Japan 1945 under seige

[SolomonW]

Say you are a planner and after Okinawa, you are asked to consider an
alternative to the invasion of besieging Japan. You do not know of nuclear
weapons or the Russian intensions.

You are allowed some landing in Japan, but the primary aim will be to
neutralize Japan with minimum losses and place it under a long term siege.


How do you think your plan would look?

[jerry kraus]

Post by SolomonW
Say you are a planner and after Okinawa, you are asked to consider an
alternative to the invasion of besieging Japan. You do not know of nuclear
weapons or the Russian intensions.
You are allowed some landing in Japan, but the primary aim will be to
neutralize Japan with minimum losses and place it under a long term siege.
How do you think your plan would look?

Probably a lot like the Imperial Japanese plan for besieging Australia. Cut off their fuel supplies, turn them into a medieval island state. That actually might not work very well with Japan, however, since that was precisely what Japan quite happily was, until Commodore Perry decided they should open their doors. The problem with besieging and isolating Japan, as a military strategy, is that the Japanese are quite used to being isolated, and rather like that particular arrangement, thank you very much, indeed.

[SolomonW]

Post by jerry kraus

Post by SolomonW
Say you are a planner and after Okinawa, you are asked to consider an
alternative to the invasion of besieging Japan. You do not know of nuclear
weapons or the Russian intensions.
You are allowed some landing in Japan, but the primary aim will be to
neutralize Japan with minimum losses and place it under a long term siege.
How do you think your plan would look?

Probably a lot like the Imperial Japanese plan for besieging Australia. Cut off their fuel supplies, turn them into a medieval island state. That actually might not work very well with Japan, however, since that was precisely what Japan quite happily was, until Commodore Perry decided they should open their doors. The problem with besieging and isolating Japan, as a military strategy, is that the Japanese are quite used to being isolated, and rather like that particular arrangement, thank you very much, indeed.

If you read pyotr filipivich reply. He is right that we would see

"Lots and lots of mines. Continue on with
what was working so far - fire-raids, submarines, and the USN pounding
costal targets."


It is hardly the isolationist policy that some Japanese would like.

[John Dallman]

Post by SolomonW
Say you are a planner and after Okinawa, you are asked to consider
an alternative to the invasion, of besieging Japan. You do not know of
nuclear weapons or the Russian intensions.

The Soviets had agreed at the Tehran and Yalta conferences to join the
war against Japan within three months of the end of the war in Europe.

Post by SolomonW
You are allowed some landing in Japan, but the primary aim will be
to neutralize Japan with minimum losses and place it under a long
term siege.
How do you think your plan would look?

We're in June 1945 or later, so we know what collapsed the German war
economy, and that looks like a good line to take. You need to cut
Japanese industry off from its sources of fuel, and you need to destroy
the transport infrastructure. Since Japanese coal is produced at the ends
of the country, and the industry that uses it is in the centre, the
transport system is the main target.

That comes down to wrecking the railway system, preferably at its bridges,
viaducts and marshalling yards, since those are much harder to repair
than lengths of track. You also want to step up the mining of Japanese
coastal waters, since a lot of transport is done by coastal shipping. The
results from Germany give confidence that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Starvation is on the right track.
The USN submarine force needs to work further from Japan, to avoid the
minefields, interdicting imports from China and Korea.

There are some special cases, like the rail ferries that moved lots of
coal from Hokkaido to Honshu, which the USN did a lot of damage to, but
that job needs to be finished off. The USN has the main tactical air
force that we can bring to bear, so it should deal with tactical targets
like airfields, military HQs, and ports.

The other missions of the XXI Bomber Command, burning cities, and
destroying the Japanese oil industry, can continue unchanged, since
they're going to damage industry and deprive the Japanese military of
fuel.

With all of this done, Japan's combat power will be small, but it will be
necessary to keep up reconnaissance and attack missions to keep them
suppressed and allow the Japanese military time to realise that this is
pointless.

