WI: Operation Downfall happens?

I don't think so. Stalin only took territory when it presented a clear geopolitical advantage and would not ruffle too many feathers. Manchuria was nonviable in its 1945 form, with the vast majority of the population being Han Chinese and the Empire of Manchukuo having no popular legitimacy. Stalin's attitude toward KMT-ruled China was that it was a useful buffer that Moscow should maintain friendly relations with, while quietly supporting the local communists, whom no on expected to win so rapidly and totally in the Chinese Civil War. Had the defeat of Japan been delayed, Manchuria would probably just become a stronger CCP base area. With the KMT forces busy handling the Japanese in eastern China, Chiang Kai-shek may never have gotten the chance to try sending his best troops north in a foolhardy attempt to recover Manchuria, and China might end up split between north and south.
In general I agree with the points made by LeX with the exception of two. If Stalin believed the geostrategic/geopolitical advantage was great enough, then ruffled feathers did not matter. This is exemplified by the 1939 Non-Aggression Pact with Germany where the territorial gains in Poland and the Baltics were sufficient to warrant becoming an international pariah. Again, Soviet demands for Polish territory nearly sank the Tehran Conference in 1943. Soviet control of Eastern Europe was enough to precipitate a 40-year Cold War. Stalin was cautious and calculating, but not above ruffling feathers.

Secondly, the nonviability of Manchuria is precisely the reason why the Soviets could establish a satellite state. Power will not exist in a vacuum. Stalin was not above breaking treaties, his denunciation of the Non-Aggression Pact with Japan without the one-year notice required has been discussed in detail in the above threads. Manchuria (and Inner Mongolia) was returned to Nationalist China under the terms of the 14 August 1945 Treaty of Soviet-Chinese Friendship, but had not effectively been under central government control since the 1894-5 Sino-Japanese War. Fifty years had loosened emotional links to China, even if no love existed for the Japanese or their puppet rulers to replace those links.

One of the provisions of the Treaty of Soviet-Chinese Friendship was that the Chinese Eastern Railroad would be under joint Sino-Soviet control for an indeterminate amount of time. The Soviets knew that its border with Korea was too short to fulfill communication and logistical requirements. Air transport and sea lanes were considered inadequate and unreliable. An extensive land connection was needed to support the client state already planned for north of the 38th Parallel.

Within weeks of the signing of the Treaty of Soviet Chinese Friendship, Stalin broke it by unilaterally declaring a lease over the former Kwangtung Area around Port Arthur. The official reason was to erase the stigma of the Russian defeat in 1905. Communist mayors and officials were installed beginning on 25 November 1945. I believe this historical template would be followed in the event Operation Downfall was proceeded with. Stalin also broke the Treaty by dismantling industrial infrastructure and withdrawing troops before Nationalist units could replace them. This gap allowed the People’s Liberation Army to move into areas the Japanese had previously effectively denied them.

Events have a momentum of their own. As the Soviets move deeper into Manchuria, local civil-military governments will be established to support and sustain further military advances. Initially, most officials are Soviets, since CCP cadres were concentrated further south. As the Soviets advance into areas the CCP was active, they will be chosen for official posts, but circumstances will likely ensure they are more loyal to Moscow than Mao. The establishment of an administrative state to support the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation will eventually extend to the entire former state of Manchukuo (which included much of Inner Mongolia) by military necessity. It will also be easy to assert that the “people” of Manchukuo “invited” the Soviets to invade and were now “inviting” them to stay. Once the effort is expended to create a state, I’m not sure Stalin simply hands it over to the Chinese, whether they be Communist or Nationalist.

In my view, these events would strongly support the observation by LeX that China might end up split between north and south. The CCP is deprived of the windfall of Japanese weapons captured by the Soviets. Once Soviet intentions to keep Manchukuo were obvious, Mao faces the options of either accepting it in the name of Communist solidarity and being branded as traitors; or waging simultaneous guerilla warfare against the Nationalists and the Soviets. Either way, the survival of the Nationalists would be enhanced.
 

TDM

Kicked
Frankly, even if the Japanese air forces fail to sink a single invasion transport, trying to conduct an amphibious landing while outnumbered against an opponent with more accurate intelligence than you and your air and naval power are all tied up is a recipe for disaster. The Dieppe raid was exactly such a disaster - except there the Allies actually outnumbered the local German troops seven to one.

Some of the loss of numerical superiority would be made up by the great strides the Allies had made in conducting large-scale amphibious operations, but that's not nearly enough.

Oh I agree, my posts in this thread were more about the claims of kamikaze effectiveness, (although TBF I did get bit of track in that post you quoted). If they went for it I'm guessing they suddenly have to find a lot more troops to try and make this work. On that is it me or are teh planned infantry numbers actually small here? Maybe a bit of a victim of rushing to get it done (worries they were racing the Russian)?
 

TDM

Kicked
I think we may be talking past each other on this point; I was responding to this:


As you note here, I did not "switch" but rather presented both, in that more context was being given to the 6:1 ratio..

Right but they kind of contradicted each other and you claims that half or more of the invasion fleet will be blown out the water by kamakaze.

It doesn't necessitate such, no, but there will be many even if ships aren't sunk. Seen the USS Franklin, for a case of this..

And there will be cases of hit that do nothing as well, also the post war survey was counting "damaging near misses" in with the hits as well for those 1 in 44 hit figures. and frankly that could be anything!


Yes, you asked where all the pilots for this were and cited the 6,200 trained pilots I was already aware of, in that there was the basis for doing the Kamikaze strikes. I did not mean that they would waste all of their trained pilots on that, but rather was I responding directly to your question.



Yes, not all of those pilots would be Kamikazes and that's why I cited all the other planes reserved for other missions. And sure, there's not enough planes for all of them, but there is enough planes for the Japanese objectives and planning structure for OLYMPIC. As Gianreco notes, Kyushu was getting the priority..

