WI there was a invasion of Japan

What would have happened if there was an invasion of Japan, bearing in mind that the official estimate of american dead was 1million.
 
Last edited:
More civilian casualties spread through out the entire home island. These are a people that were willing to commit suicide rather than surrender to Allied forces. After the eventual capitulation of Japanese forces, which would take a long long time, I think you'd see a war crimes tribunal the likes of which would blow the ones for the Nazis out of the water. America would be highly pissed at having been dragged through the blood after such a long war in Europe and the Pacific. Be interesting to see the regime changes occuring afterwards. Very probably no Eisenhower as president as Americans get tired of anything military for a decade to come.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
What would have happened if there was an invasion of Japan, bearing in mind that the official estimate of american dead was 1million.


The estimate of TOTAL CASUALTIES was one million dead. That included Japanese losses.

That being said it would have been a bloodbath of epic proportions. Japan would still be in early recovery stages today. Figure the utter destruction of the southern third of Kyushu's civilian population, along with 150K or so Japanese military casualties on Kyushu (military losses 90% KIA). Honshu, if it actually had to follow, add another 100-200K Japanese dead (military and civilian combined) including losses due to starvation from the continuing blockade.

Figure that the Soviets take at least half of Hokkaido, probably the whole Island, with everything that would mean as the Cold War began. Korea likely winds up 100% communist, with the same sort of political ramifications as the loss of Hokkaido to the Soviets represents.

U.S. losses 200-250,000 K/W/M, with probably 4-5 CV, 3-4 CL/CA, 15+ DD/DE, 100+ other vessels sunk or damaged beyond repair. The American occupation is radically different than IOTL, with negative impacts on Japan, the United States and the world economy.

In short a total diasaster.
 
I assume Japan is invaded because the A-bomb is not yet available. Suppose the Bomb is only six months late. The US invades Japan, Russia goes into Hokkaido, and we have the beginnings of the cold war. Now, in early 1946, suppose the US is able to deploy the Bomb, not against Japanese civilians, but against the advancing Russians.

Would the Russians have any other choice but to pull back to more of an OTL position? The world would remember the casualties of an invasion, but the Bomb would have taken on a whole new image, as it was only used to prevent a military advance.
 

Dure

Banned
Soviets take Kuriles, Hokkaido Island and perhaps Aomori prefecture before the Western allies are even in a position to launch an invasion.

There is a good possibility that Japanese resistance to the Soviets is less than to the Western Allies and there is a rush to surrender to them. Sort of Germans in reverse. Soviets have shown no eveidence of the race hatred that the USMC has.

At this point you have to decide if the atom bombs were used. If they were there is a real possibility of a general surrender to the Allies in which Soviets have occupied a significant proportion of the home islands. In this case the Soviets are in a very good barganing position in Europe.

If no atom bombs are used then two possibilities present themselves: a rapid surrender due to the shock of August Storm, possibly with an attempted military coup in Japan by the war faction. Alternatively a long drawn out war in which the Soviets hunker down with what they have whilst the Western Allies throw themselves at the beaches in an attempt to gain as much of the home islands as possible.

In all cases the losses are far lower than the worst predictions.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Soviets take Kuriles, Hokkaido Island and perhaps Aomori prefecture before the Western allies are even in a position to launch an invasion.

There is a good possibility that Japanese resistance to the Soviets is less than to the Western Allies and there is a rush to surrender to them. Sort of Germans in reverse. Soviets have shown no eveidence of the race hatred that the USMC has.

????

The Japanese and Russians had been killing eath other for 3/4 of forever. The Japanese were reflexively anti-Communist. They were the last country to leave the USSR in the post WW I occupation. The Red Army was going to be a cruel taskmaster and EVERY Japanese soldier knew it (and had had that fact pounded into them).

The Red Army didn't NEED to show race hatred. It was blessed with NKVD units that hated, well, everybody.

Not that it would have mattered. There wasn't any sort of transportation to move significant numbers between the Islands by September of '45.

