All posts pertaining to Canadian submarines and Russian Arctic invasions have been sent to this thread: http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?p=128442#post128442
In relation to the Okinawa Formula formulated by Admiral William Leahy, I believe it is stated that an inland invasion on Japan would have resulted in the projected loss of up to 26 million Japanese civilians (not to mention military). If the Admiral’s formula is correct then why do so many people opose the use of the atomic bomb as it seems it actually saved lives ( ironic but perhaps worth reflecting on).
Russian Arctic invasion?
You are Bloodyfresh…
For a whole bunch of reasons that have already been done to death in this thread. Notably that there is reason to suspect that the Japanese were on the edge of surrender anyway and may have done so without the use of nuclear weapons.
Or maybe it was the Soviet entry to the war which tipped Japan to surrender, with or without atomic bombs.
I’ve posted something on that either ealier in this thread or in another thread, but I found this new commentary recently.
Proceeding from my last post, the West has received a view of Japan’s surrender which reinforces the Western, primarily American, effort against Japan culminating in the atomic bombing which demonstrated American military, technical and moral superiority.
The Soviet offensive was massive, against massive Japanese forces, involving about 1.5 million Soviet troops against about 1.2 million Japanese troops.
While it is difficult to compare amphibious assaults with land assaults, the Americans committed about 200,000 troops to Okinawa against about half that number of Japanese.
The Soviet August Storm operation against Japan was short lived but highly effective with very rapid and very destructive advances into Japanese territory.
The Soviet operation deserves a lot more attention than it gets in most Western histories.
As argued in the link in my last post and elsewhere, there is every reason to regard it as having been perhaps at least as, or even more, significant than the atom bombs in bringing Japan to surrender.
The Japanese would never have surrendered if the Russians engaged in a long land war with Japan. Japanese soldiers were brain washed to fight to the end like the kamikaze pilots. Hitler did not surrender either even though he knew the end was coming. He killed himself like a coward. Only the Atomic bomb blast gave the Emperor something to think about. Russia’s engagement in Japan would have shortened the war but not cause Japan to surrender.No way. The A-bomb was the only thing to scare Japan into an unconditional surrender.
the emperor was considering a surrender before the surrender but the Army people were controling the government. So I heard. …and about the Soviets, they invaded the whole of Manchuria in 4 days… think about it…
I agree with the bombs being droped but you have a point
More relevantly, they destroyed about almost 3 Armies in less than two weeks. That is a victory to rank with Operation Bagration and the desctruction of Army Group Centre in terms of casualties inflicted and units destroyed!
Of course. But keep in mind, they weren’t exactly facing a first rate Japanese Army that had any means to destroy their wall of armor…
As far as numbers:
Soviet Union
1,577,225 men,
26,137 artillery,
1,852 sup. artillery,
3,704 tanks,
5,368 aircraftJapan
1,040,000 men,
6,700 artillery,
1,000 tanks,
1,800 aircraft,
1,215 vehicles
More on the Soviet offensive in Manchuria, or “August Storm:”
Thread: http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4490
Specific paper by Glanz posted: http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=96253&postcount=3
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=96254&postcount=4
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=96255&postcount=5
Not sure if the full Leavenworth papers by David Glantz on August Storm have been posted, if not, on here…
http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz3/glantz3.asp
It’s a good read, seems Japanese units were often caught between fighting and obeying the surrender proclamation.
Hasegawa goes with the ‘‘bomb was primarily used to impress the Soviets’’ argument, guess that will be debated forever and a day…
And was it the bombs or the Russians who forced the surrender?
Since they overlap, I guess it could be either or both, although Hirohito only mentions the bomb in his ‘‘surrender’’ speech…
…Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization…
So it seems the bomb was the main catalyst for the Japanese to use in surrendering, or at least it was in Hirohito’s speech.
Hasegawa is on record as saying…
“I think the use of the atomic bomb is an issue that still bothers the American conscience,”
Ive seen comments like that before, does it bother many Americans?
And in the end, what do you think the Japanese would rather endure…immolation, or being Sovietised?
Hirohito’s speech is such a dissembling piece of self-deluding bullshit that it’s not useful as an indicator of Japan’s real motives for anything.
From memory it includes as a motive for surrender ‘the war not necessarily having gone to Japan’s advantage’ (or close to that). Talk about an inability to face facts!
There didn’t seem to be any evidence of stricken American consciences on VJ Day, just relief and joy that the war Japan started was finally over.
While there were certainly serious and desirable debates beforehand about using the bomb, the moral arguments against it strengthened long after the war as they got bound up in things like the campaign against nuclear disarmament, the Cold War, and mutual assured destruction.
This hindsight ranks with condemning someone for shooting an armed robber because, after the event, it is discovered that the robber’s gun wasn’t loaded.
If I was an American, my conscience wouldn’t be troubled in the least, although I’d prefer it hadn’t happened. I’d also prefer that Pearl Harbor, the Bataan Death March, and four years of brutal captivity of American POW’s, among other things initiated and carried out by Japan, hadn’t happened, along with Japanese rampages throughout Asia and thousands of deaths of young American men which woulnd’t have happened if Japan hadn’t started the war.
But I’m an Australian in a country which was threatened by Japan and which might not have survived without America, so my position is: Thank Christ for the American effort against Japan, including the atom bombs, because everything America did was what was necessary to bring Japan to surrender on what was known at the time.
That’s a very interesting and original question.
I don’t know that the Soviets had any designs on the home islands. I can’t imagine why, as it was the poverty of resources and the pressure of over-population which were among the major reasons which impelled Japan to war.
