:smack:
ok - I wasn’t saying the US had a permanent presence in China; nevertheless, we withdrew our forces after the end of the war.
The Emperor was still the recognized LEADER of Japan and **not **subject to war crimes trial, a point MacArthur insisted on. Understanding the Japanese thinking, it was a way to save face. Tojo, by comparison, got no such mercy. And no, I won’t ‘cite’. Everyone knows he was executed.
Okinawa does indeed have a US presence - it’s NOT a ‘home island’ or sacred soil as the Japanese consider it. Operation Downfall, the plan for the invasion of the Japanese home islands, takes this into account and projected huge casualties, into the millions, if they invaded the island that Tokyo is on - due to the fact that the resistance would be fanatical since their home soil was considered sacred. I’m aware that the fighting on Okinawa was also savage; suffice it to say that the difference would be akin to say, if some foreign power invaded Guam or the US Virgin Islands, as opposed to say Chicago. Anyway, the planners of Operation Downfall predicted huge casualties precisely because their attack on a non-holy island caused more casualties than expected. It’s well known that the home islands assault would’ve been much more costly; civilians were being drilled to attack our soldiers with brooms, cans of acid, homemade flamethowers, etc. So, altho they minded the occupation of Okinawa, it wasn’t as bad to them as wholesale occupation of Japan proper. No cite, google ‘Operation Downfall’ or ‘X-Day’ if needed.
Didn’t remember the name of the plan to rebuild Japan; fine, it wasn’t THE Marshall plan, it was A Marshall plan. Better?
Far as the Japanese carrier-subs - cite? Is there a document somewhere that accounts for all of them? That 4 and only 4 were built, all were turned over to the US in 1945 or shortly thereafter?
I’ll avoid the whole ‘Japan might have had nuclear weapons at the very end created in Konan, North Korea’ boondoggle. I’m inclined to not believe it, for it’s very hard to hide nuke explosions, but that was the supposed fear of those sub-carriers - they’d send a lone plane on a kamikaze mission to approach the US from the South & detonate.
The emperor was no such thing after 1945, he became then what the incumbent emperor is today: a ceremonial figurehead. The leader of Japan from 1945 to 1951 was an American bloke named Douglas MacArthur.
Alright, I’ll repeat the same cites as earlier in this thread. The Japanese only constructed four plane ferrying submarines of two types:
The I-8(Type J-3) - sunk off Okinawa on the 31st of March 1945 by the destroyers USS Morrison and USS Stockton.
The I-400 - sunk as a target on the 4th of June 1946
The I-401 - sunk as a target on the 31th of May 1946
The I-402 - sunk as a target on the 1st of April 1946.
The existence of any other submarines of these types, or any other classes capable of launching planes is honestly up to you. I can’t prove that they never existed, except for pointing out how unlikely it would be for the US to allow Japan to maintain any armed ships after Japan’s unconditional surrender, nor leave any vessels unaccounted for.
Also, regarding the “holiness” of the main Japanese island, you are aware of the fact that the US formally occupied Japan (all of it) from its surrender until the San Francisco Treaty in 1952, with 350,000 military personell stationed on the islands?
Please, just keep this fact in mind: from 1945 to 1952 there was no Japanese state, no government and no military.
OK, so the Emperor position was ceremonial. He was still there, not removed from his ‘office’, and more importantly not punished. This was yet another face-saving gesture, the importance of which to the Japanese MacArthur understood. The measures he imposed were hardly Draconian, and his thrust was to turn them into an ally. Keeping the Emperor in some kind of official capacity accomplished that, even if it was symbolic.
Thanx for the sub cites - altho absence of evidence <> evidence of absence, not exactly what I was asking. That would be, proof of how many the Japanese manufactured and rolled out, rather than how many were sunk. For example, the Germans kept records on how many V1 & V2 rockets they built & deployed, and this list was tallied with the number found unfired, confirmed destroyed, deployed in England & Belgium, etc. to account for them. Of course it wasn’t an exact match, but close enough so they were reasonably sure not many rogue teams would keep launching after the war was over, if any (there weren’t). So, good research on the subs destroyed, but is there any documentation on the number built & deployed? Any captured Japanese dox?
Yes, I’m aware of the temporary occupation of the home islands. Both we and the Japanese were taking the long view, and it was agreed no longterm occupation of the home islands. From time to time, like when a local girl is raped, the subject of throwing the Americans off Okinawa comes up as well. My point was, part of the face-saving feature of the surrender was the sellabillity of it, and 1 of the points was no permanent occupation of holy soil by foreign infidels. Surely u can see the parallel to today, with the Al-Qaida demand for our withdrawal from Saudi Arabia, what they consider holy soil. Well, if u can accept that, why is it so hard to accept that Japanese circa 1945 would be revolted & wouldn’t accept a longterm home island occupation, but would tolerate a short one, analogous to the 1st Iraq war? Al Qaida (or who would evolve to become them) approved of our presence in S.A. and in fact fought on our side, to throw the Iraqis out of Kuwait. It was the fact that we didn’t leave that inspired their movement. Maybe u just don’t understand how important face-saving is in Japanese culture. I ain’t Japanese, but it’s been explained to me, how they use indirect language & go to gr8 lengths to avoid embarassing some1, all in effort to save face. Things that we consider nothing, like not acknowledging a compliment, not returning a bow or greeting, insulting some1, are a big deal in Japanese society (ok, I’m generalizing as *gaijins *do). Surely it’s easy to see how if u put urself in the head of a 1945 Japanese, and were told that an occupation of ur home holy soil to end a costly, bloody war would only be temporary, this would be swallowable, while if u were told it was permanent, it wouldn’t be? I don’t have the stats, but there was very little resistance or attax on g.i.s post-war - and part of this was the knowledge that soon the *gaijins *would be gone. Not having the Emperor deposed or forcibly removed was the cherry on the sundae to seal the deal (or, wasabi on the sushi 
).
You do realize that there are significant US forces deployed at bases on the Home Islands, right? This includes a naval base complete with aircraft carrier at Yokosuka, near the mouth of Tokyo Bay.
I’m curious if anyone has further evidence of the contribution of African nations to the war. I’m pretty unfamiliar with the military actions in Africa and was wondering what nations had the greatest contributions. It sounds like Morocco was a significant participant. For instance, did South African troops participate in Africa to a large extent?
And Yokota AFB just outside Tokyo.
Africa was still European colonies during WW2. Moroccan (and Algerian, Senegalese,etc) troops fought under the French flag. Most of the Free French forces fighting in the Mediterranean in the Italian campaign were colonial forces. Large numbers of African colonial troops had earlier fought in France in 1940, notably at the Battle of Gembloux where a Moroccan and a North African division halted two German panzer divisions, inflicting heavy losses.
The fighting in Africa was the North African campaign fought from 1940-43, the East African campaign from 1940-41 against Italian colonies and Madagascar in 1942 with the Allies taking the Island from Vichy France. The British used a lot of African troops from various colonies in the East African campaign, and many of them were later sent to fight in Burma as the 11th East African, 81st West African and 82nd West African divisions. South Africa participated heavily in the North African campaign where the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd South African Infantry divisions fought and later sent the 6th South African Armored division to fight in Italy.
With the exception of South Africa, which was an independent British dominion, same as Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Hey Polycarp, just thought of a book on this topic that you might enjoy reading: “Six Armies in Normandy” which has six chapters, one for each of the armies which participated in theNormandy campaign: British, US, Free French, Canadian, Polish, and German.