At this point you have to decide if the atom bombs were used. If they were there is a real possibility of a general surrender to the Allies in which Soviets have occupied a significant proportion of the home islands. In this case the Soviets are in a very good barganing position in Europe.

If no atom bombs are used then two possibilities present themselves: a rapid surrender due to the shock of August Storm, possibly with an attempted military coup in Japan by the war faction. Alternatively a long drawn out war in which the Soviets hunker down with what they have whilst the Western Allies throw themselves at the beaches in an attempt to gain as much of the home islands as possible.

In all cases the losses are far lower than the worst predictions.

The Soviets would have been able to take Hokkaido. They lacked the logistical ability (mostly in transport bottoms) to take Honshu or any of the other Southern Islands.

The Allies wouldn't have bargained away Europe for Honshu. Europe was pre-set and that was going to be the way it worked.

Worst predictions are exactly that, worst case. It is exceptionally rare that worst case comes true, hence the title. If the war had continued, the Japanese losses on the Asian mainland would have been huge as the Red Army cut through the Kwantung Army in Manchuria.

I shudder to think of the casualties that 1) the Soviets would have taken taking Hokkaido and 2) the civilian casualties on Hokkaido as the Red Army smashed it's way across the Island. Now that would have been a worst case scenario.
 
We must bear in mind that by 1945 the US was in complete aerial dominance over Japan. The firebombing of Tokyo had a massive psychological effect that drove many to despair. If the US did invade, mass bombing of Japanese forces could force them to break. Losses on both sides would still be high, though. Guerilla warfare could continue for a long time. And if the USSR occupies the northern half, we could see a mirror situation of post-war Europe, having buttefly effects on Korea and Vietnam.
 
What would have happened if there was an invasion of Japan, bearing in mind that the official estimate of american dead was 1million.

Actually that estimate is flat out false and based on massively exaggerated estimates from Truman and a few other politicians based on very initial estimates rather than the finalized estimates. Rough estimations for the initial invasion ranged from the tens of thousands to a few hundred thousand (the initial invasion of Kyushu, for example -IE, the first 30 days of fighting- was estimated to cost 31,000 US casualties and a total of 40,000 casualties for the Japanese I believe. Compare that to 42,000 US casualties at Normandy). 220,000 people died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and they were all innocent civilians.

More civilian casualties spread through out the entire home island. These are a people that were willing to commit suicide rather than surrender to Allied forces. After the eventual capitulation of Japanese forces, which would take a long long time, I think you'd see a war crimes tribunal the likes of which would blow the ones for the Nazis out of the water. America would be highly pissed at having been dragged through the blood after such a long war in Europe and the Pacific. Be interesting to see the regime changes occurring afterward. Very probably no Eisenhower as president as Americans get tired of anything military for a decade to come.

The Japanese civilians are all too often charged with the whole "Yellow Menace" stigma. Here's food for thought on the whole idea that every man, women and child was going to fight: The Emperor and military were actively fearful that the people were going to rebel against the Emperor if the war kept going on. Does that sound like a people who were, en masse, going to fight to the the death by the hundreds of thousands of millions to kill a few soldiers and all die in resistance? No. Japan was beaten. They were already offering a conditional surrender where they'd give up if the Emperor and Dynasty was left in tact (this was boiled down from earlier conditional surrenders where the Japanese would give up if the dynasty was kept, there was no occupation and no war crimes; but that was abandoned near the end for just the Emperor part). Its just that the military leaders didn't really want to surrender and they were in most of the control of the government. Likewise, the US wasn't willing to modify unconditional surrender -even though it modified the unconditional surrender later and left the Imperial dynasty in tact (220,000 vaporized civilians and an atomic menace later)- And Japan was essentially beaten. Its army, navy and air force were in shambles, its weaponry reduced to poorly manufactured guns, and they couldn't resist even if they wanted to (which admittedly many did want to, but I doubt anywhere in the millions or anything outside of the thousands range). And the civilians were not the fanatical yellow terror so you weren't going to get grannies Kamikazeeing you. They knew it was the end and just wanted it to be over. So you could invade Japan, deal with casualties either in the tens of thousands or a few hundred thousands (which I believe would not have exceeded 200,000; less than Hiroshima and Nagasaki's dead and those were innocent civilians. Frankly, I'd say it wouldn't go much above 100,000 or so but that's conservative). And the Japanese would be defeated with the nuclear genie in its bottle. It'd be like pushing a man you already beat up -bleeding, broken and dazed- on the ground. He's too weak to take a swing at you and you don't risk all that much by pushing him down just to make sure you win. Likewise, if the Japanese had the Soviets attacking Sakhalin and the danger of being carved up into a North and South (with a Communist North), I think they'd want to capitulate to the Western Allies as quick as possible to remain one nation after the surrender, thus shortening an invasion and lowering casualties from that.
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
.. 220,000 people died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and they were all innocent civilians.



