War2Peace

[The Bear's Key]

Regroup and continue fighting? Fight a bloody civil war? I think that would have much more casualties than a couple of nukes. And also Russia would have to agree to leave them alone as well. And we don't win, with all the associated benefits.

Yeah, don't forget however the length of time needed to regroup without a functional government center, and the warning for the Japan leaders if they dared attack once more.

 

Sadly, that is how it works. There are very few instances when you can convince someone to surrender after telling them that they will be given a bad place in the history books and then executed. How many other people would have to die just for that one little bit of justice?

Spot on. It doesn't matter to me they were spared. I was only calling a spade just that.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Regroup and continue fighting? Fight a bloody civil war? I think that would have much more casualties than a couple of nukes.

Also one more thing I'd like to say. My argument has least to do with saving lives -- it's more against the justification for using something you don't want anyone to use....ever again

Edited September 4, 2009 by The Bear's Key
Consecutive posts merged.

[Pangloss]

My argument has least to do with saving lives -- it's more against the justification for using something you don't want anyone to use....ever again

 

I think you can make that point without perfect-hindsighting the people who had to make that difficult call. You make some good points, but so did they, and IMO it's too easy to dismiss the points made by those on that side of the argument. In the end what matters is not that we positively judge them to have erred, but that we do everything we can to prevent it from happening again. That means recognizing that they had valid concerns too, as I think you mostly have (except when you dismiss it as being like Iraq).

[JohnB]

Nope. You didn't mention any of that, and supplied no link in the proper context.

My apologies, you are correct. The Marine Corps Gazette did allude to the situation with mention of a "National Volunteer Force of militia officially put at 28 million".

 

So to be certain;

Wiki

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

All male civilians between the ages of 12 to 65 years, and females of 12 to 45 years were members.

Some 28,000,000 men and women were considered “combat capable” by the end of June 1945

 

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

Had Olympic come about, the Japanese civilian population, inflamed by a national slogan - "One Hundred Million Will Die for the Emperor and Nation" - were prepared to fight to the death. Twenty Eight Million Japanese had become a part of the National Volunteer Combat Force. They were armed with ancient rifles, lunge mines, satchel charges, Molotov cocktails and one-shot black powder mortars. Others were armed with swords, long bows, axes and bamboo spears. The civilian units were to be used in nighttime attacks, hit and run maneuvers, delaying actions and massive suicide charges at the weaker American positions.

 

http://www.operationolympic.com/p1_defenses.php

The Japanese organized their civilians, including all healthy men (15 to 60) and women (17 to 40) into a fighting corps. Equipment was severely lacking, much of this force was equipment with spears, bows, or muskets, but they were nevertheless ordered to fight.

 

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/chap4.htm

The defensive plan called for the use of the Civilian Volunteer Corps, a mobilization not of volunteers but of all boys and men 15 to 60 and all girls and women 17 to 40, except for those exempted as unfit. They were trained with hand grenades, swords, sickles, knives, fire hooks, and bamboo spears. These civilians, led by regular forces, were to make extensive use of night infiltration patrols armed with light weapons and demolitions.

 

The bolded red contradicts what you just said a little further up:

Not really. I brought up the tactic to show how such things really screw with the minds of troops. You don't think that fighting poorly armed militia would be worse?

 

Way before a combat's start, preparations are made (especially vs an old and known tactic) which affect what the choice is likely to be.

1. Kill everthing and spare no one that gets in the way.

2. Be killed.

3. Go by a carefully hatched strategy route which nails the most enemies, for the least casualties to yourselves and forced villagers.

 

You are aware of the Military Maxim that "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy", are you not?

 

Beside the point really. What were US troops going to do when attacked by 1,000 screaming children armed with pointed sticks? One answer. Kill or be killed. It's not that hard a question.

 

But....if I were a nation looking to model its warfare on battles fought with astounding quality, I'd steer clear of any that "had to" butcher through innocents to reach the enemy just because such innocents were placed in front.

Nice try, and if I were attacking in such a situation I would agree with you. This option is frankly just not there when you are defending a position. The situation after the invasion would not have been the enemy advancing behind children, but the children being the enemy.

 

For example: You're a GI defending an airfield. Over the hill come 100 odd 15 and 16 year old kids brandishing sharp sticks and screaming. They are coming to kill you. Could you please enlighten the rest of us as to how you propose to stop the attack without slaughtering the kids?

 

How else could've Japan been dealt with? Obliterate the most critically important of government headquarters and deactivate the central or major nerves of their communications sytem.

 

Then just leave. What's the nation going to do?

 

It takes a vast amount of effort to coordinate industry, and run the nation properly -- especially with insufficient communications. And leave a warning that Japan owes the U.S. for reparations and if they ever attacked us a second time...it'd be a most henious price for Japan's leaders.

 

There is so much wrong with this it is difficult to know where to start.

 

Firstly. Bombing had already severely damaged some 67 Japanese cities, how many more would need to be destroyed to get the point across? Firebombing would kill millions before the goal you suggest could be achieved.

 

Secondly. "Just leave." I know that MacArthurs propaganda machine has convinced many Americans that they were the only ones fighting, but that isn't true. Would you turn your backs on your allies? Late to the party and p*ss off early, is that it? Like anyone on the planet would ever trust the US after that sort of cheap stunt.

