Invasion and Occupation of Japan

Say the atomic bomb is delayed by a couple of more years and the U.S. invades Japan;

1. How long could it take for the invasion to be completed?

2. How long could the occupation of Japan last?

3. During the closing stages of the war, Japanese women and children were trained to attack with bamboo spears, so, if Japan's entire population, both military and civilian were trained to kill, how would American forces react to that?

4. If Japan was invaded and occupied, does it still have the chance to become the same major economic power that it is today?

5. If there is no surrender form the Emperor, what government would the Americans install to replace the Imperial government?

6. By the time the occupation ends and American soldiers leave Japan, what state would Japan be in? In terms of its economy, society, infrastructure?

Also, take the Soviets out of the picture so Japan won't have to be divided into North/South.
 
1 First there was the Kyshu Invasion - I think - Oct (or Nov) '45, followed by the Hokkaido (please excuse any spelling errors here) maybe six - nine months later. The first was to establish forward airbases to cover the main invasion.

Trouble was the Japanese from previous US practise had correctly guessed where the landing sites would be!

What is your definition of 'completed invasion' 'secure beachhead' or 'end of campaign'? The latter in itself could take years - the main problem being who is going to surrender, who is able to order a Japanese cease-fire?

2 Much longer than in OTL, reconstruction will take longer - but then just how many Japanese will be left - not a lot!?

3 Probably get more trigger-happy then normal!

4 No - the process would take a lot longer, the population would have been drastically reduced, whether by combat, collateral damage, starvation, or disease.

5 Same as before - US Military Governor, followed many years later by democratic elections. BUT the problem is who will be able to 'surrender' to the Americans!?

6 Either similar to OTL, but to a lesser extent i.e. worse economy, and timescale is longer. Or there is a situation similar to Iraq only much much worse - where eventually the US just says F*** it we going!
 
4 No - the process would take a lot longer, the population would have been drastically reduced, whether by combat, collateral damage, starvation, or disease.

If this is the situation, then what could TTL's Japan look like by today? What OTL country could it be best likened to in terms if its economic power?
 
The fate of Japan

We've been round the block on this one before on here but it's always good to get a fresh perspective or several.

A number of thoughts to try and disentangle so here goes...

The Americans knew after the landing at Okinawa (or if they didn't know, certainly suspected) that any invasion of the Japanese Home Islands (JHI for convenience) would be a bloody encounter. In terms of airpower and ground firepower, the Japanese armed forces would be overwhelmed but without a concept of surrender and with the strong likelihood of civilians effectively throwing themselves with spears at the invaders, the death toll was likely to be enormous and very probably unsupportable.

The resulting famine alone would have decimated the survivors (in OTL, the winter of 1945-46 was a time of severe privation) let alone the loss of infrastructure (though many of the major cities had already been razed by firestorms with enormous loss of life).

From the Japanese standpoint, all of that was immaterial. They went even beyond Hitler and the Nazis in their sense of Gotterdaemmerung and self-destruction. The issue of surrender though was serious and the key point was the fate of the Emperor. On one thing all Japanese agreed, the Emperor had to survive. Tokyo knew that such a guarantee wouldn't come from Moscow but once Washington had informally tolf the Japanese that Hirohito would be maintained as Emperor, it offered the Japanese a way out with a modicum of honour.

The stunning Soviet successes in Manchuria in August 1945 had also transformed the strategic/military situation. I suspect no one either in Tokyo or Washington (or perhaps even Moscow) had believed that the Kwantung Army and Manchuria would be overrun in three weeks but that's what happened. With the advance into Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, the Russians were far closer to the JHI than the Americans and the Japanese faced the real nightmare of a co-ordinated invasion of Hokkaido in the North and Kyushu in the south.

Now, the Americans certainly did not want the Soviet Union involved in any way in the final defeat of Japan though there was little they could do practically to stop the Russians taking land on the Asian landmass (including Korea). The one advantage the Americans had was the number and strength of amphibious landing forces but that advantage could and would be eroded quickly once Soviet factories started producing landing craft in numbers. In addition, Washington knew that if the Russians got a toe-hold in the JHI it would be nearly impossible to exclude them from the post-war settlement.

It was therefore the convergence of American and Japanese interests (keep Moscow out) that made the August 15th surrender possible. I think that even if a group of hawkish officers had staged a coup, the same thing would have occurred later.

The questions that are really interesting are: how soon could the Soviet Union have made an amphibious landing on Hokkaido (spring 1946 ?). Presumably, in the complete absence of an atomic bomb, the Americans, once Olympic had been concluded, would have massed forces for Coronet, the invasion of Honshu proper.

It may well be that in the absence of the A-Bomb, the Russians realise (as do the Anglo-Americans) that Moscow is playing a very strong hand and Soviet help in the invasion and occupation of the JHI would seriously reduce the potential American losses so a semblance of co-operation (liaison officers) is maintained despite the growing political divergence over events in Europe.