...


Would these people have been any less dead if the cities had been hit by 200 B-29's carrying firebombs?

To quote the USSBS (Pacific)

The Survey has estimated that the damage and casualties caused at Hiroshima by the one atomic bomb dropped from a single plane would have required 220 B-29s carrying 1,200 tons of incendiary bombs, 400 tons of high-explosive bombs, and 500 tons of anti-personnel fragmentation bombs, if conventional weapons, rather than an atomic bomb, had been used. One hundred and twenty-five B-29s carrying 1,200 tons of bombs

would have been required to approximate the damage and casualties at Nagasaki. This estimate pre-supposed bombing under conditions similar to those existing when the atomic bombs were dropped and bombing accuracy equal to the average attained by the Twentieth Air Force during the last 3 months of the war

The entire "200,000 died for nothing" argument ignores reality. The United states killed more Japanese civilians when it bombed Tokyo on March 9-10 of 1945, killing between 90 and 125,000 people from immediate effect and destroying 41 square kilometers of the city and did so with far less positive effect than the attack against Hiroshima when 60-70,000 people died and 12 square km of the city was destroyed or when 40-70,000 died in Nagasaki. At least the nuclear weapons managed to create political conditions that the "peace" faction of the Japanese leadership was able to get the war stopped. NOTHING before then had worked, the two bombs almost weren't enough, but the attempted coup misfired.

To imagine, for even a moment, that the simple preparations for the invasion of Kyushu would not have caused the deaths of at least as many Japanese civilians as died at either of the two A-Bomb sites is simply silly. To pretend that civilians in the tens of thousands would not have died before the invasion date of November 1, 1945 from heavy bomber strikes as well as fighter bomber sweeps over Kyushu, which were shooting up everything from trains to oxcarts and rowboats, ingores reality.

Far more Japanese lives were saved by Hiroshima and Nagasaki than were lost there, not that that argument really matters. That 20,000 or more Americans lived who would have died had the invasion been necessary is beyond all question, and that IS the number that mattered then and matters now.

The Japanese sowed the wind; it was entirely correct that they reaped the whirlwind.
 
The entire "200,000 died for nothing" argument ignores reality. The United states killed more Japanese civilians when it bombed Tokyo on March 9-10 of 1945, killing between 90 and 125,000 people from immediate effect and destroying 41 square kilometers of the city and did so with far less positive effect than the attack against Hiroshima when 60-70,000 people died and 12 square km of the city was destroyed or when 40-70,000 died in Nagasaki. At least the nuclear weapons managed to create political conditions that the "peace" faction of the Japanese leadership was able to get the war stopped. NOTHING before then had worked, the two bombs almost weren't enough, but the attempted coup misfired.

