This was the name of the American plan for the two phase invasion of Japan, due to start with Operation Olympic in November 1945 if the war had not been brough to an end beforehand. Apart from the British Pacific Fleet, it would have been an all American affair. These two links give good information on the plan and the planned Japanese defence: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/war.term/olympic.html http://sandysq.gcinet.net/uss_salt_lake_ci...25/topsecrt.htm Up to a million US casualties were predicted. I only learned of this plan fairly recently and I bet it is largely unknown to many in Britain who otherwise know a lot about WWII. What are your thoughts?
I honestly thought this was common knowledge? Certainly you can appreciate why they atomic bombed the Japanese, much cheaper and effective. From my point of view, I would certainly say that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the most pragmatic and at the end of the day, least expensive (in terms of time and allied lives) solution. Nasty people wil say, but at the end of the day, it worked.
Originally posted by Dave Leonard@Sep 6 2004, 08:36 AM I honestly thought this was common knowledge. [post=28021]Quoted post[/post] I would say that the intention is common knowledge, but the plan is not.
I've come across the plan before in outline detail. Normally it gives details of which US divisions were earmarked for the assault on the mainland, with detail of spt from the USAF. On a secondary note it also details the (by comparison) negligible Commonwealth contribution. I have also seen examples of European based Commonwealth units being prepared to redeploy to the Pacific at the end of the War there, as well as the RAF being warned out to provide spt. My wifes great uncle told me how the Mosquito Sqn he was flying in was being transfered to India in July 1945 and would then spt any British efforts in the Japanese mainland. The other thing that was bandied about was the consideration that the bomb was used as a way of forcing the Japanese to seek peace with all the allies before the Rusians could start to advance in through Asia under the pretext of liberation. By that stage the US already had their sights firmly on the cold war and had no interest in wasteing US tps in Japan when it was anticipated they may be fighting Russia by 1950.
Operations Olympic and Coronet are not known as well in Europe as other events i the Pacific War. First, the invasions never took place. A good reason to forget them. Second, the initial forcs would have been mostly American. The British were to contribute naval forces as part of the US 3rd and 5th Fleets, and air units were re-deploying to Okinawa for support the invasion. These included the legendary 617 Squadron of Dambusters, complete with earthquake bombs to wreck Japanese railroad tunnels. No British ground forces would have participated in Olympic, although MacArthur planned to watch the invasion from an Australian cruiser. Coronet was to see a Commonwealth corps, consisting of a British, Australian, and Canadian division. The British outfit was the 5th Division, experienced at mountain warfare from Italy. The Canadian 6th Division, with men from all five Canadian divisions, was being reorganized in America at the time of V-J Day. The Australians were to commit the 10th Division, also a new outfit. The three divisions were to re-equip completely to American TOE and weaponry (probably even uniforms) to ease the logistical strain. The Canadian division was nearly complete with its re-organization, down to have three brigades replaced by three regiments. The Canadians cashed in their Lee-Enfields and Bren guns for M-1s and .50-calibers. Many American vehicles, like decue-and-a-half ton trucks, Sherman tanks, and jeeps, were already in heavy Commonwealth use. A French division may have participated later in the campaign, along with a token Dutch force. MacArthur ruled out use of the Indian and Chinese armies in Olympic and Coronet. Casualties, needless to say, would have been immense. The Japanese were mobilizing 10-year-old girls and boys with pikes, bayonets, and ceramic hand grenades, to launch suicide attacks. They had 20 million men, women, and children, mobilized.
"If the Americans invade we have our 100,000,000" From the movie Hiroshima I forget who said it though.
The Kamikaze attacks would have been horrendous. The Japanese had changed their operational art and tactics for Kamikaze use for Olympic and Coronet. Realizing that they were having little success sinking carriers and battleships, the Kamikaze attacks on Olympic convoys would aim for the troop transports. In addition, the Japanese had thousands of suicide attack boats ready for one-way voyages to ram themselves into American ships. These would clearly have beenhurled, by virtue of their short range, at the American invasion forces. So casualties would have been high among the invaders before the reached shore.
Therr are (at least) two good books about 'Downfall': 'Codename Downfall' by Thomas B. Allen and Norman Polmar and the rather more academic but still readable 'The Invasion of Japan' by J.ohn Ray Skates. I got interested in the subject when SPI published a wargame on it in the 1970's and later when I read a 'what if' novel called 'The Burning Mountain' by Alfred Coppell about Operation 'Coronet'. While British ground forces wouldn't have participated in 'Olympic' ( and possibly not in 'Coronet' either), it should not be forgotten that Commonwealth forces would have taken part in proposed operations elsewhere in Asia. My late father of 1st Northamptons was in training for Operation 'Zipper' the amphibious invasion of Malaya when the atomic bombs were dropped
Originally posted by Mark Hone@May 10 2005, 05:27 AM I got interested in the subject when SPI published a wargame on it in the 1970's and later when I read a 'what if' novel called 'The Burning Mountain' by Alfred Coppell about Operation 'Coronet'. [post=34322]Quoted post[/post] I am not a "what if" person, but I must say that this one takes some beating. Fairly detailed US and Japanese plans, loads of controversial factors to dispute, but never happened. Can't think of any other WWII situation quite so ripe with possibilities for speculation.