They would realise that faster if we switched to attacking agriculture
and used tactical aviation on the fishing fleet, but this would cause
mass starvation.

There's no obvious need for invasion at this stage. Commando raids to
destroy railway bridges and the like may be worthwhile, once detailed
planning has been done.

If Japan holds out for a long time, the combat power of their forces in
China and south-east Asia will start to wither, while that of the Allied
armies will grow, and the Soviets must be expected to join in, as per
their agreements. The Chinese Civil War may re-ignite, and we need to
decide what we do about that, since the Soviets will presumably side with
the Communists.

John

[SolomonW]

Post by John Dallman

Post by SolomonW
Say you are a planner and after Okinawa, you are asked to consider
an alternative to the invasion, of besieging Japan. You do not know of
nuclear weapons or the Russian intensions.

The Soviets had agreed at the Tehran and Yalta conferences to join the
war against Japan within three months of the end of the war in Europe.

Post by SolomonW
You are allowed some landing in Japan, but the primary aim will be
to neutralize Japan with minimum losses and place it under a long
term siege.
How do you think your plan would look?

We're in June 1945 or later, so we know what collapsed the German war
economy, and that looks like a good line to take. You need to cut
Japanese industry off from its sources of fuel, and you need to destroy
the transport infrastructure. Since Japanese coal is produced at the ends
of the country, and the industry that uses it is in the centre, the
transport system is the main target.
That comes down to wrecking the railway system, preferably at its bridges,
viaducts and marshalling yards, since those are much harder to repair
than lengths of track. You also want to step up the mining of Japanese
coastal waters, since a lot of transport is done by coastal shipping. The
results from Germany give confidence that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Starvation is on the right track.
The USN submarine force needs to work further from Japan, to avoid the
minefields, interdicting imports from China and Korea.
There are some special cases, like the rail ferries that moved lots of
coal from Hokkaido to Honshu, which the USN did a lot of damage to, but
that job needs to be finished off. The USN has the main tactical air
force that we can bring to bear, so it should deal with tactical targets
like airfields, military HQs, and ports.
The other missions of the XXI Bomber Command, burning cities, and
destroying the Japanese oil industry, can continue unchanged, since
they're going to damage industry and deprive the Japanese military of
fuel.
With all of this done, Japan's combat power will be small, but it will be
necessary to keep up reconnaissance and attack missions to keep them
suppressed and allow the Japanese military time to realise that this is
pointless.
They would realise that faster if we switched to attacking agriculture
and used tactical aviation on the fishing fleet, but this would cause
mass starvation.
There's no obvious need for invasion at this stage. Commando raids to
destroy railway bridges and the like may be worthwhile, once detailed
planning has been done.
If Japan holds out for a long time, the combat power of their forces in
China and south-east Asia will start to wither, while that of the Allied
armies will grow, and the Soviets must be expected to join in, as per
their agreements. The Chinese Civil War may re-ignite, and we need to
decide what we do about that, since the Soviets will presumably side with
the Communists.
John

Some British and French colonialist wanted such a policy as it would mean
that they could conquer back their former territories while the war was
still on.

[Rich Rostrom]

Say you are a planner and after Okinawa, you ... do
not know of ... or the Russian intensions.

The Okinawa campaign ended on 22 June.

The USSR had pledged to enter the war against
Japan 90 days after the surrender of Germany,
which pledge was made explicitly at Yalta in
February.

So there has to be a PoD to cover this. (The
atomic bomb was still under development, and
top secret, so in theory a US planner would
not know of it.)

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Say you are a planner and after Okinawa, you ... do
not know of ... or the Russian intensions.

The Okinawa campaign ended on 22 June.
The USSR had pledged to enter the war against
Japan 90 days after the surrender of Germany,
which pledge was made explicitly at Yalta in
February.
So there has to be a PoD to cover this. (The
atomic bomb was still under development, and
top secret, so in theory a US planner would
not know of it.)