Right but you've been constantly talking about 6000 kamikaze attacks, you do so below as well. You get that you can't say the above and then claim 6000 kamikaze attacks as well. I'm happy with your figure of 6200 pilots, but the point is they wont be all kamikaze and you've consistently assumed they will be.

6:1 was, as noted, the hit ratio, not the sinking ratio, which was the mistake I made in mis-remembering. 44:1, as another user pointed out, was the actual ratio to sinkings.

I also need to point out, again, that there was not 2,550 Kamikaze attacks for Okinawa. That figure include 500 IJAAF planes that were on more conventional missions included in the total and over 800 aborts by actual Kamikazes; the real figure is, as previously noted. ~1,400..

The aborts counts because attacks that abort/fail are still attacks in terms of resources devoted to making them at the time. (You can of course try again with those planes and pilots if they also get home alive, and if the infrastructure and resources exist for them to go again). For instance if the allies flew a 50 bomber raid and 10 planes had to veer off and abandon their bombing runs because of heavy flak it's still a 50 bomber raid right? It also make the point that actually no not every pilot designated a kamikaze when taking off actually ended up making a kamikaze attack when it came to it for all sorts of reasons.

I'm not even sure about the 500 IJAAF planes are being counted here the surveys figure says 2550. But TBF I can see why the discrepancy might have come up. Not all kamikaze attacks were planned but rather a spur of the moment thing decided due to the specific context the pilot was in. So not every plane that ended up attempting a kamikaze attack was initially sent out to do so but made attacks attacks anyway and that would be counted.



6,225/44 = 142 sinkings.

So again every single possible Kamikaze on the initial attack in the first landing with nothing held back, and all the available pilots! Plus that's not close to 20% of the naval assets in Olympic (unless you are assuming that they will only be attacking 977 LSD, LSM, LST, and LSV landing craft, which is somewhat hopeful to say the very least)

6,255 x 7 = 43,785 casualties



To put that into perspective, casualties for Iwo clocked in at 20,000.

Only no one is saying the invasion fo Kyushu wouldn't be bigger than Iwo Jima with more causalities (Okinawa is 2.5x Iwo Jima, and it going t worse teh Okinawa as well), I was contesting your initial claim that Kamikazes will destroy half or more of the landing fleet. And again see above that's every single possible kamikaze pilot, it just not realistic.

Even assuming no improvements in the ratio, and Gianreco goes into great detail about how the Japanese were improving themselves in this regard, Kamikazes alone could very easily cripple the logistics of the invasion and remove several U.S. divisions from the board.

And Frankly US tactics were improving too. Plus there is still the questions I asked about this idea of the Japanese parking 6000 kamikaze pilots and planes all on Kyushu just in practical terms, not to mention air campaign that would be waged against them that they can't fight back against prior to the invasion etc, etc


I haven't seen the page, but I'll take the claim at face value. The book in question isn't an academic one, but a fictional one. Here is an academic one:

"While strategic planners were reluctant, for good reason, to commit estimates for the balance of the war to paper, they frequently set down short-term estimates of one to three months as benchmarks for analyzing differing interpretations of factors affecting future manpower losses, and also approached the question by examining loss ratios from the preceding year of combat. The JCS history of its wartime activities notes that planners “pointed out . . . that in seven amphibious campaigns in the Pacific the casualty rate had run 7.45 per thousand per day; whereas, in the protracted land warfare in the European Theater of Operations it had only been 2.16.”^65 Ongoing intelligence estimates, coupled with the 7.45 / 2.16 comparison, and a total of 64,391 soldiers and Marines killed and wounded to take an amount of land half the size of wartime Detroit --- Iwo Jima and the main battle area on Okinawa^66 --- were largely responsible for the increase."​

Its the same ratios I quoted earlier.

Because that's exactly what their planning called for and it fits entirely within their doctrine of decisive battle. Their hope was to defeat or so bloody the U.S. in OLYMPIC that they (the U.S.) would seek peace. General Marshall and others were definitely concerned in this regard and U.S. media was being pretty closely followed by the Japanese in 1944-1945, with Tokyo noticing the great pains the War Department was going to obscure existing casualties.

There is a difference between "a decisive battle hoping to deter the Americans with unsustainable causalities" and cramming all 6000 pilots and kamikaze planes on Kyushu airfields in the teeth of an campaign and then launching all of then on the first invasion. If nothing else it's not like the kamikazes will be teh only source of US causalities!
 
Right but they kind of contradicted each other and you claims that half or more of the invasion fleet will be blown out the water by kamakaze.

No, because the 6:1 ratio is the amount of planes it takes to achieve a hit and, on average, seven casualties were incurred per plane hit. These don't contradict at all, and rather give context.

And there will be cases of hit that do nothing as well, also the post war survey was counting "damaging near misses" in with the hits as well for those 1 in 44 hit figures. and frankly that could be anything!

44:1 is specifically sinkings, not damages or anything else. Damaging near misses would be counted in the 6:1 ratio.

Right but you've been constantly talking about 6000 kamikaze attacks, you do so below as well. You get that you can't say the above and then claim 6000 kamikaze attacks as well. I'm happy with your figure of 6200 pilots, but the point is they wont be all kamikaze and you've consistently assumed they will be.

I honestly do not get what you're attempting to argue at all here. There was over 12,000 planes and 18,000 pilots, so no, and I've already provided the layout of Japanese planning which envisioned 9,000 total planes with 6,000 reserved specifically for Kamikaze attacks.

The aborts counts because attacks that abort/fail are still attacks in terms of resources devoted to making them at the time. (You can of course try again with those planes and pilots if they also get home alive, and if the infrastructure and resources exist for them to go again). For instance if the allies flew a 50 bomber raid and 10 planes had to veer off and abandon their bombing runs because of heavy flak it's still a 50 bomber raid right? It also make the point that actually no not every pilot designated a kamikaze when taking off actually ended up making a kamikaze attack when it came to it for all sorts of reasons.

