Allied Invasion of Japan

@ABWorsham:

What is your thoughts on an Allied Invasion of Japan?

I maybe wrong, but I think in one of these World War 2 programs I watched, it would have been over 750,000 casualties or more, if the Allies invaded Japan. The reason being is the Kamikaze mentality that the Japanese soldiers would have when fighting the Allies. They would die till their last breath. I’m sure there would be a lot, whatever numbers they might be.

The US is still issuing Purple Hearts produced in anticipation of the massive casualties involved. Will go with the number made, 500,000.

200000 is my guess.

Sorry if you think I have been away. Have always been here and always think of you.

Off topic but, Damn HBG make a game of this LOL!

Good topic AB!

Guys,

––I’m away from home but I’ve been reading (off and on) a great book on the invasions of Japan, Operations Olympic & Coronet. The book has MUCH info and has a fantastic discussion of the actual sources including the Japanese, very seldom if ever used, and a frank discussion of what “facts” were real, imagined, and/or mis-represented and WHY. I’ll post the book’s title and a link once I get home. It is a FASCINATING & FRIGHTENING review of the facts.
----My answer to the question would be MORE THAN 2,000,000+ casualties IF the invasions were actually successful! Everyone needs to read this book!

Tall Paul

500.000 to 750.000 is what I think would have been the casualties.

Peoples getting funky when war comes to their city steps!

Regardless, of who is right or wrong, it would be a lot of lives lost.

I was being conservative and put my answer at a million ALLIED casualties…I think Pelelieu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa were accurate portrayals of what we could have reasonably expected to encounter on the home islands…but on a MUCH bigger scale. I also think Olympic would have been disastrous, at least at first, because there were WAY more of everything defending Kyushu than the allied intelligence had predicted.

Every allied intel prediction as to the disposition, nature, and time necessary to fight and defeat Japanese forces on Pelelieu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa was unequivocally wrong. The tenaciousness of the Japanese fighting soldier seemed to be underestimated by everyone but the guys actually fighting them. I don’t see why it would be any different during the invasion of Japan. Furthermore, they would be fighting for their homes, on their turf, with shorter supply lines, on islands…Nothing but the total destruction of Japan would have pacified that fight…

I’m certain if the invasion had taken place, millions more of EVERYONE involved would have perished…

I figure the Allies would lose 200 000 men, and Japan lose 8 million.

If we compare to the Korean war, the western allies USA, UK, Canada and ANZAC lost 180 000 men of a total force of 1.200 000 soldiers. The Commie allies North Korea, Sovjet Union and China lost 600 000 men of a total force of 1.200 000 soldiers, plus 3 million civilians. The Commies had short supply lines and were defending their homes, but the western weapons, training and tactic were superior.

Japan was depending on ships for 90 % of their consume, and in 1945 they were strangled by the blockade, and USAF had bombed all industry. There were no way Japan could supply any fighting force with guns and ammo in 1945. Even if they had high morale and would fight to the dead, they would be using sticks and knives, against tanks, artillery and aircrafts. It would look like the Roarkes Drift were 5000 Zulu warriors was defeated by 137 Brits with rifles.

Lets look at the Russian attack at Manchuria 1945. Russia attacked with 1.600 000 men and took 9000 casualties. Japan defended with 1.200 000 men and took 90 000 casualties. How can anybody, with this numbers in mind, believe that fighting in Japan mainland will cost millions of American lives ? In Europe the American soldier was 1 to 1 with the German soldier, while the German soldier was superior on 1 to 7 against the Russian soldier. Also during the Korean war, the American soldier was superior to the Chinese and Russians. And we know the Russian soldier was superior to the Japanese.
Look at the TDI reports at http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/

The numbers talk

Guys,

––I think everyone here would do well by reading the book “Hell to Pay” in order to get the ACTUAL FACTS as they existed before throwing out their “guestimate”. I myself was shocked at the situations and numbers envolved. Like the five veteran IJA divisions that were transferred from Manchuria to the exact landing locations of the first invasion without the Allied inteligence learning of the transfer until afterward. And the huge reserve of aircraft that had been hoarded to only be used against the invasion(s). On and on the facts are awe-inspiring and something that all americans should be made aware of. Especially the ‘cry-babies’ that decry the dropping of the atomic bombs as “unnecessary”. There were more Japanese civilians being killed in the DAILY incindiary bombing raids than resulted from the Atomic attacks!
––“Hell to Pay” is a book well worth the time invested to read. I highly recommend it to all.

Tall Paul

@Narvik:

I figure the Allies would lose 200 000 men, and Japan lose 8 million.

If we compare to the Korean war, the western allies USA, UK, Canada and ANZAC lost 180 000 men of a total force of 1.200 000 soldiers. The Commie allies North Korea, Sovjet Union and China lost 600 000 men of a total force of 1.200 000 soldiers, plus 3 million civilians. The Commies had short supply lines and were defending their homes, but the western weapons, training and tactic were superior.

Japan was depending on ships for 90 % of their consume, and in 1945 they were strangled by the blockade, and USAF had bombed all industry. There were no way Japan could supply any fighting force with guns and ammo in 1945. Even if they had high morale and would fight to the dead, they would be using sticks and knives, against tanks, artillery and aircrafts. It would look like the Roarkes Drift were 5000 Zulu warriors was defeated by 137 Brits with rifles.

40% of all ammo in the Japanese inventory was cached on Kyushu…

Over a million Japanese soldiers were on that island alone…

Over 10,000 Kamikaze’s were available for the defense of Kyushu alone…not to mention the hundreds of suicide submersibles they had available…

They had mobilized the population to fight and even if 10% of them did that’s still a force multiplier on the magnitude of millions more combatants…

You sound dangerously like the intel analysts who said Pelelieu would take 3 days to pacify, Iwo Jima would take 10 days, and Okinawa 2 weeks…

@Tall:

Guys,

––I think everyone here would do well by reading the book “Hell to Pay” in order to get the ACTUAL FACTS as they existed before throwing out their “guestimate”.Tall Paul
Â

This is a free country with free speech, so I guess my guestimate is as good as yours, Tally. As long as I don’t talk politics, which will get me banned, I am allowed to guess that USA would lose less than 200 000 men during an invasion of Japan main island. Period

@Tall:

Especially the ‘cry-babies’ that decry the dropping of the atomic bombs as “unnecessary”.  Â

Dropping the Bomb was unnecessary to win against Japan, because they don’t make their own food, and the blockade made sure every Japs would starve to death sooner or later. It was a matter of time. In European medieval, when it was usual to siege a castle, they had a saying, thousand warriors with no food is thousand dead warriors. This would go for Japan in -45 too.

Truman dropped the Bomb for one reason, to send a message to Stalin

I think this link give a good over view

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

I figure MacArthur would teach the Japs a lesson

@Narvik:

I think this link give a good over view

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

I figure MacArthur would teach the Japs a lesson

Just like he taught the Chinese right?