I think the biggest hurdle is casualties. The US was trying to avoid or
minimize them while Stalin was not as concerned about them. I don't
think he'd have any qualm against accepting the casualties if he could
grab all or most of Japan because the US stood by doing nothing.

[The Horny Goat]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 14:22:22 -0700, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler
I think the biggest hurdle is casualties. The US was trying to avoid or
minimize them while Stalin was not as concerned about them. I don't
think he'd have any qualm against accepting the casualties if he could
grab all or most of Japan because the US stood by doing nothing.

For sure Stalin gets all of Sakhalin - likely all or most of Hokkaido
possibly even Sapporo.

I agree - giving Stalin a free hand in Japan would have large negative
consequences if the US really did to "stood by doing nothing"

[SolomonW]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Rich Rostrom

Say you are a planner and after Okinawa, you ... do
not know of ... or the Russian intensions.

The Okinawa campaign ended on 22 June.
The USSR had pledged to enter the war against
Japan 90 days after the surrender of Germany,
which pledge was made explicitly at Yalta in
February.
So there has to be a PoD to cover this. (The
atomic bomb was still under development, and
top secret, so in theory a US planner would
not know of it.)

I think the biggest hurdle is casualties. The US was trying to avoid or
minimize them while Stalin was not as concerned about them. I don't
think he'd have any qualm against accepting the casualties if he could
grab all or most of Japan because the US stood by doing nothing.

One way to reduce casualties by the US is using the Chinese army.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by SolomonW

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Rich Rostrom

Say you are a planner and after Okinawa, you ... do
not know of ... or the Russian intensions.

The Okinawa campaign ended on 22 June.
The USSR had pledged to enter the war against
Japan 90 days after the surrender of Germany,
which pledge was made explicitly at Yalta in
February.
So there has to be a PoD to cover this. (The
atomic bomb was still under development, and
top secret, so in theory a US planner would
not know of it.)

I think the biggest hurdle is casualties. The US was trying to avoid or
minimize them while Stalin was not as concerned about them. I don't
think he'd have any qualm against accepting the casualties if he could
grab all or most of Japan because the US stood by doing nothing.

One way to reduce casualties by the US is using the Chinese army.

The first thing that came to mind when I read that was "Revenge for
Nanking".

Wouldn't the Chinese prefer to clear the Japanese forces from China
first? If nothing else they'd need to recapture one of the major ports
to ship large number of troops to Japan.

[SolomonW]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by SolomonW

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Rich Rostrom

Say you are a planner and after Okinawa, you ... do
not know of ... or the Russian intensions.

The Okinawa campaign ended on 22 June.
The USSR had pledged to enter the war against
Japan 90 days after the surrender of Germany,
which pledge was made explicitly at Yalta in
February.
So there has to be a PoD to cover this. (The
atomic bomb was still under development, and
top secret, so in theory a US planner would
not know of it.)

I think the biggest hurdle is casualties. The US was trying to avoid or
minimize them while Stalin was not as concerned about them. I don't
think he'd have any qualm against accepting the casualties if he could
grab all or most of Japan because the US stood by doing nothing.

One way to reduce casualties by the US is using the Chinese army.

The first thing that came to mind when I read that was "Revenge for
Nanking".
Wouldn't the Chinese prefer to clear the Japanese forces from China
first? If nothing else they'd need to recapture one of the major ports
to ship large number of troops to Japan.

I remember reading that this option is what really frightened the Japanese
leadership

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by SolomonW

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by SolomonW

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Rich Rostrom

Say you are a planner and after Okinawa, you ... do
not know of ... or the Russian intensions.

The Okinawa campaign ended on 22 June.
The USSR had pledged to enter the war against
Japan 90 days after the surrender of Germany,
which pledge was made explicitly at Yalta in
February.
So there has to be a PoD to cover this. (The
atomic bomb was still under development, and
top secret, so in theory a US planner would
not know of it.)

I think the biggest hurdle is casualties. The US was trying to avoid or
minimize them while Stalin was not as concerned about them. I don't
think he'd have any qualm against accepting the casualties if he could
grab all or most of Japan because the US stood by doing nothing.