Aborts do not count in the 6:1 or 44:1 ratio, specifically because both ratios require the plane to hit the target. You're attempting to conflate successful missions with total sorties.

I'm not even sure about the 500 IJAAF planes are being counted here the surveys figure says 2550. But TBF I can see why the discrepancy might have come up. Not all kamikaze attacks were planned but rather a spur of the moment thing decided due to the specific context the pilot was in. So not every plane that ended up attempting a kamikaze attack was initially sent out to do so but made attacks attacks anyway and that would be counted.

Then they do not count, as we are specifically talking about Kamikaze missions.

So again every single possible Kamikaze on the initial attack in the first landing with nothing held back, and all the available pilots! Plus that's not close to 20% of the naval assets in Olympic (unless you are assuming that they will only be attacking 977 LSD, LSM, LST, and LSV landing craft, which is somewhat hopeful to say the very least)

All but 300 were to target the invasion transports so yes, they will be focused in almost solely on them, and yes, IGHQ planning called for maximum sustained operations in the first 10 days so as to inflict as much damage as possible while they are still loaded. As for the specific targets, yes, actually, the 1,000 actual transports were the targets. To quote Gianreco:

As noted in chapter 8, IGHQ staff officers in Tokyo, elated over the losses believed to have been inflicted by kamikazes off Okinawa, maintained that naval and air special attack forces might succeed in sinking as much as 50 percent of this assault shipping. And the Japanese were not far off when they determined that this portion of the vessels would carry the equivalent of approximately five combat divisions. Even the comparatively conservative estimates from Japanese commanders on Kyushu appeared to demonstrate that they expected to inflict approximately 20 percent losses on U.S. amphibious ships, 9 their human cargoes either drowned or turned into stunned, and largely weaponless, refugees on the fire-swept invasion beaches.​
The JCS guess of 10 percent shipping losses presented to Truman before the Potsdam Conference was actually much lower than it initially appears when matched up against the Japanese figures because while Imperial Army planners characterized the expected American losses as ships actually sunk, the JCS figure represented those forced out of the fight because of severe damage as well as those that went down. 10 And as outlined earlier, a far higher amount of this pummeling was going to be experienced by the relatively stationary targets at Ariake Bay, the Satsuma Peninsula, and Miyazaki Beach than on the task forces at sea.​
No matter whose estimate would have turned out to be closest to the painful reality off Kyushu, the U.S. Navy, which had experienced a costly campaign in the Philippines followed by the bloodiest battle in its history at Okinawa, was now gearing up for an even more savage confrontation, all within the space of essentially just one year. Several troubling aspects of this amphibious operation deserve a close examination: naval gunfire support, Shinyo suicide speed boats, obsolete but radar-resistant wood-and-fabric training aircraft used as kamikazes, and the critical vulnerability of the blood supply for wounded soldiers and Marines ashore during the opening phase of Olympic.​


Only no one is saying the invasion fo Kyushu wouldn't be bigger than Iwo Jima with more causalities (Okinawa is 2.5x Iwo Jima, and it going t worse teh Okinawa as well), I was contesting your initial claim that Kamikazes will destroy half or more of the landing fleet. And again see above that's every single possible kamikaze pilot, it just not realistic.

I never made the assertion that anyone wasn't saying Kyushu would be bigger. As for the Kamikaze aspect, I'm completely willing to back away from that claim, as I already have previously.

And Frankly US tactics were improving too. Plus there is still the questions I asked about this idea of the Japanese parking 6000 kamikaze pilots and planes all on Kyushu just in practical terms, not to mention air campaign that would be waged against them that they can't fight back against prior to the invasion etc, etc
Japanese tactics were also improving. To give an idea of one such example, again from Gianreco:

The mass conversion of training units into combat units in July 1945 added not only thousands of experienced pilots but also 5,400 wood-and-fabric trainers as well as a dizzying variety of other elderly aircraft types containing varying amounts of wooden construction (see chapter 8). 37 American intelligence analysts monitoring the upheaval within the Imperial air forces speculated on what the Japanese were up to, and perhaps because they had seen the Japanese interest in wood as something related to their perpetual aluminum crisis, made absolutely no connection to the fact that the sputtering antiques were almost impervious to some of America’s most advanced technologies—radar and the VT “proximity” or “influence” fuze.
At first the Japanese (who, frankly, had always been slow to realize both the potentials and weaknesses of radar) did not understand just how dynamic was the wooden windfall that they now had at their disposal. But someone in the Imperial Navy’s air command structure on Formosa apparently had by the end of July, as evidenced by the brilliant successes scored against the Callaghan and Cassin Young. Interestingly, even if the intent to use the biplanes at night had been based solely on the expectation that darkness would help mask their lumbering approach—with only passing appreciation of the benefits of their wooden construction—the fact that these aircraft had a low radar cross-section would have prompted few, if any, practical differences in how the Japanese actually employed them tactically. For the American soldiers, sailors, and Marines at sea, just the appearance of these antique “new” weapons made a world of difference.​
Even though the mass conversion of training units into combat units wasn’t well understood at the time by American commanders and intelligence analysts, the successful night attacks by largely wooden trainers immediately brought the threat into focus. 38 First of all it was observed that even though the aircrafts’ construction lessened warning times considerably, standard ship-borne radars could still manage to “see” the approaching planes at a far enough distance for the long-range, 5-inch antiaircraft guns utilizing VT fuzes to come into play, even if only briefly, due to the radar returns from their engines and other peripherals such as the bombs they carried. 39 And this same general situation would have also carried over to the radar-equipped or - directed night fighters coming into increasing use by both the Pacific Fleet and Fifth Air Force. Yet it was also brutally clear that, as historian Samuel Eliot Morison plainly stated, “proximity fuzes were not effective [against] biplanes of fabric and wood.” 40​

D.M. Gianreco has an online article here you can read, and it should be very chilling. During the closing phases of Okinawa, the Japanese decided to combat test their "new" weapon and with the deployment of three aircraft they achieved a hit on each attempt. More chilling, of the three strikes, one resulted in a sinking-the destroyer U.S.S Callaghan. With over 5,000 planes and a demonstrated success record, the ramifications of this should be obvious.

