Huge Japanese casualties, maybe. The Allies (okay, the US) had already decided to abandon Operations Olympic and Coronet due to huge projected losses. If the bombs hadn’t forced a surrender, the next weapon of mass destruction was going to be famine, and it was already well underway when the bombs were dropped. The US Navy already had an effective blockade of Japanese ports in place, preventing food from reaching it from the mainland or other territories. Continuous bombing of the railroads kept food from reaching the cities from the farms. They’d have to starve until they quit - and that decision was made knowing the first people in Japan to die would be the Allied POW’s.
If the Japanese had retreated to the main islands, would the Allies still have planned for invasion?
The bigger reason would have been the belief that if we didn’t finish the war with Japan in 1945, we’d end up fighting another war with them in 1965.
When you’re fighting a war, you don’t let the other side call a time out.
So was my grandfather. As a matter of fact, he was the commander of an amphibious tractor(Army, not USMC) slated to be in one of the first waves onto the beach. They had actually started training him in mid-1944, so this was not a spur-of-the-moment kind of thing; the US had planned for it from a long time beforehand.
I have never met anyone with less doubt about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki decisions, FWIW.
And another point of how much they planned- they minted some 1.5 million Purple Heart medals- they were used in Korea, Vietnam and up through Kosovo, and possibly Iraq/Afghanistan.
No, the invasion was schedule for November 1, 1945. It was only cancelled after Japan surrendered.
Some more detail. The formal decision had not yet been announced but the Joint War Plans Committee had pretty much concluded it.
Famine is covered under Operation Starvation, which was already under way. The famine continued well into the occupation, btw.
A number of people have suggested that if a ‘militaristic’ Japan had been allowed to persist, another war of Japanese aggression would surely have resulted some years later.
It makes perfect sense to me that a nationalist, militarist sentiment would still have existed in a ‘fortress Japan’, but how could they ever re-arm themselves?
As others have pointed out, not only would they have had a grossly inadequate supply of oil, but they would have also had no meaningful source of steel. The best they could have done is create a primitive, home islands-based army that could never have threatened anyone or anything beyond its borders.
How could the Germans rearm themselves after the highly restrictive Treaty of Versailles? But they easily did with the help of the Soviets. And Japan is a tougher nation to police than Germany because its an island nation.
This is not true. Yes, the navy said “starve them out” and the Air force said “bomb them out” but plans for the invasion were under way. my Dad was in MacArthur HQ unit and yes, Doug was planning to invade.
And of course either the Navy or AF plan would have caused far more deaths than Hiroshima.
*Prospects for Olympic
General Douglas MacArthur dismissed any need to change his plans:
I am certain that the Japanese air potential reported to you as accumulating to counter our OLYMPIC operation is greatly exaggerated. … As to the movement of ground forces … I do not credit … the heavy strengths reported to you in southern Kyushu. … In my opinion, there should not be the slightest thought of changing the Olympic operation.[85]…Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals (awarded for combat casualties) were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan; the number exceeded that of all American military casualties of the 65 years following the end of World War II, including the Korean and Vietnam Wars. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.[113] There were so many left that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan were able to keep Purple Hearts on hand for immediate award to soldiers wounded in the field.[113*]
MacArthur definitely wanted to invade, but it wasn’t his decision to make. Read the cite.
I’ve seen it before. You are right, it wasn’t MacArthur’s decision to make, but he certainly would have been very influential in the decision process and his opinion would have carried a lot of weight. There was quite a lot of debate, and quite a lot of after the fact shifting of position on this subject, with several factions supporting various strategies wrt Japan, especially after it became moot. Mac didn’t feel the need for the atomic bombs at all, LeMay and others in the air force, of course, had strategies of strategic bombing, Nimitz and others in the Navy wanted a blockade strategy. And, of course, there were the ones who were for and against the atomic bomb.
But, it was ultimately Truman’s decision, and I’ve seen nothing indicating that they were seriously considering calling off the invasion of the lower island had the atomic bomb not brought the Japanese down. In fact, every indication was that we were still preparing for the invasion, and Russia was starting their own logistics build up for the same thing on the upper island. Regardless of the debates and controversy, were were still preparing, training, pre-positioning and doing all of the actual stuff you have to do in order to stage such a military plan, and, frankly, I think by that point it had a life of it’s own that was only stopped because of the sudden collapse of the Japanese government. You can show all sorts of contrary evidence, and all sorts of high level debate and argument, but the reality is we WERE preparing, and that didn’t stop until Japan surrendered.
Certainly existing plans were being continued until a formal decision by the Joint War Plans Committee, endorsed by Truman, changed or cancelled them. The point is that the Committee was *about *to do so with or without A-bombs, as the record states.