One way to reduce casualties by the US is using the Chinese army.

The first thing that came to mind when I read that was "Revenge for
Nanking".
Wouldn't the Chinese prefer to clear the Japanese forces from China
first? If nothing else they'd need to recapture one of the major ports
to ship large number of troops to Japan.

I remember reading that this option is what really frightened the Japanese
leadership

I've heard that before but I'm not sure how realistic it was. As I said
first they need a port. It would probably still require US troops
making the initial landing to establish a beachhead to land the Chinese
at since they have zero experience with amphibious operations. Then
there's the mess that China was in politically which I suspect would
make making Chinese troops available in those kinds of numbers
difficult, not to mention the lack of quality and equipment I believe
they were still suffering from in 1945.

[SolomonW]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by SolomonW

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by SolomonW

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Rich Rostrom

Say you are a planner and after Okinawa, you ... do
not know of ... or the Russian intensions.

The Okinawa campaign ended on 22 June.
The USSR had pledged to enter the war against
Japan 90 days after the surrender of Germany,
which pledge was made explicitly at Yalta in
February.
So there has to be a PoD to cover this. (The
atomic bomb was still under development, and
top secret, so in theory a US planner would
not know of it.)

I think the biggest hurdle is casualties. The US was trying to avoid or
minimize them while Stalin was not as concerned about them. I don't
think he'd have any qualm against accepting the casualties if he could
grab all or most of Japan because the US stood by doing nothing.

One way to reduce casualties by the US is using the Chinese army.

The first thing that came to mind when I read that was "Revenge for
Nanking".
Wouldn't the Chinese prefer to clear the Japanese forces from China
first? If nothing else they'd need to recapture one of the major ports
to ship large number of troops to Japan.

I remember reading that this option is what really frightened the Japanese
leadership

I've heard that before but I'm not sure how realistic it was. As I said
first they need a port.

A port would be a problem.

Post by Dimensional Traveler
It would probably still require US troops
making the initial landing to establish a beachhead to land the Chinese
at since they have zero experience with amphibious operations.

Yes

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Then
there's the mess that China was in politically which I suspect would
make making Chinese troops available in those kinds of numbers
difficult, not to mention the lack of quality and equipment I believe
they were still suffering from in 1945.

If the US is willing to pay, I doubt this would be an insolvable problem.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by SolomonW

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by SolomonW
One way to reduce casualties by the US is using
the Chinese army.

The first thing that came to mind when I read that
was "Revenge for Nanking".
Wouldn't the Chinese prefer to clear the Japanese
forces from China first? If nothing else they'd
need to recapture one of the major ports to ship
large number of troops to Japan.

I remember reading that this option is what really
frightened the Japanese leadership

You have read this? It occurred to me, but I didn't
know there was any history about it. I had reasoned:

The last fantasy of the hardliners was that when US
troops landed in Japan, the Japanese could hit them
with mass banzai attacks, inflicting heavy casualties
that would "shock" the weak-willed Americans into
accepting a negotiated peace.

If the Chinese were going to invade... the Japanese
could not possibly inflict enough casualties to
make them flinch, so that fantasy would be void.

I suppose it is reasonable that the Japanese actually
considered it, and that there is some historical
record of that. Do you recall where you read about this?

[SolomonW]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by SolomonW

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by SolomonW
One way to reduce casualties by the US is using
the Chinese army.

The first thing that came to mind when I read that
was "Revenge for Nanking".
Wouldn't the Chinese prefer to clear the Japanese
forces from China first? If nothing else they'd
need to recapture one of the major ports to ship
large number of troops to Japan.

I remember reading that this option is what really
frightened the Japanese leadership

You have read this? It occurred to me, but I didn't
The last fantasy of the hardliners was that when US
troops landed in Japan, the Japanese could hit them
with mass banzai attacks, inflicting heavy casualties
that would "shock" the weak-willed Americans into
accepting a negotiated peace.
If the Chinese were going to invade... the Japanese
could not possibly inflict enough casualties to
make them flinch, so that fantasy would be void.
I suppose it is reasonable that the Japanese actually
considered it, and that there is some historical
record of that. Do you recall where you read about this?