Its the same ratios I quoted earlier.

Then you confused the ETO ratio of 2.16 with that of the Pacific, which is 7.45 per 1,000 per day.

There is a difference between "a decisive battle hoping to deter the Americans with unsustainable causalities" and cramming all 6000 pilots and kamikaze planes on Kyushu airfields in the teeth of an campaign and then launching all of then on the first invasion. If nothing else it's not like the kamikazes will be teh only source of US causalities!

I never claimed they would be. In fact, the several thousand suicide boats the Japanese had stockpiled would probably be just as deadly, for just one other example.
 
Last edited:
Within weeks of the signing of the Treaty of Soviet Chinese Friendship, Stalin broke it by unilaterally declaring a lease over the former Kwangtung Area around Port Arthur. The official reason was to erase the stigma of the Russian defeat in 1905. Communist mayors and officials were installed beginning on 25 November 1945. I believe this historical template would be followed in the event Operation Downfall was proceeded with. Stalin also broke the Treaty by dismantling industrial infrastructure and withdrawing troops before Nationalist units could replace them. This gap allowed the People’s Liberation Army to move into areas the Japanese had previously effectively denied them.
I don't see how a lack of Nationalist troops moving into Manchuria would have changed the Soviet calculus that much. Stalin had little strategic interest in China beyond its being a buffer or at least a weak, non-hostile state. Overtly taking over or puppeting parts of China, especially the region that arguably triggered the Second Sino-Japanese War when the Japanese took it in 1931, would not have benefited Moscow if its goal was to keep China vaguely friendly.

Events have a momentum of their own. As the Soviets move deeper into Manchuria, local civil-military governments will be established to support and sustain further military advances. Initially, most officials are Soviets, since CCP cadres were concentrated further south. As the Soviets advance into areas the CCP was active, they will be chosen for official posts, but circumstances will likely ensure they are more loyal to Moscow than Mao. The establishment of an administrative state to support the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation will eventually extend to the entire former state of Manchukuo (which included much of Inner Mongolia) by military necessity. It will also be easy to assert that the “people” of Manchukuo “invited” the Soviets to invade and were now “inviting” them to stay. Once the effort is expended to create a state, I’m not sure Stalin simply hands it over to the Chinese, whether they be Communist or Nationalist.
You mean if the Soviets advanced into China proper? IOTL the Red Army did occupy all of Manchuria, no need to move "deeper" into it.

The Soviets would probably exert more political influence over Mao's movement, but unless there was some pressing reason I think Stalin would have largely left the CCP to its own devices after securing the railway/port and stealing Japanese industrial objects.

In my view, these events would strongly support the observation by LeX that China might end up split between north and south. The CCP is deprived of the windfall of Japanese weapons captured by the Soviets. Once Soviet intentions to keep Manchukuo were obvious, Mao faces the options of either accepting it in the name of Communist solidarity and being branded as traitors; or waging simultaneous guerilla warfare against the Nationalists and the Soviets. Either way, the survival of the Nationalists would be enhanced.
This just isn't Stalin's style; in the absence of a powerful threat like Nazi Germany vis-a-vis Poland, there is simply no need to cause diplomatic bad blood with the Nationalists and sabotage the CCP's efforts to conquer China by making them look like an obvious fifth column. Of course, this could happen by accident if the Soviets overstay their welcome, but the fact that they could let CCP cadres take over the Northeast the way they did IOTL, plus the pressure to demobilize would make this unlikely.
 
Had the August 15th Incident been successful, I am content to say Operation OLYMPIC and, as a result, DOWNFALL overall, would've failed in the largest blood letting in American history. I do not think the U.S. political willpower was there, at that point, to sustain such immense losses and setbacks. As a result the Japanese militarists probably could get the conditional peace they were seeking with their continued defiance. Soviet entry meant their goal of retaining Manchuria and Korea was out, but the Empire could probably retain the Kuriles and Formosa, as well as avoid the occupation/destruction of the currently ruling elites.
 

oboro

Banned
Something I’ve thought about (but have no research on) - could the RN armored deck carriers be used as a kamikaze screen?
 
I never claimed they would be. In fact, the several thousand suicide boats the Japanese had stockpiled would probably be just as deadly, for just one other example.
Or the suaside divers or the extremely bad territory us forces would have landed in, or the fact that I can't find any naval landing in ww2 where the lander's succeeded agenst superior numbers.
Frankly after reading this https://fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/ (a study on 5th amphibious corps landings at downfall) I'm not at all convinced the operation would be successful even if it had landed.
 
I don't see how a lack of Nationalist troops moving into Manchuria would have changed the Soviet calculus that much. Stalin had little strategic interest in China beyond its being a buffer or at least a weak, non-hostile state. Overtly taking over or puppeting parts of China, especially the region that arguably triggered the Second Sino-Japanese War when the Japanese took it in 1931, would not have benefited Moscow if its goal was to keep China vaguely friendly.


You mean if the Soviets advanced into China proper? IOTL the Red Army did occupy all of Manchuria, no need to move "deeper" into it.

The Soviets would probably exert more political influence over Mao's movement, but unless there was some pressing reason I think Stalin would have largely left the CCP to its own devices after securing the railway/port and stealing Japanese industrial objects.