In March 1946, the combined invasion forces storm ashore, the Russians enjoy weaker opposition in the far north than the Americans on the Kanto Plain. Nonetheless, it will be the Americans who approach Tokyo first.

Endgame...the Emperor commits suicide as the Americans enter the city - a senior surviving officer is found who is prepared to announce a ceasefire bit fighting on Shikoku will go on for many weeks.

The de facto partition of Japan becomes de jure at the peace summit in Manila (hosted ostentatiously by McArthur). The Soviet Union gains the whole of the Korean peninsula as well as an occupation zone (Hokkaido0 while the rest of Japan becomes part of the American zone.

Before too long, the People's Republic of Japan is established based on Sapporo and entirely dependent on the USSR and the city of Hakodate becomes a cold war frontier zonbe as does the strait between Hokkaido and Honshu.

No Korean War but the Russians are more active militarily in east Asia.

In the late 80s, Mikhail Gorbachev signals the end of Soviet colonial involvement in the PRJ and Korea. In 2008, the PRJ is still ostensibly socialist but has been forced to turn to the rest of Japan for investment and aid. Tourism is flourishing as are calls for a re-unification of Japan.
 
The stunning Soviet successes in Manchuria in August 1945 had also transformed the strategic/military situation. I suspect no one either in Tokyo or Washington (or perhaps even Moscow) had believed that the Kwantung Army and Manchuria would be overrun in three weeks but that's what happened.

Tokyo probably did. They'd effectively given up on Manchukuo and withdrawn the bulk of their forces there to the Home Isles. What remained was little more than a paper command of weak garrisons and underage reservists.

I agree with most of the rest... but didn't the premises call for us to ignore the Soviet influence?;)
 
Tokyo probably did. They'd effectively given up on Manchukuo and withdrawn the bulk of their forces there to the Home Isles. What remained was little more than a paper command of weak garrisons and underage reservists.

I agree with most of the rest... but didn't the premises call for us to ignore the Soviet influence?;)

What stodge said is pretty insightful and detailed but the reason I didn't want for the Soviets to be involved is because I was working up a complex Central Powers victory TL where the Soviets are pushed back to the Asian side of Russia by a German invasion in the late 30's and are severely weakened. The Pacific War still happens but earlier and slightly different and I wanted to know what would happen to Japan after an (American only) invasion and occupation, more specifically if it could still become an economic power like in OTL.
 
What stodge said is pretty insightful and detailed but the reason I didn't want for the Soviets to be involved is because I was working up a complex Central Powers victory TL where the Soviets are pushed back to the Asian side of Russia by a German invasion in the late 30's and are severely weakened. The Pacific War still happens but earlier and slightly different and I wanted to know what would happen to Japan after an (American only) invasion and occupation, more specifically if it could still become an economic power like in OTL.

Well, as has been said, a Japan similar to OTL's would fight pretty much to the last. My (very briefly explained) scenario:

After a disastrous landing on Kyushu's southern shores, the Americans call off the invasion. Instead, Japan is starved into submission. the Navy picks on the coastal shipping (the Home Isles' main transport route), and the air force crushes railways and infrastructure. The rice harvest is bad as it is, but now whatever the Japs have managed to salvage of it cannot even be transported into the cities. There's also the possibility that the Americans, to speed up the process, bomb the rice fields with defoliants.

Then they just wait. Within a year, social order will have broken down enough for a successful invasion to be launched, assuming the Japanese don't surrender earlier. In the first case, Japan will languish in deepest poverty for decades, and the Americans will probably be fighting isolated diehards for nearly as long. Otherwise, the rebuilding will go a bit slower than OTL, but not all that much.

As a rule for Japan's post-war fate, in nearly every case it depends on the Japanese leadership, not the Americans' war decisions, how it'll turn out. Of course, if they put in a meaner Governor than MacArthur, that'll also change things quite a bit...
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Say the atomic bomb is delayed by a couple of more years and the U.S. invades Japan;

1. How long could it take for the invasion to be completed?

2. How long could the occupation of Japan last?

3. During the closing stages of the war, Japanese women and children were trained to attack with bamboo spears, so, if Japan's entire population, both military and civilian were trained to kill, how would American forces react to that?

4. If Japan was invaded and occupied, does it still have the chance to become the same major economic power that it is today?

5. If there is no surrender form the Emperor, what government would the Americans install to replace the Imperial government?

6. By the time the occupation ends and American soldiers leave Japan, what state would Japan be in? In terms of its economy, society, infrastructure?

Also, take the Soviets out of the picture so Japan won't have to be divided into North/South.

1. Roughly a year.

2. As long as it took to get a friendly government in place and in control.

3. Greatly over stated, just becuase you give som,eone a spear, it doesn't mean they will use the spear. This especially true if they are on the edge of death by starvation.