Originally posted by Dave Leonard@Sep 6 2004, 10:36 AM I honestly thought this was common knowledge? Certainly you can appreciate why they atomic bombed the Japanese, much cheaper and effective. From my point of view, I would certainly say that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the most pragmatic and at the end of the day, least expensive (in terms of time and allied lives) solution. Nasty people wil say, but at the end of the day, it worked. [post=28021]Quoted post[/post] But we should ask if the targets were chosen carefully enough. Don't you think?
Hiroshima was picked for its industrial importance, and its status as headquarters for the southern "Area Army" and proximity to the Imperial Japanese Navy's main base at Hashirajima. Nagasaki was a similar target, but it was not the primary target for its mission -- that was Kokura, which is today part of Kitakyushu, a mega-city in Kyushu. Kokura was also a major industrial center. All three cities had a lot of POW slave labor, by the way. The Japanese, short on manpower after the defeats in Asia and the gruelling China campaigns, were desperate for bodies of any sort to mine their coal and weld their ships. Thus the use of starving and emaciated POWs, as well as women and children. Their last defense would have included 28 million volunteers, many of them schoolchildren and women, armed with bamboo spears and ceramic hand grenades.
Everyone talks of german atrocities and japanese atrocities for killing innocent civilians. Sure, they were guilty of war crimes. However, the Atomic Bomb did just the same thing- thousands of women, children, and elderly burned to death, all non-military civilians. Germans gassed civilians, Japanese bayonetted or gunned them down, and the Americans would wield a massive weapon of destruction. Now, America proclaims in its defense, "it had to be done," to ensure "minimal cost of American lives." The Japanese killings at China were the same exact thing, and yet, the American pilots of the Enola Gay, and the ones who planned the Manhattan Project are not put to trial. Why is this- I believe its because "winners write history." If we take careful analysis of all these events I believe it is not just the Germans and Japanese who commited horrendous war crimes, but the Americans as well.
I believe its because "winners write history." If we take careful analysis of all these events I believe it is not just the Germans and Japanese who commited horrendous war crimes, but the Americans as well. I'm sick of listening to that silly phrase about 'winners' writing history, specially when speaking about WWII. The use of the A-bombs was horrible, no one disputes that. But it definately had to be done. The Japanese were ready to stand an invasion and committ ritual sepuku as a nation. The seaborne invasion of Japan would have taken as much as 30 million Japanese lives, out of famine, fighting and conventional bombings. Why were the A-bombs dropped? Well, it was NOT the US who started the war, who invaded many nations, who enslaved, starved, mistreated and murdered the local populations, who attrociously treated POWs and partisans, who was willing to go down as a whole fighting and taking as many enemies with it as possible… The moral high ground from which the Axis and the Allies face each other in WWII is indesputable and absolutely favourable to the latter. There is no way the Axis nations can be treated as victims of anything.
Originally posted by Mark Hone@May 10 2005, 12:27 AM Therr are (at least) two good books about 'Downfall': 'Codename Downfall' by Thomas B. Allen and Norman Polmar and the rather more academic but still readable 'The Invasion of Japan' by J.ohn Ray Skates. [post=34322]Quoted post[/post] Thank you for the recommendations. I am reading "Codename Downfall" currently and it is a fascinating read. If anyone should ever have a lingering doubt that using the nuclear weapons wasn't the better option, this book will put it to bed.
Originally posted by ryobreak+Jun 21 2005, 02:07 PM-->(ryobreak @ Jun 21 2005, 02:07 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> As an Italian Ambassador noted, Japan and Germany were merely at their points of expansion, just like the Americans had done against Native Americans. Sure, the Germans and Japanese killed innocent people, but the Americans surely did as well to expand its colonies after it had won independence from Britain. How is what Japan and Germany did different from America? [post=35619]Quoted post[/post] [/b] I respect your opinion, but I can't agree with that line of reasoning. The treatment the indigenous peoples of North America recieved at the hands of Americans is to our eternal shame, but there is no comparison to the atrocities of Germany & Japan in WWII. Firstly, how can you compare the ethics of an 18th/19th century event with that of a 20th century one? Why not compare Germany & Japan in WWII to the Huns or the Mongols? They might come off looking like naughty schoolboys by comparison. Secondly, the sheer scope of the human toll that Axis exacted is breathtaking when compared to the injustices Native Americans endured. Some numbers: Wounded Knee Massacre (1890) - 300 Sioux men, women, and children are killed by US soldiers. (This was the worst single recorded act of murder commited by agents of the US govt upon Native Americans.) Battle of Nanking (1937) - 200,000 Chinese men, women and children killed by Japanese soldiers.(Not to mention the rape, pilage & torture). The list goes on. Granted, murder is murder, but the 20th century Japanese were clearly better at it than the 19th century Americans. In fact, some estimates state the death toll of Axis attrocities as greater than the entire 19th century Native American population of what is now the US. <!--QuoteBegin-ryobreak@Jun 21 2005, 02:07 PM And, the Atomic Bomb killed non-military civilians. Those people were victims of a horrendous weapon- which was dropped even though America knew innocent people would be killed. Also, a handful of POW's were killed with the dropping of those atomic bombs. Even if the Manhattan project wasn't carried through, it was estimated that by December of 1946, the Japanese would surrender. [post=35619]Quoted post[/post] Questions: What do you base the estimated date of Japan's surrender? Most of the literature I've read on the subject makes it clear that Japan would not ever accept the Allies' demand of unconditional surrender, and were planning to bleed the Americans into a compromise, even if it meant continuing the fight from China if the Home Islands were overrun. Setting aside your assertion that Japan would have surrendered anyway, how many more Japanese civilians would have been killed trying to repel an American invasion of Kyushu and Honshu than were killed by the A-bombs? Answer: millions.