The fire bombing should not have been carried out as it was then. However, where they did happen, it was often focused on striking industrialized targets. While that was the borderline purpose of nuking Hiroshima, the real purpose was to make a strike of terror. To kill as many civilians as possible because they were not looking at just bombing factories. They wanted an area where a whole bunch of people lived around the factories for maximum death. And those people were civilians which makes the focus on killing them far different than that of killing soldiers. With invasion, Japan would have capitulated and you would have a death tole perhaps comparable to Hiroshima and Nagasaki at most, but among soldiers, not civilians, and in which case the nuclear genie is not released. The "peace" faction would have won out any way because the "war" faction didn't have any resources left. The soldiers were all either dead, tired, or poorly equipped; the supposedly mighty civilian militias were poorly equipped in I'm going to say not all that fanatic as to go into suicide attacks on any massive scale, and at worst, the people may have very well rebelled against the Emperor and military regime.
To imagine, for even a moment, that the simple preparations for the invasion of Kyushu would not have caused the deaths of at least as many Japanese civilians as died at either of the two A-Bomb sites is simply silly. To pretend that civilians in the tens of thousands would not have died before the invasion date of November 1, 1945 from heavy bomber strikes as well as fighter bomber sweeps over Kyushu, which were shooting up everything from trains to oxcarts and rowboats, ingores reality.
I wouldn't say as many as the atomic bombings, but perhaps the civilian deaths would have been somewhat high. However, I don't know as if our planes were going to be focused on bombing and shooting farmhouses instead of industrial and military targerts. Likewise, I would suppose the civilians would have evacuated from bombed areas as well.

Far more Japanese lives were saved by Hiroshima and Nagasaki than were lost there, not that that argument really matters. That 20,000 or more Americans lived who would have died had the invasion been necessary is beyond all question, and that IS the number that mattered then and matters now.
If more Japanese were saved at all, it would not have been by all that much (and I mean very much not that much). And those dead would have been combatants largely and not civilians who, due to the fate of history, became an unwilling part in an act of terrorism to instate fear in the Japanese via the murder of thousands of innocent civilians. The American soldier deaths would likely not in any way have been higher than those of the Japanese civilians who actually did die, and that is what matters. Screw national lines; it is an issue of humanity. Likewise, you could just be willing to accept the conditional surrender, keep the Emperor, and avoid invasion altogether.

The Japanese sowed the wind; it was entirely correct that they reaped the whirlwind.
Revenge should not have been the policy of a nation which sought to make itself morally superior to its enemy and that's what Hiroshima and Nagasaki were; revenge. They were revenge for Pearl Harbor, and to show our moral superiority, we also led a sneak attack -without warning- and killed far more innocents in those cities than they did in Hawaii.
 
Last edited:
. And those dead would have been combatants largely and not civilians who, do to the fate of history, became an unwilling part in an act of terrorism to instate fear in the Japanese via the murder of thousands of innocent civilians. The American soldier deaths would not in any way have been higher than those of the Japanese civilians who actually did die, and that is what matters. Screw national lines; it is an issue of humanity. Likewise, you could just be willing to accept the conditional surrender, keep the Emperor, and avoid invasion altogether.

As callous as this may sound, in context of Second World War citizen armies the concept of combatant is entirely different from current conflicts. Vast majority of soldiers in the US or Japanese forces did not want to be targets. On the other hand, many civilians wanted to be targets and actively and voluntarily participated in supporting the war. Children were the only ones which can be called truly non-combatants.

By the way, if Japan surrenders just a month later than OTL the death toll of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been exceeded by later fire bombing raids, malnutrition etc. Japanese inland transportation was being wiped out, like inshore transportation had been already.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The fire bombing should not have been carried out as it was then. However, where they did happen, it was often focused on striking industrialized targets. While that was the borderline purpose of nuking Hiroshima, the real purpose was to make a strike of terror. To kill as many civilians as possible because they were not looking at just bombing factories. They wanted an area where a whole bunch of people lived around the factories for maximum death. And those people were civilians which makes the focus on killing them far different than that of killing soldiers. With invasion, Japan would have capitulated and you would have a death tole perhaps comparable to Hiroshima and Nagasaki at most, but among soldiers, not civilians, and in which case the nuclear genie is not released. The "peace" faction would have won out any way because the "war" faction didn't have any resources left. The soldiers were all either dead, tired, or poorly equipped; the supposedly mighty civilian militias were poorly equipped in I'm going to say not all that fanatic as to go into suicide attacks on any massive scale, and at worst, the people may have very well rebelled against the Emperor and military regime.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both held out from the general targeting list, however it is not true that they were no signficant military targets. Hiroshima, in addition to being a major supply depot was also the Headquarters for the Army assigned to defend Kyushu from invasion. The attack on the city significantly damaged IJA planning and control assets for what would have been the Olympic assault. Nagasaki, in addition to hosting several significant industrial sites, including a large Mitsubishi aircraft Plant, was also host to the Sasebo Naval Base which, among onther resoinsibilities had defense of the southern approaches to the Home Islands. These facts were known to the United States thanks to signals intelligence decrypts.