This just isn't Stalin's style; in the absence of a powerful threat like Nazi Germany vis-a-vis Poland, there is simply no need to cause diplomatic bad blood with the Nationalists and sabotage the CCP's efforts to conquer China by making them look like an obvious fifth column. Of course, this could happen by accident if the Soviets overstay their welcome, but the fact that they could let CCP cadres take over the Northeast the way they did IOTL, plus the pressure to demobilize would make this unlikely.

Based upon the historical record, I find no evidence Stalin was concerned with maintaining cordial relations with Nationalist China. Point by point.

“This just isn't Stalin's style; in the absence of a powerful threat like Nazi Germany vis-a-vis Poland, there is simply no need to cause diplomatic bad blood with the Nationalists and sabotage the CCP's efforts to conquer China by making them look like an obvious fifth column.”

Regarding Stalin’s style in the absence of a powerful threat. The military operations against Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland in October-November 1939 were all made in the absence of a powerful threat, and as I noted, provoked a strong reaction in Great Britain, France and the United States.

On 29 June 1945, Stalin forced Czechoslovakia to cede the Carpatho-Ukraine to the USSR, although Czechoslovakia posed no powerful threat. In December of 1945, Stalin attempted to annex Iranian Azerbaijan, which resulted in strong diplomatic protests by the United States. Iran posed no powerful threat either. As I already noted, the Port Arthur Lease unilaterally proclaimed by Stalin certainly fit this pattern of either taking, or attempting to take territory from weaker nations. It is significant that Port Arthur was not returned to China until after the death of Stalin.

Bad blood already existed between the Soviets and Nationalists. It began with the slaughter of Chinese Communists in October 1926 in Shanghai. In November 1929, the Special Red Banner Far Eastern Army employed ten divisions to decisively defeat the Chinese Northeastern Army, forcing the Nationalists to sign a humiliating Khabarovsk Protocol on 13 December 1929 to obtain an armistice. In 1931 the USSR broke diplomatic relations, recalling its own diplomats and expelling the Nationalists. Between January and April 1934, 7,000 Soviet GPU troops invaded Sinkiang (Xinjiang) but were defeated by the Nationalist 36th Division. Between April and October 1937, the Soviets attacked again more successfully incorporating armor and air support to virtually destroy the Nationalist 36th Division.

The Nationalists accepted this defeat because of the commencement of the Sino-Japanese War in July 1937. The Soviets viewed the Japanese as a greater threat and on the grounds of “the enemy of my enemy…” restored diplomatic relations and provided about U.S. $250 million dollars in military aid by April 1941. Upon the signing of the Soviet-Japanese Non-Aggression Pact that month the Soviets cut off all aid, which the Nationalists regarded as a tremendous betrayal.

On 26 November 1940, the Nationalist commander in Sinkiang, Sheng Shicai was forced by the Soviets to sign the Agreement of Concessions which virtually made Sinkiang a Soviet satellite. In November 1944, the Soviets set up the Second East Turkestan Republic which declared its independence from China. The USSR signed the 15 August 1945 Treaty of Friendship to fulfil a promise made at the Yalta Conference, and afforded it the same respect as other Yalta promises such as free elections in Poland. The Soviets recognized Chinese sovereignty over Sinkiang, but did not disarm their satellite Uighur troops, withdraw the Red Army officers advising them, or disband the Second East Turkestan Republic.

The Nationalists responded with a military assault, which was attacked by Soviet aircraft in October 1945. Thereafter the Soviets did not intervene again until June 1946, when the Chinese reached the northern part of Sinkiang where the uranium and beryllium deposits near Kashgar were located. There Soviet aircraft, artillery and ground troops stopped the Chinese offensive. Presumably this was to protect the supply of critical minerals used in the first Soviet atomic bomb; but that is a matter of dispute among historians. What is beyond dispute is that the pro-Soviet Second East Turkestan Republic survived. Fighting spread east from Sinkiang towards Mongolia and by June 1947 reached regimental scale at Pei-ta-shan.

This is Stalin’s historical record. From Poland and the Baltics though Czechoslovakia and Iran to Sinkiang and Port Arthur; it speaks for itself.

I now apply it to the Downfall scenario originated by DragonsInAmerica. Japan has not surrendered, and the war has continued past 14 August 1945. The million soldiers of the Kwangtung Army have been ordered to fight to the death. Instead of managing the surrender of 700,000 troops (another 300,000 fled to Korea or China in hopes of repatriation to Japan), the 1.5 million troops of the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation will begin to meet stiffening resistance from the Kwangtung Army. I have no doubts about the eventual Soviet victory, but I also have no doubt it will take longer than the 43 days IOTL to liquidate the Kwangtung Army. As I stated previously:

“Events have a momentum of their own. As the Soviets move deeper into Manchuria, local civil-military governments will be established to support and sustain further military advances.” I said Manchuria and I meant Manchuria – not China. The Soviets have to construct transportation networks; depots for food, ammunition, fuel and all manner of other supplies; airfields and their support structure; repair facilities for equipment; hospitals for the wounded – etc. To ensure this infrastructure, and their attendant lines of communication are kept secure, local civil-military governments will be established or else further advances cannot be sustained. This is true of every large scale military offensive.

I cannot say for certain how quickly the Soviet offensive will secure victory. I believe a minimum of 90 days for units to cover the 450-500 mile road distance to Harbin and then capture it. Another month will pass to consolidate and reconstitute frontline troops, and this time will also allow Soviet units advancing from the west along the Chinese Eastern Railway to reach Harbin. It is now winter, and the road network to support the offensive must still be expanded. Due to Lend-Lease, the Russians have the trucks and heavy equipment, but at the cost of delaying rehabilitating war damaged areas in Western Russia.

