PDA

View Full Version : Conventional attack on Japan WW2 (food for thought).



FruitandNut
March 29th, 2005, 10:03 PM
I have just come across this site, what do you guys reckon?

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

KevinBrowning
March 29th, 2005, 10:10 PM
I got an HTTP error 404. As for a ground invasion of Japan at the end of WW2: no. The Japs weren't too keen on surrendering it seems, considering that even after the first nuke they were still ready to kamikaze themselves. The carnage from a ground invasion would have been unnecessarily long and bloody, even compared to nukes.

Edit: Ah, there it is. I'll give it a look.

FruitandNut
March 29th, 2005, 11:01 PM
It seems also that calculations on Japanese casualities before their surrender could well have gone topsides of 20 million. That the fight could even have stretched into 1947. That while Uncle Sam was petty much occupied in Japan and one and a half Brit armies were tied up in their Far Eastern Empire, Uncle Joe (Stalin) could have siezed the opportunity to move on Western Europe. Against them would have been a couple of British armies plus the last dregs of our reserves, two or three French divisions, some other raggle taggle bits and pieces, some German divisions (already mauled), and a few Italian divisions. Supplies would be a problem, as America would be concentrating on the Japanese push by then. The outcome would probably mean the withdrawl of the British Pacific Fleet (with a couple of dozen carriers) to beef up the Home Fleet based up in Scapa Flow. This combined with the RAF would probably prevent the Russians from taking the UK, but as for the rest of Western Europe??????

All this effort would have totally crippled the British economy, and Uncle Sam's would have looked a bit threadbare. The argument about the 'second bomb', is clinched by other information that came out showing that the bombs failed to impress the Japanese Army(Tojo), The bombing of Tokyo caused more human and collateral damage. It did little to harm the military machine. The Japanese were fighting to protect their culture and the concept of the God Emperor. Indeed, the army sought to kill all those who were involved in broadcasting the Emperor's surrender message. There are several sources that claim the Japanese actually successfully tested a small dirty nuke of their own in 1945. They had been working on the project for a number of years, but it was less well funded or staffed than the Los Alamos effort.

Fyshhed
March 30th, 2005, 08:23 AM
Fascinating read.


After that, I'm glad we nuked 'em.



Side note: Imagine an invasion of the States? That would be phenomenally tragic!

FruitandNut
March 30th, 2005, 08:32 AM
Fyshy - All wars are tragic - an invasion of the States would be just that - plus 'bloody awesome'. It could only go nuke eventually, as which ever side percieved they were losing, out would come their 'tactical' nukes and the thing would then escalate.

Ps. My dad (RIP) got 'nuked' several times in British and Combined exercises during the tense times of the late 1950s and early 60s, he was in charge of the mobile signals group of the Brit 4th Inf Div. based in Herford. He used to arrange that the local Russian Observer (a colonel) was downing vodkas and Johnny Walkers in the officers' mess and his driver was downing beers in the OR's mess, then he would block their vehicle in with a couple of radio trucks, while the rest of the unit disappeared into the countryside. The colonel usually played up hell, but by father would just act a bit thick and slow on the uptake, claiming the keys were not in the transport pool and someone must have taken them off somewhere. I remember him bringing some Russian fags(ciggies) home with him, and his non too complimentary verdict on them!

Slipnish
March 30th, 2005, 10:57 AM
I had heard that estimated casulties from an invasion of Japan were in the one million person range, but had not heard that some considered that to be a LOW! estimate.

Jesus...

That's a pretty incredible thing to contemplate.

Yeah, seems to me that nukes were the way to go, as bad as they are...

mog
March 30th, 2005, 05:34 PM
Ps. My dad (RIP) got 'nuked' several times in British and Combined exercises during the tense times of the late 1950s and early 60s, he was in charge of the mobile signals group of the Brit 4th Inf Div. based in Herford. He used to arrange that the local Russian Observer (a colonel) was downing vodkas and Johnny Walkers in the officers' mess and his driver was downing beers in the OR's mess, then he would block their vehicle in with a couple of radio trucks, while the rest of the unit disappeared into the countryside. The colonel usually played up hell, but by father would just act and bit thick and slow on the uptake, claiming the keys were not in the transport pool and someone must have taken them off somewhere. I remember him bringing some Russian fags(ciggies) home with him, and his non too complimentary verdict on them!

Oh... I thought you were going to say your Dad was one of the poor bastards who had to stand there and literally get nuked in the South Australian desert so their radiation levels could be monitored.

