How did this discussion get so far off-topic? Wasn’t the thread about the US invasion of Japan? I thought Nick’s intro was quite interesting. The amount of effort that went into the planning of an operation like this is simply staggering - and all this before computers or even mag cards, though some card readers by IBM did exist by this time (machine tabulation). But the most incredible thing of all is that the US was willing to do it at all at what was then estimated to be a casualty rate of upwards of a million soldiers on the US side and no telling how many on the Japanese side. I guess this is what an orchestra would refer to as the “crescendo”. On balance, the atomic bombs doubtless saved lives on both sides, hard as that may be to absorb.
A little more on the proposed invasion of Japan.
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=94960&postcount=44
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=94961&postcount=45
From Time Magazine: Monday, Feb. 12, 1945
New Prospect
A strange prospect lay ahead for U.S. troops in Europe and for the folks at home: after Germany is defeated, millions of fighting men will move from Europe to the Pacific. Last week the Army announced that the reinforcement of the Pacific bases would be decisive and swift; so swift that much equipment will be left in Europe, replaced by new tanks and guns sent direct from the U.S. to the Pacific.
This massive scheme of global warfare was well along on the U.S. Army planning schedule last week. For most soldiers in Europe it meant that V-E day would be only a weekend in war’s long year. For U.S. production workers it meant many more months at war-work.
The new blueprint for U.S. redeployment calls for an army of 6,500,000 men to defeat Japan. That means discharging only about 1,500,000 men, one third of whom are already unfit for further military duty anyhow. It calls for a small force to police the U.S. share of occupied Germany, moving most of the U.S. forces now fighting in Europe to the Pacific. They would probably be staged through the U.S. ( the most direct route) in time to arrive at their new front in fighting trim.
Selective Moving. U.S. divisions will leave much of their equipment where it is to save time and precious cargo space. Galoshes, snowpacks, etc., useful in Europe, are no good in the Pacific. Tanks, jeeps, trucks, bulldozers, steam engines and countless items of heavy equipment worn with use will not be worth the space needed to ship them. The same goes for small arms, which wear rapidly in combat and will mostly be left behind. The one exception will be heavy equipment which is hard to replace (e.g., big guns).
A partial new list of what the armed forces will need to knock out Germany and go on to finish off Japan was submitted to the House Military Affairs Committee last week by Under Secretary of War Robert Patterson. He listed 17 critical items whose production must be stepped up 19% (tanks) to 300% (60mm. and 81-mm. mortars). Some others: heavy artillery ammunition (89%), airborne radar (32%), field and assault wire (50% plus), dry-cell batteries (27%), heavy-duty truck and bus tires (30%).
Hard and Welcome. The Navy also put in for its share of new production with a request for 500,000 tons of extra warships—in addition to the 3,596,000 tons of ships already scheduled for 1945. They will be big ships. Having cut back its destroyer-escort program, the Navy planned to commission only 206 warships this year, but their tonnage is only slightly less than that of the 415 warships the Navy got last year. The Navy also planned a sevenfold increase in rocket production.
The reasoning of the armed services was plain. After V-E day the U.S. could vastly step up its already irresistible force in the Pacific. Stepping it up would vastly speed the end of the war. For soldiers who had already fought one war in Europe, it was a hard decision. But fighting men in the Pacific would welcome it. It meant that the war against Japan might not be such a long-drawn-out affair after all.
* Find this article at:
* http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,852170,00.html
A few words from Japan about the Soviet invasion of the Kurilles:
Someone here wrote that the Japanese would not have fought the Russians with as much hatred as they fought the Americans. Sorry, but that is NOT true. The Japanese were royally pissed off at the Russians for invading Manchuria and they would under NO circumstances have treated the Russians better. The 11th tank regiment fighting on one of the Kurille islands had a message read to them before the attack in which was mentioned that the Russians were thieves and liars. Japanese sources also mention that the Soviets were not as adept at amphibious warfare as the Americans. The russians took Shakhalin island away but that could be accomplished without any landings as half of the island was theirs. hokkaido would have been a different story but the Japanese Navy could have probably held off the enemy there as the Russian Navy was not as strong. In the end the Soviets MIGHT have taken Hokkaido but I am not sure that they could have.
alfiechan in Japan