Despite the winter, the Soviet offensive may resume in February 1946, or four months after Japan’s refusal to surrender. During the next 60 days, Chi’angch’un, the next most important city in Manchuria is captured, an advance of nearly 200 more miles. More importantly, the flank area reaching to the Yalu River is cleared, permitting a large expansion of the Soviet toehold in Northern Korea. After another lull to restock logistical support follows with a resumption of the offensive in perhaps May 1946. The terrain is now more favorable, the weather allows Soviet air supremacy its full effectiveness, and the rate of resupply is increased. The Kwangtung Army is also severely degraded, whereas fresh Soviet troops are deployed as needed. The 300 miles to Mukden is covered in 30-45 days, and the 300 miles to Port Arthur in a similar time frame. The link-up with troops crossing Inner Mongolia is also achieved, and the Soviets halt in August 1946 at the Manchukuo borders. They are still over 150 miles from Peking or Tientsin. I doubt the Soviets will advance further.

During this time, other Japanese forces in China proper have been forced to retreat and consolidate. They no longer receive replacements from Japan, and forced to live off the land. The Nationalists will have probably reached Canton, and reopened a major port to supplies. The Communists were strongest in Shantung and in provinces to the west and southwest of Peking. The PLA has likely used the year between August 1945 and August 1946 to link those two regions, leaving Japanese forces isolated around Peking and the large plain reaching the Yellow Sea at Taku.

All of this is hypothetical. Depending on starvation levels of the number of atomic bombs used, Japan will eventually capitulate – certainly no later than mid-1947 if the fortunes of war fall their way; sooner if not.

Here is the case for Stalin retaining Manchukuo.
1. The Soviets have paid for it in blood. Their casualties could be 100,000 – or higher.
2. The Soviets have sacrificed their recovery elsewhere to conquer it – Stalin must have some compensation to justify this.
3. The Soviets have established governments and civil authorities throughout Manchukuo and assumed the responsibilities that constitute sovereignty.
4. Manchukuo is therefore a legitimate spoil of war.
5. Manchukuo forms the land bridge to Korea, which in turn is a dagger pointed at the heart of Japan.
6. Between November 1944 and October 1945, Stalin ordered Project 72 aircraft carriers; Project 24 battleships; Project 82 battlecruisers; Project 66 heavy cruisers; Project 65 (later Project 68-bis) light cruisers; and Project 30B destroyers to be constructed. They were to form powerful fleets for the Black Sea, Baltic, Arctic and Pacific. Neither Vladivostok nor Petropavlovsk is a suitable year-round base for the Pacific Fleet, but Port Arthur is.
7. Manchukuo’s vast resources are at the disposal of the USSR.
8. Stalin is a doctrinaire Communist. Expansion of Communism world-wide is an historical inevitability. It is arriving in Manchuria with the Soviet Army.
9. Mao Zedong was shabbily treated as a minor vassal by Stalin went he went to Moscow to seek economic aid in late 1949. I doubt he would receive better consideration in 1946.

I find the argument that Stalin would not act this way because he would be sensitive to the feelings of other nations unpersuasive.
 
Last edited:
Please can I ask a few questions about the utility of the Kamikaze force? Did the US know where they were based? Most if not all? Any airfields known to it will be plastered by bombers and fighter bombers before the transport fleets get to within sight of the beaches . And there will be roving fighter patrols waiting to pick off any planes taking off.

Now, some, many, airfields will be missed. For these the fighter patrols will be supplemented by reconnaissance flights to identify where Japanese aircraft are coming from. At which point the bombing and patrols will apply there.

Now, these aggressive measures are no more going to stop all Kamikaze attacks any more than the very effective CAP and AA defense is. But, will they reduce the threat to a tolerable level? Tolerable for 1945, which is very much higher than in Vietnam, let alone today.

Of course, if Downfall fails, there's still Operation Starvation. And instant sunshine at some point.
 
Last edited:
1. The Soviets have paid for it in blood. Their casualties could be 100,000 – or higher.

Not wading into the rest of it, but Soviet medical records Pre-Invasion show they were expecting almost 600,000 casualties and what was incurred during the course of the campaign largely bares this out. The Japanese strategy, however, was to withdraw into the fortified position of Tunghua Redoubt, which was located in mountainous terrain and guarding the approaches into Korea; this made it excellent for defense on its own, and the 700,000 men of the Kwantung Army were expecting almost 200,000 reinforcements from the China Expeditionary Army. Elsewhere, the Soviets were generally taking 1:1 losses against the Japanese which, if it occurred in Manchuria, would result in almost a million Soviet casualties.
 
It was my understanding that Downfall started with 180 days of continuous aerial bombardment, night and day. That‘s radar guided heavy bombardment, plus tactical. I can’t conceive of any Japanese defence plan surviving that especially on a psychological level. Imagine a Dresden or Hamburg happening everyday for 180 days.

ric350
 
It was my understanding that Downfall started with 180 days of continuous aerial bombardment, night and day. That‘s radar guided heavy bombardment, plus tactical. I can’t conceive of any Japanese defence plan surviving that especially on a psychological level. Imagine a Dresden or Hamburg happening everyday for 180 days.

ric350

D-Day was November 1, 1945 so they were already failing if the goal was continuous on its own.
 
There is one other small matter that hasn't been taken into account, and that is General MacArthur. He confided with General Eichelberger in late April 1945 that; "if the navy idea of piddling around for a long time before doing anything against the Japanese homeland carries through, he still wants me to go into Java rather than have my troops sit around and stagnate." (from Robert L. Eichelberger Papers, Duke University Library, Durham, N.C.).

What that would mean to the Allied troops of the Eighth Army, chosen for the landing, as well as the civilian population of Java (and more than likely all the Japanese-held islands making up the Dutch East Indies) could only be guessed at. The logistics problems alone, would certainly have had a knock-on effect for the commencement of the Kyushu operation.
 