Manchuria was the real prize.
But, assuming Japan had to choose between the losses at Hirsoshima and Nagasaki and Soviet occupation and domination for ever more, it’s a no brainer. The bombing losses were trivial compared with the loss of national identity and independence by a people which was fiercely proud of its national identity and independence, most of which MacArthur allowed them to retain under a far more benevolent and tolerant regime that might have been expected under Stalin.
I just found the thread where the discussion or “August Storm,” as well as Russo-Japanese border clashes, here:
And making a ‘‘surrender’’ speech that doesn’t mention surrender can be tricky…
Wiki says that Hirohito’s speech marked what was probably the first time in history that an Emperor of Japan had spoken (albeit via a phonograph record) to the common people, and as his speech made no direct reference to surrender
it created confusion in the minds of many listeners who were not sure if Japan had surrendered or if Hirohito was exhorting them to resist the enemy invasion.
Finally, most famously, he says: “However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable”. This is the line that the Japanese people have remembered ever since.
Might have something to do with Eastern culture of ‘‘saving face’’ or just being tricky.
Be interesting to get some American thoughts on it.
If the military had their way, the Japanese people would fight to the death, every man, woman and child would ‘‘jump into the flames’’ if the Emperor ordered it, and a few more months of bombing might have just about made that a reality, but a survey taken after the war said that the majority of Japanese actually wanted the war to end months before the bombs were dropped, but like the Germans, they were at the whim of one man.
So, after giving it considerable thought, I think I’d go along with the Japanese majority…better Red than dead.
And could the Soviets invade Hokkaido, even if they wanted to?
Got a bit heated didn’t it?
I’ve always thought it was exclusively about saving face, he being unable to admit to his people that he had led them through a war he and Japan had lost.
But I also think he was a tricky little bastard who put the imperial house’s interests and survival above those of Japan, albeit in a situation not of his making and beyond his control where he had to try to survive under the militarists despite being nominally in control of the country. Post-war imperial revisionism has tried to distance him from events he was right up to his scrawny neck in. He was a grinner while Japan was a winner.
And where were the Japane first rate troops since the end of 1944?
I hope not in Okinawa or Home Islands , accidentally?
Becouse what was it first rate troops that avoided all the critical battles of 1944?
Please keep these responses in the thread on it…
But I think both Wiki and Glantz make it very clear that the Kwantung Army was a “hollow” one with it’s elite units redeployed to the home islands…
In this way , you shall love USSR too mate:)
Becouse all that they did , finaly, have been directed to the victory over Nazic and Japs.
They pretty well hold the Kwantung army all the war, and effectively crushed them for couple of weeks.
The Kwantung army were , being the part of Japane Imrerial army , aimed to eliminate your Australian independent existence too…
I don’t know that the Soviets had any designs on the home islands. I can’t imagine why, as it was the poverty of resources and the pressure of over-population which were among the major reasons which impelled Japan to war.
You right mate the Home island were the poor award for the every foreign occupants.
But there was the other importaint thing actual…
The Politic…
In the most beginning of August storm is was implied the landing at the Hokkaido due pure political reasons.
If the America was aimed to capture the home islands ( as it was demonstrated in Okinawa) - the soviets need its own booty in the japane.
If the USA would have been only the single OWNER of Japane- this can creat the treat for Soviets in future- coz they will inevitably use it as the base against Soviet far east.
Soviets would had have a part part of Japane- this seriously can improve their befor the Cold war.
By this way we can neitralize the American treat by the two possible means
- kinda in Austria - via the common escape out of there. In this BEst decision ( for locals) the foreign armies shall go out of state.
In Japane the Americans shall close their base in Okinawa- this would be the obvious soviet success. - kinda Germany - we will separate the Japane fot two zones and build the own military base on the Hokkaido.In this case the USSR got the serious adventage to pull the post-war Japane out fo Washingtin’s lead.
This could be most dramatical way for Japanes.
Americans has intercepted this soviet plans by the unfair a-bombing . Stalin had had to stop in august.
Manchuria was the real prize.
Not jut Manchguria, but China , Korea and probably the whole of Southern Asia soon.
In fact after the ww2 the anti-colonian national movenment in those states has rised. Soviet seriously planned to use it agains US post-war neo-colonization.
But, assuming Japan had to choose between the losses at Hirsoshima and Nagasaki and Soviet occupation and domination for ever more, it’s a no brainer.
Tre supposed Soviet occupation was a planned. The American occupation of Okinawa and Iwo Jima was real.
You right - the a-bombing helped to prevent the Soviet occupation of Hokkaido. But at the sane time the a-bombing saved the American occupation of Okinawa.
The bombing losses were trivial compared with the loss of national identity and independence by a people which was fiercely proud of its national identity and independence, most of which MacArthur allowed them to retain under a far more benevolent and tolerant regime that might have been expected under Stalin.
But how correlate with fact that after the Soviet loberation many of asian states got the real independence. I mean the China wage fully independent external policy since 1960.They were even hostitle to the Soviets within certain time.No one soviet military base were here.
Bu the Japanes who like thier national identity and independence veru much , still have to
tolerate the American military base on their land?
Why for instance China and Vietnam since the 1970 is really independent- but the Japane , the one of the riches state of Asia, still have to look at the Washington in all of their deeds?
Why the Japane officials can’t sneeze without cheer from America…
On what home islands?
Don’t Glatz really write that the garrison of Okinawa have been strengthen with these Elite units?