11-20-2008, 10:39 AM
Japans were good and proud warriors.They had to be won the ww2.
Why?. Please explain.

jupiter
11-20-2008, 10:44 AM
There's a version that the Japan asked the intervention of URSS before the Allies, Stalin doublecross Japan, never telling the Allies that a surrender was near,thus allowing the results that we all know. But is a story never confirmed...or it was?

gaijinsamurai
11-20-2008, 10:58 AM
It's true that the Japanese Government asked the USSR to facilitate a surrender with the Allies, but Stalin had made previous committments to enter the war against Japan after Germany's defeat, and Japan's request fell on deaf ears.

Japan wanted to negotiate a conditional surrender, and after Pearl Harbor, blatant aggression, and atrocities, the Allies wouldn't accept anything short of unconditional surrender,

namvet46
11-20-2008, 01:02 PM
Care to explain what you mean?

you didn't watch the vid. the Nazi's targeted the Jews for destruction. the Japs didn't care about race, color or creed.

Connaught Ranger
11-20-2008, 01:50 PM
you didn't watch the vid. the Nazi's targeted the Jews for destruction. the Japs didn't care about race, color or creed.

Again your ignorance is astounding, did you fail basic history 101 at school?

How old are you, does Mommy know you are trying to play with the

adults?:roll:

The Japanese targeted Chinese (look up the Rape of Nanking).

The Japanese targeted Koreans, who they consider to be an inferior race.

The Japanese targeted the Allied P.O.W. because they surrendered and did

not die in battle as true warriors would.

Connaught Ranger.

namvet46
11-20-2008, 02:14 PM
Again your ignorance is astounding, did you fail basic history 101 at school?

How old are you, does Mommy know you are trying to play with the

adults?:roll:

The Japanese targeted Chinese (look up the Rape of Nanking).

The Japanese targeted Koreans, who they consider to be an inferior race.

The Japanese targeted the Allied P.O.W. because they surrendered and did

not die in battle as true warriors would.

Connaught Ranger.

duh you just proved my point. home boy

Connaught Ranger
11-20-2008, 02:21 PM
duh you just proved my point. home boy

I aint your boy, home or otherwise kiddo, and if you understood the Japanese mentality they were very selective in the treatment given out to the different category's, for example, they choose to kill Chinese women and children with bayonets, many outright. They choose to bury many Chinese men alive in pits, but the choose to degrade many Korean women as ***-slaves, and use the men for slave labour back in Japan so there is an indication that they did categorize people.

Connaught Ranger.

Connaught Ranger
11-20-2008, 02:23 PM
you didn't watch the vid. the Nazi's targeted the Jews for destruction. the Japs didn't care about race, color or creed.

The Nazis targeted the Jewish race, the Roma (Gypsys) the Slavic "Unttermensch", the mentally handicapped and physically handicapped of the turd reich. Communists sympathizers regardless of which country they lived. Not too fond of **********s or Catholics as well.

Connaught Ranger.

namvet46
11-20-2008, 02:24 PM
I aint your boy, home or otherwise kiddo, and if you understood the Japanese mentality they were very selective in the treatment given out to the different category's, for example, they choose to kill Chinese women and children with bayonets, many outright. They choose to bury many Chinese men alive in pits, but the choose to degrade many Korean women as ***-slaves, and use the men for slave labour back in Japan so there is an indication that they did categorize people.

Connaught Ranger.

but they DID murder many races. you on drugs????

Cstafford
11-20-2008, 02:29 PM
but they DID murder many races. you on drugs????
you truly are not getting what he is saying.... ****ing retards.

namvet46
11-20-2008, 02:32 PM
The Nazis targeted the Jewish race, the Roma (Gypsys) the Slavic "Unttermensch", the mentally handicapped and physically handicapped of the turd reich. Communists sympathizers regardless of which country they lived. Not too fond of **********s or Catholics as well.

Connaught Ranger.

and the color of their skin was what?????

namvet46
11-20-2008, 02:34 PM
you truly are not getting what he is saying.... ****ing retards.

its all to clear. who's the "****ing retards???"

Cstafford
11-20-2008, 02:34 PM
and the color of their skin was what?????

listen, race just isnt skin color.

namvet46
11-20-2008, 02:36 PM
listen, race just isnt skin color.

to the killers they are

Mordoror
11-20-2008, 02:37 PM
to ConnaughtRanger and Cstafford

Please guys :

http://images.imagehotel.net/kj6i6bmm1gdotpng (http://www.imagehotel.net/?from=kj6i6bmm1gdotpng)

Connaught Ranger
11-20-2008, 02:39 PM
and the color of their skin was what?????

Well depending on where the Jewish people came from in Europe their skin tones were various from the white of France & Denmark to the dark skinned from Greece and Italy.

The Roma are predominantly dark-skinned the ancestry and close blood lines going back to what is present day Pakistan.The Russian again had varying skin tones depending on what ethnic race and from what part of the Soviet Continent he / she came from.

Sorry Morodor failed to see your post with regards the namtrollvet in time.

Connaught Ranger

Kadrun
11-20-2008, 04:53 PM
Some Dutch were captured and served as *** slaves as well.
Does it explains you about racial stuff? namvet46?

BTW, Empire of Japan is disgustin enough w/ Unit 731.

gaijinsamurai
11-20-2008, 11:27 PM
Hopefully, the troll won't be back.

I've been accused of being a "Japan Fan Boy" on more than one occasion, but nobody can deny that the Japanese committed acts that were nothing short of evil in WWII, and yes, downright racist. As the husband of a Japanese woman and the father of a half-Japanese boy, I have no problem saying this, because it's the truth.

skipperbob
12-04-2008, 11:45 PM
That is a big myth. By late 1944 the military establishment had lost power and the Japanese were actively looking for ways to end the war, there was mass anti-war protests in Tokyo. The population had had enough of it.

Whilst the Japanese Army would of battled to the end the civilian population would have keeled over the same as any other civilian population does when invaded.

What happened in Okinawa was a single event. Okinawa was a backwater. It was the Japanese version of the Appalachian Mountains.


I would like to get back to the central context of this thread - the invasion of Japan. I would very much like to know the sources you have to back such statements as these. I have never at any time seen anything about anti-war protests in Japan and the military was still very much in control in 1945. As for the civilian population of Japan - they were prepared to do anything ordered of them. It was part of their culture to obey the Emperor and all authority. Back in college in 1964 I took a geography class from a visiting Japanese professor. One day after class we got talking about the war and his experiences as a young boy and I was stunned as he described how every boy and girl in his school, eight years and older were trained to take an anti-tank landmine and strap it to their body and throw themslves under American vehicles. They were going to die anyway so they should take as many enemy with them as they could. They had been taught to hate and fear Americans and were prepared to do anything. He had his landmine in his house and was very proud of it and was ready to use it. The invasion of Japan would have been a horrible bloodbath for all involved.

gaijinsamurai
12-04-2008, 11:58 PM
Japanese civilians also sought to commit suicide on Saipan, rather than fall into the hands of US troops.

Minardiau is correct about the Japanese Government wanting to negotiate an end to the war, but they were not united in their efforts.

HollywoodMarine
12-05-2008, 12:04 AM
I think what you guys are looking for are more detailed maps, and information. Here you go...

Objective: Invasion of Japan

OPERATION DOWNFALL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall)

http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k68/serif112/Operation_Downfall_-_Mapdotjpg