Cold War shenanigans never fail to amuse me. It reminds me of a passage from Peter Wright's book, where he recalls the pride and joy of the Post Office Special Investigations Unit. Framed and hung on the wall was a letter from Russia originally addressed to a prominant British communist party member whose mail was regularly intercepted. It read: "Dear MI5, If you steam this letter open you are dirty buggers." The officer in charge classified it as "obscene post", removing any obligation he had to deliver it.

FruitandNut
March 30th, 2005, 09:19 PM
No, most of those poor bug*ers were 'expendable' national service types. (My father was training the next generation of officers by then!) They were used in germ and chemical 'experiments' at the Portland Down bio chem establishment here in the UK during the 50s and 60s as well! The US and indeed other countries, USSR and France to name but two, did much the same thing. The US ran a destroyer complete with crew through a radiation cloud! Yes, it was not just a MAD period, it also brought out the crazy among the great and good!

In regard to the '1984', 'big brother' censoring and 'tapping' you, that still goes on!! I can understand it to a point, but in time it seems to bring out paranoia writ large among some of the 'operatives'. A few years ago someone who had been in the (now defunct) Royal Observer Corps was fishing of the north coast of Scotland and spotted an aircraft moving at an unusually rapid rate in his middle distance, followed by the usual sonic boom. As he had a camera complete with a powerful telescopic lens fitted, he clicked off several shots. He then took the film to his local chemist to be sent off for developing. A few days later, some gentlemen arrived at his house and 'suggested' that he had seen nothing, he was also informed that the film he took 'never was'. He has since investigated what he saw and reckons it was an example of the Lockheed (Skunkworks) Aurora.

ps. My dad worked for British Aerospace after he left the Army. During the latter sixties and early seventies, his work involved seeing that the Woomera missile range was supplied with technical bits and bobs. (Sorry, Abbos!)

pps. My father-in-law was involved in some of the Christmas Island nukes, he witnessed some of the explosions, and mentioned the squaddies turning their backs on the blast and then turning to face the 'radio active' breeze!

Montalban
May 31st, 2005, 03:27 AM
Side note: Imagine an invasion of the States? That would be phenomenally tragic!

By whom? WE ALREADY CONTROL MOST OF YOUR OFFICES OF GOVERNMENT. THERE IS NO USE IN FIGHTING IT.
:evil:

Stormer
June 4th, 2005, 05:46 AM
Hello F&N, I am here, and I have brought my War debate marathons with me :evil: :lol:

The invasion plan of Japan was created in 1945, at a time when the "Tube Alloys" project was nearing completion. Top Government officials in the US would have known about this, and the expected destructive potential of the new weapons was incredible.

With this in mind, do you really think the US would have invaded the Japanese mainland and sustain those incredible amounts of casualties without first waiting for their nuclear weapons to be ready? The Japanese plans to have millions of men (and women) would have caused massive casualties in most areas, there is a good possibility that the invasion would be repulsed in many areas, jeapordising the entire invasion. Here is a question to think about, if the first invasion was repulsed with totoal casualties, do you think the US government try another assualt, or subject Japan to a total blockade and massive aerial bombardment?

The US knew the USSR was going to attack Japan, what do you think they would have done:

Let the Soviets take the casualties, invade when the Japanese are preoccupied with Russia

or

Invade Japan, take brutal amounts of casualties but keep Japan from being divided?

Are you all glad the US dropped both bombs? ( ;) F&N)

StOrMeR

KevinBrowning
June 4th, 2005, 09:50 AM
Are you all glad the US dropped both bombs? ( ;) F&N)

I'm not really glad that all those civilians had to die, but the fact is that they didn't surrender even after the first nuke. So, we had to drop the second one. It's as simple as that.

Stormer
June 4th, 2005, 05:50 PM
Do you really think 3 days was enough time for the Japanese to comprehend the damage and the emperor to organise the surrender of that proud nation?

StOrMeR

KevinBrowning
June 4th, 2005, 07:34 PM
Do you really think 3 days was enough time for the Japanese to comprehend the damage and the emperor to organise the surrender of that proud nation?

StOrMeR

"Comprehend" the damage? Are you serious? They had an entire city and much of the surrounding area vaporized, I'd say it was pretty noticeable. As for organizing the surrender, it doesn't take much effort to contact the other side's leader and say "we give up." You note yourself that they were a proud nation; that is an understatement. Non-surrender, seeking victory, and ritual suicide rather than concede were all part of a nearly unshakeable honor code in Japan that only nuclear weapons could defeat.

FruitandNut
June 4th, 2005, 10:16 PM
Hello F&N, I am here, and I have brought my War debate marathons with me :evil: :lol:
omg!


Are you all glad the US dropped both bombs? ( ;) F&N)
StOrMeR

I'll answer that if you win the 'American Foreign Policy' debate! :P

Stormer
June 6th, 2005, 03:06 AM
"Comprehend" the damage? Are you serious? They had an entire city and much of the surrounding area vaporized, I'd say it was pretty noticeable.