4. Absolutely (see: Germany, West).

5. Same as IOTL.

6. See # 4.
 
From the Japanese standpoint, all of that was immaterial. They went even beyond Hitler and the Nazis in their sense of Gotterdaemmerung and self-destruction. The issue of surrender though was serious and the key point was the fate of the Emperor. On one thing all Japanese agreed, the Emperor had to survive.

I found the analysis of the military situation and of the international diplomatic relationships sound and accurate, but I disagree on the analysis of the internal dynamics. I think what you wrote above does not portray accurately the way in which the Japanese saw honor, defeat, survival, the Emperor and the nation.

It is true that the Japanese placed little value, if any, on their individual lives, be they soldiers or civilians. And it is true they put immeasurable value in the Emperor; not just or necessarily in his survival as a person, but in the survival of his rule and in the survival of his role as symbol of Japan itself. They very often happily sacrificed their lives for the Emperor – which ultimately meant for Japan, not for the person.
This mean they expected to die, individually, _for Japan as a nation to survive_.

So they were different from both the individual Germans and Hitler. Most ordinary Japanese were different from most ordinary Germans, who wouldn't volunteer for kamikaze missions.
Hitler, OTOH, wasn't interested in surviving if he lost, and he thought that if Germany lost, the country and the nation had to perish too (in line with his social darwinism theories). This is _not_ the position of the Emperor, of Prince Konoye, or of the "moderate" members of the War Cabinet. Their late-war attempts have been sometimes characterized as attempts to negotiate peace. They weren't that, no, but they certainly weren't the behavior of people who want to die fighting and their country to do the same. They wanted Japan to survive as a nation, under the Emperor. They wanted to minimize casualties, provided that the Emperor would remain in place and that such a solution could be reached unanimously.

The outlook of the hawks in the war Cabinet, the military ministers, was different yet. They were the ones that prevented such an unanimous decision for peace; they were the ones who voted against peace _even after the second nuke_. But at that point, they were representing only themselves and the upper ranks of the armed forces, i.e. people who had led Japan to this utter defeat and who would mostly have to suicide anyway (which some, though by no means not all of them, did), or lose face. They thought that a surrender would be possible only after every round had been fired, so to speak (where by "round" they meant a lot of civilians' lives, too, yes), with the enemy already inside the walls, because at that point there would be no loss of honor, or much less, in surrendering (on top of that, at least some of them must have been aware of what awaited them as war criminals). Of course they would also insist on the Emperor's position to be untouched.

If you have read other recent threads about nukes on German territory in 1945, you will have noticed that the wide consensus was: "Hitler wouldn't care, and as long as he's alive and in command, the war goes on". I agree with that consensus. Which is not what happened in OTL in Japan; indeed, the Emperor, and half of his War Cabinet, did care, though it took a second nuke.

So, with due respect, I disagree that the Japanese were on the same Götterdämmerung path as Hitler, or even worse. What this would mean with no nukes and a conventional landing, it's difficult to say, but once the situation is comparable to OTL after the second bomb, I think the Emperor's voice will be heard.

 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
1 First there was the Kyshu Invasion - I think - Oct (or Nov) '45, followed by the Hokkaido (please excuse any spelling errors here) maybe six - nine months later. The first was to establish forward airbases to cover the main invasion.

...

Actually it was Honshu. Hokkaido is the far northern island. Honshu is where Tokyo is located.

BTW: There is a good chance that, thanks to the '45 typhoon and intel of the massive build-up on Kyushu, that the main thrust would have been straight at Honshu (Coronet without being preceded by Olympic).
 
Say the atomic bomb is delayed by a couple of more years and the U.S. invades Japan;

1. How long could it take for the invasion to be completed?

Japan has no armor to resist an Invasion and the USN would have sea and Air Supremacy. The IJN would simply cease to exist.

2. How long could the occupation of Japan last?

Same as OTL.

3. During the closing stages of the war, Japanese women and children were trained to attack with bamboo spears, so, if Japan's entire population, both military and civilian were trained to kill, how would American forces react to that?

Laugh and disarm them if they are in small groups and fire over their heads if not. These aren't trained troops and are likely to run at the first shot.

4. If Japan was invaded and occupied, does it still have the chance to become the same major economic power that it is today?

Define what you mean please.

5. If there is no surrender form the Emperor, what government would the Americans install to replace the Imperial government?

A secular Christian one.

6. By the time the occupation ends and American soldiers leave Japan, what state would Japan be in? In terms of its economy, society, infrastructure?

Probably secular Christian. This overlooks the fact their is no reason to invade Japan. The USN has complete Sea and Air Supremacy, they can bomb, blockade, and bombard the Island nation of Japan at will with no need to invade what-so-ever. The USN was advocating this view to start with. Japan could either surrender or starve.
 
Top