That video ask the wrong question. They ask if the Japanese CAN do it, we’re asking if the Japanese COULD do it.
Was the invasion of Okinawa even necessary?
-
Okinawa needed to be invaded as a plan b for a bomb failure. Think about pelielu, wrote off as an easy victory, phillipenes had been invaded a few days before successfully, ended up being the bloodiest and costliest battle of the war IMO
-
The more Japanese land that was under US control, the better….agreed that it was necessary in case the bombs failed, or if Japan was going to fight to the last man. The faster and the more able to take over the main island before Russia could muster its own invasion force would help prevent a divided Japan like that of Germany/Berlin…imagine how the last 60 years would have played out with a divided Japan?
-
The more Japanese land that was under US control, the better….agreed that it was necessary in case the bombs failed, or if Japan was going to fight to the last man. The faster and the more able to take over the main island before Russia could muster its own invasion force would help prevent a divided Japan like that of Germany/Berlin…imagine how the last 60 years would have played out with a divided Japan?
How could the USSR have invaded Japan?
-
How could the USSR have invaded Japan?
The short answer is, they couldn’t.
The invasion of Okinawa was needed from a logistical standpoint as a staging area for further operations. If the US needed to make an amphibious landing on the Japanese home islands, then Okinawa was going to be essential as a forward base. For this location the US could amass supplies, equipment, organize replacement troops and have large field hospitals to help care for the massive amounts of wounded an invasion of the Japanese home islands would have entailed. Also by using the airfields at Okinawa and Iwo Jima, air cover for any land assault could be greatly increased as land base fighters/bombers could be added to the air fleets operating off the carriers. As was stated earlier the invasion of Japan proper would make D-day look like a side show and the Us would need all the material support they could get
-
Declaration of war by the Soviets happened and begun invasion of Manchuria and other positions on Aug 8th (two days prior to Hiroshima, day prior to Nagasaki). Â Fighting continued, even after the surrender, but the Soviets would have joined, because for them, it more territory, more global influence, and hinder western democracies.
-
Couldn’t? You mean not at that point…while they were not as well managed in the Pacific yet, the Soviets made numerous large assaults against Japanese held lands and islands…so to say they couldn’t, is far fetched…it would have been another coridinated assault, with the major powers together invading and capturing Tokyo, and thus dividing it like Berlin/Germany…
-
See also for further indication of this: Korea
-
See also for further indication of this: Korea
The Soviet Union shared a land border with Korea, that’s how they were able to invade it, as well as most of the other Japanese territory they over-ran during WW2. The Soviets hand neither the logistical capacity nor the shipping to manage a large scale invasion of Japan that would have been necessary to secure themselves an occupation zone like they did in Germany. Even in the operations on Sakhalin island the Soviets had a land border to start from and their invasion of the Kuril islands was slap-dash at best, with most of their troops being brought to shore in mine trawlers and PT boats. The 20,000 strong Japanese garrison didn’t even put up a fight as the surrender was already in effect so its not like the Soviets were making a hostile land fall anyway. In the grand scheme of things these were very small operations and a full scale invasion of Japan, even Hokkaido, would require ten times the shipping and logistical support that the Soviet Union did not have.
-
See also for further indication of this: Korea
The Soviet Union shared a land border with Korea, that’s how they were able to invade it, as well as most of the other Japanese territory they over-ran during WW2. The Soviets hand neither the logistical capacity nor the shipping to manage a large scale invasion of Japan that would have been necessary to secure themselves an occupation zone like they did in Germany. Even in the operations on Sakhalin island the Soviets had a land border to start from and their invasion of the Kuril islands was slap-dash at best, with most of their troops being brought to shore in mine trawlers and PT boats. The 20,000 strong Japanese garrison didn’t even put up a fight as the surrender was already in effect so its not like the Soviets were making a hostile land fall anyway. In the grand scheme of things these were very small operations and a full scale invasion of Japan, even Hokkaido, would require ten times the shipping and logistical support that the Soviet Union did not have.
Clyde is absolutly correct!