D-Day was November 1, 1945 so they were already failing if the goal was continuous on its own.
Plus had any pre invasion bombardment actually worked, the only one I can think of was the introduction of the nazi tanks to the beaches at Normandy but every other time (and especially at iwo jima and Okinawa) shore and air bombardment had failed at actually suppressing Japanese defenses and neither had the resources or time that the Japanese had before Olympic.
 
Plus had any pre invasion bombardment actually worked, the only one I can think of was the introduction of the nazi tanks to the beaches at Normandy but every other time (and especially at iwo jima and Okinawa) shore and air bombardment had failed at actually suppressing Japanese defenses and neither had the resources or time that the Japanese had before Olympic.

Exactly this, and the Japanese were dug in as deep as anything found on Iwo or Okinawa. Unlike those two battles, however, much of the battlefield would be beyond the range of NGF; there's a reason the planning documents ominously stop mentioning the Marine units a few weeks in...
 
So... basically I'm planning to write and publish a story on a certain site (which is not AH.com, unfortunately) set in an alternate universe where the US had executed Operation Downfall.

As far as I can tell, an alternate Downfall means a) Manhattan Project sees little to no progress, b) the US decides to invade Japan instead of blockading it, and c) Japan thinks the Americans or Soviets will kill their divine emperor, so they opt to fight to the death.

And here's what I know will happen: a) lots of American soldiers die, b) even more Japanese civilians die from starvation/suicide attacks/atrocities/etc, and c) the loss of American lives means the US will not let Emperor Hirohito live (at least the angry soldiers won't, even if they're commanded not to kill him by higher-ups). Unfortunately, this means a lot more tension between the occupying US and the defeated Japanese civilians. Not to mention the Soviets overwhelming Korea and northern Japan.

After that, we have a north/south Japan. The question is whether war will erupt between the two (which I personally think is very likely).

I'd appreciate your feedback on how plausible/likely the scenarios above are, as well as details regarding Operation Downfall and the American invasion/liberation of Tokyo. Feel free to link to external sources (preferably free-to-access websites, but books and documentaries are also welcome).

Have a great day, folks.

My thoughts to help your story writing, and I would offer the suggestion that Japan winning is a minority opinion.

The planning was by no means complete when the war ended, and I don't think it is particuarly far fetched to suggest that weather alone makes a November target date get delayed to the next spring. This imposes a blockade by default and suggests a very long and destructive air campaign. Deaths by starvation would be common and the Japanese kamikaze potential would have been greatly reduced before any landing took place. Kyoto would probably have not have been left unscathed.

I happen to think the Allied forces involved would have been scaled up before a landing campaign started (and the campaign delayed), with the islands south of Japan having been attacked first to provide more airfields close to the landing sites. This would likely have forced the Japanese to commit some of their kamikaze force in a less favourable environment.

Japan is pretty hilly with lots of rivers and the loss of bridges would have been very problematic for the distribution of food and attempts to move military forces or supplies.

I think the Japanese would have been limited to movement by night on foot, and would have had severe logistics problems. You might consider looking at some of the Korean war experiences of well equipped allied forces vs overstreched Chinese/Korean forces?

I don't think you would have Soviet landings beyond what was historically attempted (they didn't have the amphibious capability for much), but you could have had a divided Tokyo post war, much like Berlin. Thus a unified country is still likely post war, if you want it divided you would need to have the Soviets provide massive numbers of troops to help the allies once the allies are already ashore but bogged down after a few months.

You could probably have the Emperor killed making a last stand in his bunker, but more thematically appropriate might be him taking his own life to avoid capture.

There would have been other concurrent operations in places like Singapore, and potentially overland movements into Vietnam and Southern China.
 
My thoughts on DOWNFALL, and I did my MA Thesis on the planned invasion, so....If you agree with some of these, fine, if not, we can "Agree to disagree."

1) As for OLYMPIC, the attack on Kyushu: The Japanese knew where the landings would take place, not because of any security leaks, but because any competent IJA staff officer with experience in amphibious operations could tell which beaches in Kyushu were suitable for landings, and make recommendations to the IJA General Staff accordingly on defensive preparations. Beach defenses were in depth, but not out of range of NGFS: the original defense plan had defenses set back from the coast to be out of range of naval gunfire, but the commanders of the 40th Army (SW Kyushu) and 57th Army (SE Kyushu) were overruled, and defenses set at the beaches, Four lines were built, with only the fourth out of NGFS range. However, beach defenses in the Satsuma Peninsula (Where IX Corps was to land on X+4) were not even started when the war ended, and none of the units intended to defend the peninsula had arrived yet, and weren't due until 1 Oct 45.

2) Except for the 25th ID (57th Army Reserve), 86th ID (57th Army at Ariake Bay) and the 77th ID (40th Army), all of the divisions assigned to Southern Kyushu were raised in the Spring and Summer of 1945. While trained (by Nov they would have had at least five months' training) shortages of fuel, munitions, antitank guns, and artillery were a problem. Even small arms: the 146th ID (defending the Satsuma Peninsula) only had rifles for ten percent of its personnel.

3) Sixth Army planned corps-sized landings on three beaches simultaneously: I Corps at Miyazaki, XI Corps at Ariake Bay, and V Amphibious Corps at Kushikino. with IX Corps coming on X+4 with at least one division (the corps was the floating reserve for Sixth Army). Even if the Japanese held the Americans on one beachhead, the other two were likely to break through and switch to mobile warfare-something the Japanese had not been able to match the Soviets in Manchuria in 1939 or the same Sixth Army on the Luzon Plain in 1945. The Japanese so much as said so after the war when reviewing OLYMPIC with MacArthur's staff.