 

Do you think the war would have ended if you had just left? Without a surrender the war goes on. Even if you buggered off, the rest of us would have kept going. Without a surrender a "State of War" still exists.

 

Are you under the impression that the Japanese had been driven back to the home islands?

 

Guess again.

 

Areas coloured light green and white show Japanese control as of August 1945. The bulk of the Japanese army had not been defeated.

 

The true brilliance of the "Island hopping" campaign was that it allowed strikes on the Japanese home islands without having to engage most of the military in battle. A very different situation to Europe.

 

Fourthly. "What's the nation going to do?" Rebuild and rearm. Your bombing campaign only effects the home islands. Japan still had 4 million troops under arms controlling a vast area. (See map above.)

 

Let's add a few more facts.

 

In June 1944, the Japanese transport submarine I-52 took aboard 800kg of Uranium Oxide for transport to Japan.

 

In November 1944 U-219 and U-195 arrived in the East carrying parts for 12 V-2 rockets.

(This information was known to Truman, BTW.)

 

The Japanese had 7 centrifuges for the refining of nuclear material. (We know this because they were captured after the surrender.)

 

In May/June 1942, Germany successfully testfired missiles from a submerged submarine. (U-511) Germany continued the program and developed plans for water launching V-2 rockets. In 1944 under the codename "Prufstand XII" construction began on the launchers. (These plans were used by the Russians as the basis for their Golem towed missile program)

 

The Japanese C-3 class transport subs were the largest non nuclear subs ever built at 2,095 tons displacement.

 

What's a nation going to do? I'd bet that in about a year or so after you "sail away", it's going to get really, really hot in major industrial and governmental centres in the US. You would not be given the option to retaliate.

 

Your "sailing away" would have left the military in control of the Japanese gov and they were not dumb enough to make the same mistake twice.

 

Fifth. Under what International conventions are you going to demand reparations? Without a surrender, Japan is under no obligation to comply. As for your threat, that would be rather moot by then, would it not?

 

My argument is that the price of going in with Russia against Japan, and only crippling the government, would've been acceptable compared to the nuclear world's destructive potential the atom bomb droppings created. Far more lives now at stake than in WW2.

 

The bomb had been tested. If it hadn't been used, how long do you think it would have been kept a secret? Once the secret was out, everybody would be out to develop their own. Your alternative of continuing conventional warfare in the company of the Russians would not have made any difference in that respect. Nuclear proliferation would still have happened, but without the ghastly lessons that Hiroshima and Nagasaki provided.

 

So your argument is without foundation.

 

So JohnB, how do you reconcile the supposed view that Japan would fight until everyone was dead -- over 70,000,000 million people -- with the view that Japan would give up only if atom bombs killed less than 1% of its people?

Quite easily. The Japanese were willing to sacrifice those millions if they were taking a heavy toll on the Allies. The belief being that the Allies would rather a conditional peace than suffer heavy losses. (A not unreasonable assumption, I think) However the bombs showed that we could inflict horrendous losses to the Japanese without loss to ourselves.

 

Because of this factor, the suicidal policy was abandoned as pointless.

 

Generally concerning the Russian entry into the conflict. This was not a surprise to anybody. The Western Allies were certain that Russia would declare and invade the day after the "Neutrality Agreement" expired. Many in the Japanese gov thought the same way.

 

Another point that might have forced Trumans hand is that Operation Downfall was basically dead by July 1945. Military doctrine (gathered from centuries of experience) is that to succeed, an invasion or attack against fortified areas requires a three to one numerical advantage in favour of the attacker. Once the figures came in about the reinforcement of the Southern Island it was readily apparent that the invasion would face odds of one to one or less. On that basis, Operation Downfall was doomed to fail.

 

Regardless of the opinion of MacArthur, the invasion option was dead.

 

Note: You too are a fair challenge and have taught me new things. I had no idea that the censorship was as great as it was. I also had no idea that Germany had developed submarine launched missiles.

 

To be honest, I think the race was a lot closer than most people think. From here.

In a separate development, by the end of the war, the guidance system for targeting surface vessels with anti-ship rockets fired from submerged U-boats was complete and installed in the latest Type XXIs. Known as SP-Anlage, the device could accurately pinpoint the location of surface vessels and enabled anti-ship rockets to be fired up from below. The rockets however were still under development when the war ended. This project was named Project Ursel.

 

The Type XXI was the best sub of the war, silent and deadly. Fitted with submerged launch anti ship missiles. "Oh Sh*t" is the only way I can describe this development.

 

And from here.

 

This is a Luftwaffe map of lower New York showing the blast damage expected from a V-2 carried nuclear weapon.

 

I have also become increasingly sceptical about the casualty counts for the fire bombing raids. Some 4 million people lived in the area of Tokyo firestormed in July. Since the Japanese didn't have the systems of air raid shelters as existed in European cities, most of those 4 million people would have been asleep in their homes when the raid came. Yet the claim is that 11 out of 12 people survived the firestorm. Having read German accounts of the Hamburg and Dresden raids, such a low death toll is extremely unlikely. During the Dresden raid people jumped into the river to escape the flames only to be boiled alive by the river. Others in well constructed shelters died from the heat and had the fat rendered from their bodies. So 11 out of 12 surviving a firestorm without shelters? I'm smelling a lot of bovines somewhere.

Edited September 17, 2009 by JohnB