Originally posted by nolanbuc+Jun 22 2005, 03:45 AM-->(nolanbuc @ Jun 22 2005, 03:45 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by ryobreak@Jun 21 2005, 02:07 PM As an Italian Ambassador noted, Japan and Germany were merely at their points of expansion, just like the Americans had done against Native Americans. Sure, the Germans and Japanese killed innocent people, but the Americans surely did as well to expand its colonies after it had won independence from Britain. How is what Japan and Germany did different from America? [post=35619]Quoted post[/post] I respect your opinion, but I can't agree with that line of reasoning. The treatment the indigenous peoples of North America recieved at the hands of Americans is to our eternal shame, but there is no comparison to the atrocities of Germany & Japan in WWII. Firstly, how can you compare the ethics of an 18th/19th century event with that of a 20th century one? Why not compare Germany & Japan in WWII to the Huns or the Mongols? They might come off looking like naughty schoolboys by comparison. Secondly, the sheer scope of the human toll that Axis exacted is breathtaking when compared to the injustices Native Americans endured. Some numbers: Wounded Knee Massacre (1890) - 300 Sioux men, women, and children are killed by US soldiers. (This was the worst single recorded act of murder commited by agents of the US govt upon Native Americans.) Battle of Nanking (1937) - 200,000 Chinese men, women and children killed by Japanese soldiers.(Not to mention the rape, pilage & torture). The list goes on. Granted, murder is murder, but the 20th century Japanese were clearly better at it than the 19th century Americans. In fact, some estimates state the death toll of Axis attrocities as greater than the entire 19th century Native American population of what is now the US. <!--QuoteBegin-ryobreak@Jun 21 2005, 02:07 PM And, the Atomic Bomb killed non-military civilians. Those people were victims of a horrendous weapon- which was dropped even though America knew innocent people would be killed. Also, a handful of POW's were killed with the dropping of those atomic bombs. Even if the Manhattan project wasn't carried through, it was estimated that by December of 1946, the Japanese would surrender. [post=35619]Quoted post[/post] Questions: What do you base the estimated date of Japan's surrender? Most of the literature I've read on the subject makes it clear that Japan would not ever accept the Allies' demand of unconditional surrender, and were planning to bleed the Americans into a compromise, even if it meant continuing the fight from China if the Home Islands were overrun. Setting aside your assertion that Japan would have surrendered anyway, how many more Japanese civilians would have been killed trying to repel an American invasion of Kyushu and Honshu than were killed by the A-bombs? Answer: millions. [post=35638]Quoted post[/post] [/b] By the end of the war, 100,000,000. It is a famous quote in Japanese, "ichi oku gyoku sai," meaning, you may bring out country down, but we 100 million strong will rise against you. The Americans had a highly effective blockade, as well as the B-29's (look at the Tokyo Raid- 96% of it was destroyed and more people were killed there than hiroshima or nagasaki).
But ryobreak, you are forgetting the "shock and awe" value and why risk fleets of B-29s when you can risk just one? Actually, if you are going to do area bombing, then a nuke is just an area weapon which delivers more bang.
How is what Japan and Germany did different from America? That Germany and Japan were both fascist dictatorships (one of them a totalitarian one) that had only genocide and enslavement for the conquered peoples. Nothing else. The nature of their imperialism and the things they did (in sheer numbers) do not stand comparisson. And, the Atomic Bomb killed non-military civilians AT THE TIME, in 1945, enemy civilians were considered to be a legitimate military target. And the very first to do that were the Japanese, by bombing Chinese cities in 1937. Even if the Manhattan project wasn't carried through, it was estimated that by December of 1946, the Japanese would surrender. What evidence do you have to suppose this? The only evidence of 'surrender' the Americans have in 1945 were the 5.000 Kamikazes at Okinawa or the very few POWs they took at Okinawa and Iwo Jima after taking 100.000 casualties. The Americans had a highly effective blockade Still, Japan had some 9.000 planes to throw in Kamikaze attacks, 900.000 regular soldiers and some 30.000.0000 militia, even highschool girls trained to fatally use bamboos. as well as the B-29's (look at the Tokyo Raid- 96% of it was destroyed and more people were killed there than hiroshima or nagasaki). You accept then, that, had the bombing gone on, ALL Japanese cities would have suffered Tokio's fate, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a greater scale than they actually did?