The search for survivors, damage assesment and radioactive testing, coupled with the fact that the surrounding areas communications would be down permanently.


As for organizing the surrender, it doesn't take much effort to contact the other side's leader and say "we give up." You note yourself that they were a proud nation; that is an understatement. Non-surrender, seeking victory, and ritual suicide rather than concede were all part of a nearly unshakeable honor code in Japan that only nuclear weapons could defeat.

Consider the fact that the Japanese Imperial War council met for the first time after Hiroshima on the ninth of August, during this council focused on both the obliteration of Hiroshima and the invasion of Manchuria by the USSR. During the meeting Nagasaki was destroyed.

In 1945 the Japanese "government" was split into two groups, those leaning for peace, and those wanting to go down in a blaze of glory. The latter group would have stood out for 100 nukes, the former should have bee the target for surrender negotiations. On the 8th the emperor was siding with those wanting peace, and this was reinforced when he ordered surrender the day after Nagasaki.

StOrMeR

Montalban
June 7th, 2005, 03:06 AM
Do you really think 3 days was enough time for the Japanese to comprehend the damage and the emperor to organise the surrender of that proud nation?

StOrMeR

You don't think the evidence of two destroyed cities was convincing?

Stormer
June 9th, 2005, 01:22 AM
I thikn Hirohima would be enough, Nagasaki was totally unnecesary.

StOrMeR

FruitandNut
June 9th, 2005, 01:30 AM
Monty - Word of warning. On another site, StOrMeR is locked in deadly combat on this issue and it has 'so far' gone to nearly 500 posts!!! I hope you are built for distance. :lol: ;?

Stormy loves locking horns with his Antipodean cousins! |)|

Montalban
June 10th, 2005, 01:35 AM
I thikn Hirohima would be enough, Nagasaki was totally unnecesary.

StOrMeR
It was to show that the first wasn't a 'fluke'

Stormer
June 10th, 2005, 02:04 AM
They could have shown that by not dropping it on a densly populated area.

StOrMeR

Montalban
June 11th, 2005, 03:54 AM
They could have shown that by not dropping it on a densly populated area.

StOrMeR

Where in Japan would you have sugggested? They could have dropped the first one in outback Australia and send big colour photos to the Japanese threatening that if they didn't surrender, they'd be next.

Also, a less densely populated area was chosen; they didn't drop it on Tokyo, which would have been my target - to get the emperor.

and...

Yes, the Warriors do suck

Go the Eels!
www.parraeels.com.au

Stormer
June 11th, 2005, 11:10 PM
How about in the massive area of rugged mountains in central Japan, or how about in the water just out from a town (though this might cause a tsunami). There are a lot of different options, why would you drop it on a city packed with civilians?

StOrMeR

Montalban
June 11th, 2005, 11:54 PM
How about in the massive area of rugged mountains in central Japan, or how about in the water just out from a town (though this might cause a tsunami).
Indeed they could have. However they were at war and at you could argue that they could well have dropped all their bombs off the coast of Japan and said "If you don't stop killing our forces soon, we just might have to start firing our weapons at you!

In combat, my grand-dad in Papua New Guinea could have fired his gun into the air and perhaps scared the Japanese into seriously thinking about surrender, and while they were gunning him down (which they didn't because he didn't take your opiton), they might have really considered just how lucky they were that he gave them that option.


There are a lot of different options, why would you drop it on a city packed with civilians?

StOrMeR
If I were Truman, or in his shoes, I'd look at this way
a) I didn't start the war
b) they waged an agressive war on me, which included treating civillians and PoWs with uttmost barbarity; including using them for slave labour; scientific experiments etc.
c) dilivery of a weapon to end the war (which it did) and to break the enemies will to resist is my prime concern.

Dragon
May 14th, 2006, 05:19 PM
Its quite interesting to wonder how the Japsanese would of done if we didnt drop the bombs and just invaded. I have heard the estimates of the death toll on both sides being in the ten of thousands to ten of millions. Regardless, there would of been more death and destruction to all over Japan in alonger time period. Yes, the nukes did a LOT of DAMAGE, but overall, in the long run, they came back from that and also part of that helped them recover faster then Germany did when it was invaded conventionally.(even though part of the reason why Japan recovered faster might be due to the cultural aspect)

I do find this an interesting article.

They even made a game for this issue.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/18945

Stormer
June 4th, 2006, 02:52 PM
Actually West Germany recovered just as if not more rapidly than Japan. It was the Soviet controlled, "communist" East Germany that struggled.

StOrMeR