A very dubious but well researched book
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%27s_Imperial_Conspiracy

[pyotr filipivich]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Say you are a planner and after Okinawa, you ... do
not know of ... or the Russian intensions.

The Okinawa campaign ended on 22 June.
The USSR had pledged to enter the war against
Japan 90 days after the surrender of Germany,
which pledge was made explicitly at Yalta in
February.
So there has to be a PoD to cover this. (The
atomic bomb was still under development, and
top secret, so in theory a US planner would
not know of it.)

POD - meh. In OTL (iirc) the intent was to wind up the war with
Japan within a year of the end of the war in Europe.

But assume the battle for Okinawa was a lot worse, ships
destroyed, casualties, usw. And a typhoon blows through "early". so
implement Plan B: mines. Lots and lots of mines. Continue on with
what was working so far - fire-raids, submarines, and the USN pounding
costal targets.

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 18:18:54 -0700, pyotr filipivich
<***@mindspring.com> wrote:

[snip]

Post by pyotr filipivich
POD - meh. In OTL (iirc) the intent was to wind up the war with
Japan within a year of the end of the war in Europe.
But assume the battle for Okinawa was a lot worse, ships
destroyed, casualties, usw. And a typhoon blows through "early". so
implement Plan B: mines. Lots and lots of mines. Continue on with
what was working so far - fire-raids, submarines, and the USN pounding
costal targets.

What is *not* a coastal target in Japan?

I play _Nippon Rails_ which is a crayon rail game. There is at
least one event which affects rail movement within four mileposts
(which are *not* miles) of the coast. That covers most of Japan. The
parts not covered are highly mountainous. (To put it in perspective,
if it were eight instead of four, I think all of Japan would be
covered.)

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchekno

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 18:18:54 -0700, pyotr filipivich
[snip]

Post by pyotr filipivich
POD - meh. In OTL (iirc) the intent was to wind up the war with
Japan within a year of the end of the war in Europe.
But assume the battle for Okinawa was a lot worse, ships
destroyed, casualties, usw. And a typhoon blows through "early". so
implement Plan B: mines. Lots and lots of mines. Continue on with
what was working so far - fire-raids, submarines, and the USN pounding
costal targets.

What is *not* a coastal target in Japan?
I play _Nippon Rails_ which is a crayon rail game. There is at
least one event which affects rail movement within four mileposts
(which are *not* miles) of the coast. That covers most of Japan. The
parts not covered are highly mountainous. (To put it in perspective,
if it were eight instead of four, I think all of Japan would be
covered.)

I think what he might mean by "coastal Japan" is what is in range of the
battleships' main guns. :) Its not like naval aviation couldn't reach
any part of the Home Islands they wanted to.

[pyotr filipivich]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 18:18:54 -0700, pyotr filipivich
[snip]

Post by pyotr filipivich
POD - meh. In OTL (iirc) the intent was to wind up the war with
Japan within a year of the end of the war in Europe.
But assume the battle for Okinawa was a lot worse, ships
destroyed, casualties, usw. And a typhoon blows through "early". so
implement Plan B: mines. Lots and lots of mines. Continue on with
what was working so far - fire-raids, submarines, and the USN pounding
costal targets.

What is *not* a coastal target in Japan?
I play _Nippon Rails_ which is a crayon rail game. There is at
least one event which affects rail movement within four mileposts
(which are *not* miles) of the coast. That covers most of Japan. The
parts not covered are highly mountainous. (To put it in perspective,
if it were eight instead of four, I think all of Japan would be
covered.)

I think what he might mean by "coastal Japan" is what is in range of the
battleships' main guns. :)

Yeah. That's the limit. What can be hit by a battle ship is
"coastal".