4) V Amphibious Corps and IX Corps sent observers to Southern Kyushu to scout the terrain and plot the course of OLYMPIC had it been launched in October, 1945. They found that defensive preparations were still incomplete in August, and were running behind schedule. Communications were inadequate at best, shortages of food, fuel, and munitions were acute, and that the defense plan-a rigid defense on the beaches with prompt counterattacks would've been impossible to execute. Broken terrain in the VAC area, with nearly nonexistent communications and the lack of mobility would've made the 303rd ID (the defending division) have an impossible job. The Marines actually planned landing further north than the Japanese expected, and 2nd Marine Division and 3rd Marine Division would've faced only a single battalion on each of their beaches. But the Marines would've had to fight the Japanese where they found them, and even without building defenses, the Japanese were masters at making use of natural features. After a war game where the Marines and their Japanese counterparts played out the invasion, the Marine observers concluded that VAC would have accomplished its mission IX Corps came to a similar conclusion when studying the Satsuma Peninsula.

5) Kamikaze and other suicide attack: the Japanese had amassed 10,000 aircraft to defend against OLYMPIC, half suicide aircraft and half fighter, attack , and recon aircraft. Whether the non-suicide aircraft would've been switched over to suicide missions is still being debated, but at Okinawa, many suicide attacks had conventional aircraft making bomb or torpedo runs mixed in. Many of these pilots assigned to suicide duty had only a week's training before being winged and sent to their units. Accidents were still common, as at the squadrons, they still needed more training time in takeoffs and landings (they were told that if a target could not be found, they were to return). The big problem was lack of fuel, poor communications (a shortage of radios and even field telephones), and airstrips that were becoming regular targets for Far East Air Force (5th, 7th, and 13th Air Forces) and both Navy and Marine aircraft. Naval suicide craft (Kaiten human torpedoes, Shinyo suicide boats, and midget submarines) had the same problems: poorly trained crews, poor communications leading to a lack of coordination, and bases being identified (by ULTRA, usually) and then targeted. Not all air or naval suicide craft would've been destroyed in preinvasion strikes, but enough: at most, one third would've been destroyed or neutralized. Enough to put a serious dent in Japanese plans. Would they have inflicted damage and casualties? No doubt, but not enough to weaken the invasion forces or to even prevent the assault.

6) After the war, the Army concluded based on war games, staff studies, and interviews with Japanese commanders in Kyushu, that had the invasion been launched, due to the weaknesses described above and others, the U.S. Sixth Army would've secured southern Kyushu in two months of fighting at a cost of about 75,000 to 100,000 casualties to the invasion force (including about 10-15,000 U.S. and Royal Navy casualties at sea). Japan would have gambled everything on a defense of Kyushu and lost, and the Kanto Plain (Tokyo) would've been next. Japan would likely have surrendered around 15 Feb 46 and CORONET, the invasion of the Kanto, would not have taken place. IF, though, CORONET had been launched, that would've been twice the size of OLYMPIC, and probably twice the casualties. for both sides (est. 200,000 Japanese military alone in Kyushu and probably 150,000 for the U.S. and other allies (British and Commonwealth, French, and Dutch troops were to participate in CORONET) .

7) Truman looked at casualty figures from Okinawa (45,000 for the U.S.-KIA/WIA/MIA, 100,000 Japanese military and 150,000 civilians) and wanted to avoid a second bloodbath in Kyushu. He got his alternative after TRINITY. Result: CENTERBOARD I on Hiroshima and CENTERBOARD II on Nagasaki. Japan surrenders after both, and the Soviet attack on Manchuria (AUGUST STORM on 9 Aug 45) on 15 Aug.

Again, you can agree or disagree; but having read primary source material, and reading a number of books and magazine articles about the planned invasion, this is the conclusion I drew when I finished the Thesis.
 
Here is the case for Stalin retaining Manchukuo.
1. The Soviets have paid for it in blood. Their casualties could be 100,000 – or higher.
2. The Soviets have sacrificed their recovery elsewhere to conquer it – Stalin must have some compensation to justify this.
3. The Soviets have established governments and civil authorities throughout Manchukuo and assumed the responsibilities that constitute sovereignty.
4. Manchukuo is therefore a legitimate spoil of war.

5. Manchukuo forms the land bridge to Korea, which in turn is a dagger pointed at the heart of Japan.
6. Between November 1944 and October 1945, Stalin ordered Project 72 aircraft carriers; Project 24 battleships; Project 82 battlecruisers; Project 66 heavy cruisers; Project 65 (later Project 68-bis) light cruisers; and Project 30B destroyers to be constructed. They were to form powerful fleets for the Black Sea, Baltic, Arctic and Pacific. Neither Vladivostok nor Petropavlovsk is a suitable year-round base for the Pacific Fleet, but Port Arthur is.
7. Manchukuo’s vast resources are at the disposal of the USSR.
8. Stalin is a doctrinaire Communist. Expansion of Communism world-wide is an historical inevitability. It is arriving in Manchuria with the Soviet Army.
9. Mao Zedong was shabbily treated as a minor vassal by Stalin went he went to Moscow to seek economic aid in late 1949. I doubt he would receive better consideration in 1946.

I find the argument that Stalin would not act this way because he would be sensitive to the feelings of other nations unpersuasive.
I had not considered the additional difficulty of the Soviet army taking Manchuria ITTL, and believe this tips the argument in your favor. That said, the Soviets outright taking Manchuria from the ROC results in a good deal of blowback down the road.

If Manchuria is directly incorporated into the USSR as one or more Soviet republics, it will inevitably become restive like the Balitic states. For local administration, the Soviets would have almost no choice but to rely on Chinese cadres, who are guaranteed to resent the colonial relationship with Moscow as time goes on and prospects of "liberating" China proper grow dimmer. The alternative would be to subject the population to intense demographic and political transformation, which would wreck Manchuria's productivity and create ample social conditions for insurgency. There is a very long border with the ROC, after all.

Things look better for the USSR if they allow the establishment of a People's Republic of China with its capital at Harbin or Changchun, but ultimately it still becomes a Poland or East Germany, and presents all the same problems those satellites brought for the Soviet communist project in our history.
 
Top