-
The only reason they didn’t have all of Korea is because we had the other end….the point is, if the bombs failed to operate or failed to convince the Japanese to surrender, the Russians would have made significant gains and had time to send some support that way to aide in the invasion. If an invasion had begun, because of the time frame, it may have not been until late fall or early Spring (It’s very, very cold and blustery there…no fun standing watch outside there, I know from experience). And the attacks began a full week before the surrender, so if they didn’t fight, it wasn’t due to that…and a lot of the Japanese probably didn’t surrender, they were outflanked, outmanned, outgunned, outsmarted by the Russians in Manchuria…in addition, they probably didn’t have cliffs to throw themselves off of (seen the suicide cliffs in Guam, Saipan, and Okinawa).
-
The only reason they didn’t have all of Korea is because we had the other end
Because we had secured that in agreements with the Soviets before they joined the war in the Pacific, though I don’t see what that has to do with Soviets naval logistical capabilities?
if the bombs failed to operate or failed to convince the Japanese to surrender, the Russians would have made significant gains and had time to send some support that way to aide in the invasion.
IF the bombs failed, and that’s a pretty big if, but what gains could the Soviets have made outside of taking the rest of Korea? What support could they have sent? You can’t conjure institutionalized naval amphibious doctrine and logistical support over night. It took the US years of brutal bloody fighting in the early years of the Pacific war to perfect it by the time of Okinawa, and it still wasn’t perfect at that time.
And the attacks began a full week before the surrender, so if they didn’t fight, it wasn’t due to that….and a lot of the Japanese probably didn’t surrender, they were outflanked, outmanned, outgunned, outsmarted by the Russians in Manchuria…in addition, they probably didn’t have cliffs to throw themselves off of (seen the suicide cliffs in Guam, Saipan, and Okinawa).
I don’t know what any of that is supposed to be about? Is this in reference to the comments I made about the garrison of Kuril Islands just giving up when the Soviets attacked? The Soviets didn’t “attack” the Kuril’s until Aug 28th and at that point the signing of the formal surrender was only four days away. The Japanese commander was aware of this and rather then put the surrender cabinet in an awkward position during this sensitive time he was under strict orders to surrender to the occupying Soviet forces. None of the above statement applies to this specific situation.
-
I’m in agreement with Clyde. Not only did they not have the logistical support, they would have probably fared far worse than we would have. Assuming they were able to get onto the island, they would have taken a massive beating (taking from their fighting with Germany) and would have lost ungodly amounts of men.
-
I’m in agreement with Clyde. Not only did they not have the logistical support, they would have probably fared far worse than we would have. Assuming they were able to get onto the island, they would have taken a massive beating (taking from their fighting with Germany) and would have lost ungodly amounts of men.
I agree with Clyde and Otahere but…
Stalin would have had no problems burning through 10 million lives (just his own troops) if it meant the capture of Japan + more.
The western powers did, and still do value life differently.
-
Stalin would have had no problems burning through 10 million lives (just his own troops) if it meant the capture of Japan + more.
This is kind of a loaded statement. While it is true Stalin didn’t care how great the losses he suffered were if it brought him closer to what ever his end goal was, it must carry the caveat *if he could afford to". By this time in the war Soviet losses were so enormous that even Stalin realized he was getting to the bottom of the barrel of his manpower resources and had begun to show some restraint.
In the end though it’s all idle speculation as the boundaries between the Western powers (especially the USA) had been predetermined at Yalta and the Soviets showed no sign of breaking them at that time.
-
The Soviet didn’t have capability to invade Japan, they just had claims to Sakhalin Islands and possibly Korea which they lost in the 1905 war. The A-bomb created a huge vacuum for Stalin to mop up demoralized Kwangtung Army units in Manchukuo.
Okinawa could not be bypassed, a further invasion of Southern Japan could not take place without this logistical island. You need a good staging area and Okinawa and Iwo Jima are both necessary to that end.
Mainland China would not be good because Japan still had credible army units within reach, but had zero naval capabilities…so it was a safe choice to use the islands to stage invasion.
Suggested Topics