I wouldn't say as many as the atomic bombings, but perhaps the civilian deaths would have been somewhat high. However, I don't know as if our planes were going to be focused on bombing and shooting farmhouses instead of industrial and military targerts. Likewise, I would suppose the civilians would have evacuated from bombed areas as well.

American fighter bombers were literally hitting anything that moved. The example of ox-carts and small fishing boats were literal truths. ANYTHING that fed the Japanese population was a military asset and was subject to attack. The IJA, as a matter of policy did NOT evacuate civilians from the potential invasion zones. The civilians were seen as useful additions to the defense forces (to the point that school kids as young as ten were being trained to become suicide bombers) and as "speed bumps" to slow down the American advance

If more Japanese were saved at all, it would not have been by all that much (and I mean very much not that much). And those dead would have been combatants largely and not civilians who, due to the fate of history, became an unwilling part in an act of terrorism to instate fear in the Japanese via the murder of thousands of innocent civilians. The American soldier deaths would likely not in any way have been higher than those of the Japanese civilians who actually did die, and that is what matters. Screw national lines; it is an issue of humanity. Likewise, you could just be willing to accept the conditional surrender, keep the Emperor, and avoid invasion altogether.

This train of thought makes perfect sense, assuming, of course, that it is being written in 2009 in either North America or Europe. It utterly ignores the reality of 1945 Japan, where an increasingly desperate Army was preparing to sacrifice the entire Japanese People rather than surrender. It must be pointed out that AFTER the Emperor ordered the surrender, field grade officers did everything possible to prevent the recording of Hirohito's message from being broadcast. A significant portion of the the Japanese military, especially among the Army Officer Corps, WANTED to fight to the death. The Japanese surrender was a very near run thing, even after the Atomic Bombings AND the Soviet declaration of war.

Revenge should not have been the policy of a nation which sought to make itself morally superior to its enemy and that's what Hiroshima and Nagasaki were; revenge. They were revenge for Pearl Harbor, and to show our moral superiority, we also led a sneak attack -without warning- and killed far more innocents in those cities than they did in Hawaii.

Revenge? Maybe. Every action the U.S. took post Pearl Harbor was an act of vengence. Any reaction to an attack is vengence.

The attacks on Hiroshima & Nagasaki were anything but sneak attacks. they occurred in broad daylight, by marked aircraft, in the course of a declared war, AFTER a warning message had been specifically sent on July 26, 1945 by Truman from Postsdam to the Japanese.
 
Last edited:
Could a war breakout in Japan instead of Korea in the 50s? Or maybe Korean and Japanese wars at the same time?

If the Soviets got involved, they'd probably get all of Korea plus a portion of Japan. So you'd end up with a bigger communist bloc pretty much.
 
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both held out from the general targeting list, however it is not true that they were no signficant military targets.

Interestingly although one might think that Hiroshima Peace Memorial museum (the A-bombing museum) would present the story of Japan as a victim they strongly mention the military significance of Hiroshima as an a-bomb target.

http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/top_e.html

Go to "East building" and Hiroshima before the war and during Showa (Hirohito) period.

This was a great surprise for me personally when I visited the museum. The museum is definitely anti-war, pro-peace but in no sense pro-Japan, anti-US. Makes one also very strongly hope that there will be no world wars in the future.
 
Top