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Its not like naval aviation couldn't reach
any part of the Home Islands they wanted to.

Definitely.

[t***@go.com]

Post by SolomonW
Say you are a planner and after Okinawa, you are asked to consider an
alternative to the invasion of besieging Japan. You do not know of nuclear
weapons or the Russian intensions.
You are allowed some landing in Japan, but the primary aim will be to
neutralize Japan with minimum losses and place it under a long term siege.
How do you think your plan would look?

I am thinking that the U.S. rejected this plan
because they considered that it might take too
long.

It might be that the Japanese might be driven
out of China or Korea, but they might hold out
in Japan as late as 1947 or even later.

Military planners considered that not concluding
the war for so long a time could have other bad
effects on both internal U.S. politics as well as
international relations.

Without an invasion but with a total blockade,
Japan would not surrender for many, many years,
and under such a long term scenario a peace
treaty might be considered better than continuing
the war for such a long period of time when everywhere
else it had ended.

That is however an option that might have been taken.

Olympic/Coronet was another one.

The one taken in our time line was one that became
available - the atomic bomb.

Overall I think the most likely scenario is that
somewhere between 1946 and 1948 there will be major
disagreements between the Allies about making peace
with Japan. Some might and some might not. Japan
would likely not surrender as the result of a blockade
alone.

[unknown]

Post by t***@go.com
am thinking that the U.S. rejected this plan
because they considered that it might take too
long.

There was a problem with POW and interned civilians likely to suffer
more than the Japanese from a siege. According to postwar trials plans
existed to kill all POW in Japan to save food. As for using Chinese
troops there will be problems with internal Chinese politics, the
Nationalists and the Communists were more interested in fighting each
other than invading Japan. There was a perceived need in all the Allies
to bring the war to a conclusion. If Japan had not surrendered the
invasion would have gone ahead. Considering Japanese resistance plans
involved using civilians and US plans included using nukes the death toll
was likely to have been enormous and probably would have destroyed the
Japanese culture. All things considered I am greatful for the OTL

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by t***@go.com
I am thinking that the U.S. rejected this plan
because they considered that it might take too
long.

Dan Gallery proposed it to the Logistics
Committee of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
(He was an alternate member, sitting that
day for his boss, an admiral.) In his words:

"I should have stood in bed. The Army and
Air Force members looked at me as if I
had puked on the table."

IOW, it was not even considered.

[Insane Ranter]

Post by SolomonW
Say you are a planner and after Okinawa, you are asked to consider an
alternative to the invasion of besieging Japan. You do not know of nuclear
weapons or the Russian intensions.
You are allowed some landing in Japan, but the primary aim will be to
neutralize Japan with minimum losses and place it under a long term siege.
How do you think your plan would look?

Do we have a choice of beaches other than those in Downfall? Unless we take Korea first giving somewhere to land more north. But is there really anywhere good to land? I'm not sure how the beaches in Japan are or how plentiful.

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 21:07:36 -0700 (PDT), Insane Ranter

Post by Insane Ranter
Do we have a choice of beaches other than those in Downfall? Unless we take Korea first giving somewhere to land more north. But is there really anywhere good to land? I'm not sure how the beaches in Japan are or how plentiful.

Is there seriously any doubt that given another 3-4 weeks of Japanese
resistance the Soviets would have gone all the way to Pusan?

How does the United States make serious landings in Korea with the
Japanese air force still functioning?

[pyotr filipivich]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 21:07:36 -0700 (PDT), Insane Ranter

Post by Insane Ranter
Do we have a choice of beaches other than those in Downfall? Unless we take Korea first giving somewhere to land more north. But is there really anywhere good to land? I'm not sure how the beaches in Japan are or how plentiful.

Is there seriously any doubt that given another 3-4 weeks of Japanese
resistance the Soviets would have gone all the way to Pusan?

No.

Post by The Horny Goat
How does the United States make serious landings in Korea with the
Japanese air force still functioning?

Take a base of operations in southern Japan. That will simplify
things.