I don’t see that. Here is the part I got out of your cite:
Sure, I suppose you could say that this was a radical change in Coronet, but the reality was simply deciding to invade the lower island instead of the main island, not whether or not to invade at all. I will concede that Coronet and Olympic might (recall, this is a recommendation that the President still would have had to approve) have had different targets, but it’s a stretch to go from this to no invasion at all. We would almost certainly have invaded Kyushu had the JWPC been followed, instead of the original plan to go for Honshu. Regardless, it would have been a blood bath, as the Japanese in both cases had figured out exactly where we would be landing and had a lot of hidden fortifications and emplacements to chew us up. They ALSO had begun fortifying where they thought Russia would be invading as well, and while they were less prepared there they still had, again, figured out pretty where exactly where they would be coming from, and Russia was MUCH less experienced with this sort of invasion. It would have been a bloody mess all around had it happened.
No, we were NOT as determined. Plus unlike russian soldiers, we were not sticking guns in their backs pushing them forward.
Think about this. The US troops in Germany. They were done and wanted to go home. When word came they might be shifted to fight in Japan their was near mutiny. They had survived not getting killed by the Nazis and wanted to go back home in one piece. The government had to really speed up the process of sending soldiers home and back to their civilian lives.
Also add that by 1945 the US was really running low on money. We could only sell so many war bonds to fund the war. Just the cost to maintain the current 4 million or so troops such as food, housing, fuel, medical care and keep them training was hugely expensive.
An invasion of japan would have been VERY costly in terms of not just men but money. We would have no nearby safe country like England was. Everything would have had to be transported from I think the Philippines which is hundreds of miles away. An invasion could have taken years before we took Tokyo.
No the USA was tired from 4 years of war and wanted it to end.
BTW, lets not forget that just maybe 10 years prior the USA and japan had been friends. Many Americans had fond memories of the unique people, culture, and architecture of Japan. Did we really want every pagoda and city in Japan bombed down to rubble like Germany was?
I did read the cite. I’m not seeing any cancellation. The memo that talked about changing plans wasn’t calling for a cancellation of the invasion; it was saying that because intelligence was showing a Japanese build-up at the planned invasion site they might consider changing to a different invasion site. Or maybe postpone the invasion long enough to weaken the Japanese defenses with more bombing. But the fundamental plan for an invasion was still in place.
Another meeting was scheduled and your cite argues that this meeting might have recommended cancelling the invasion. But that’s a “what-if” - the atom bombs were dropped and Japan surrendered before the meeting was held.
Europe is one contiguous land mass with multiple potential routes of resupply, whereas ANYthing Japan imported would have to be by ship - slow, limited, and vulnerable.
Yes and no. Sure, there are an ‘infinite’ number of water routes. On the other hand, there are only so many Japanese ports that could handle the mass of material that would need to be brought in.
A primitive, home-based army that had already shown themselves to be willing (in fact eager) to use suicide tactics as operational battle plans. No way you let that exist. If the bombs had failed, I think we would have just paved every Japanese island, from the bottom up. The only time we land troops is to sweep up the ash. The death toll would have been unimaginable, and the cost quite cheap, considering.
Nonsense. Every fond memory Americans had of the Japanese was completely eradicated by Pearl Harbor. If anything, the desire to destroy Japan was even stronger than the desire to destroy Germany. Maybe you don’t remember there were a lot of Americans who were extremely pro-German (e.g. Charles Lindbergh, Henry Ford) right up until the War. Want to know about the sentiment toward Japan during the war? Just ask my wife, whose America-born Japanese parents spent 1942-1945 in a detention camp. Just ask my father, who trained for Operation Downfall in the spring of 1945, even as the Battle of Okinawa was going on.
Yes. And while it’s true the American public was fairly war weary by 1945 (despite the fact we were actually the last great power to join the war), I don’t think we were to the point where we were just going to pack up and go home if the Japanese didn’t surrender. Nor were the other allies, who’s populations were ALSO war weary (even the Russian’s, despite folks thinking they were mindless robots ready to always jump in the meat grinder at a moments notice, regardless of their personal feelings). Nor was our economy on the brink…hell, we were in the best shape in the world, far better able to invade Japan than the Russians were, economically (or the British or anyone else). We were no were near our limits, despite the pinch our public was certainly feeling with rationing and such. But that’s nothing compared to what other countries were having to do to sustain the war effort. The US, by contrast, was still an economic powerhouse, very able to continue the war into Japan for several more years if needs be.
Trivia question: What was the last nation to officially join World War II?
Mongolia. While it was allied with the Soviet Union, it stayed officially neutral in the war between Germany and the Soviet Union. Mongolia did not officially join the war until August 10, 1945 when it declared war against Japan.
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, invaded the Philippines and killed American servicemen and civilians. Then there was the horror of the Bataan Death March. Americans were also aware of the brutality of the Rape of Nanking. Why would you think Americans would hate Germans more than Japanese?