The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - December 3, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest

Advertisement



New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies

Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
World War II - Japan Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: What caused the Japanese to surrender, Russia's attack vs the US atomic attacks
OSAAMA    4/20/2007 6:08:36 PM
The Russian invasion of Manchuria began on August 8, 1945, precisely three months after the German surrender on May 8. Notably, it began between the droppings of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima (August 6) and Nagasaki (August 9).
Was Japan's decision to surrender made before the scale of the Soviet attack on Manchuria, Sakhalin, and the Kuril Islands was known (See Downfall, pg 289), but had the war continued, the Soviets had plans to invade Hokkaidō well before the other Allied invasion of Kyushu.
Japanese army lost 54,000 troops in the first 24hrs in Manchuria !
This involved their best division.


 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

BasinBictory       4/30/2007 2:15:20 AM
I have been reading "Downfall" about the very end of the Pacific war, and although I haven't yet finished it, it hints that the Japanese were mostly convinced that the American A-bombs would render any invasion of Kyushu unnecessary. That is the ultimate reason they surrendered, plus some shrewd diplomatic manuevering in which the USA made it clear to Japan that "unconditional surrender" still meant that the Emperor would stay in place, rather than suffer the fate of Hitler, which is what most of the Japanese ruling junta imagined.
 
The Japanese military was planning to bet all their chips on one roll of the dice in Kyushu. Their military buildup prior to the dropping of the A-bombs on the island represented more than half their total land forces on the archipelago (with most of the remainder definding the Tokyo Plain). The overall Japanese strategy was to so bleed the invading Americans that they would seek some kind of settlement short of unconditional surrender.
 
The Russian invasion of Manchuria was just the icing on the cake. Even though the Japanese forces in Manchuria were some of Japan's best and most experienced, they were effectively cut off from the homeland due to the immense losses in Japanese shipping. Their fuel shortages also rendered them basically a static force. When the Soviets attacked, the Japanese could neither manuever, nor withdraw. They were sitting ducks. Had the Russians wanted to invade Hokkaido, they would have found very little opposition, but there's the question of just how exactly they would transport an amphibious force. The Russians did not have a large navy at this point, nor any formations that were suited to this purpose.
 
Quote    Reply

obitpoh    The Japanese surrundered...isn't that all that matters?   5/3/2007 11:01:09 PM
It's actually fact that the Japanese surrendered because of the Russians, despite what the Americans want us to all believe.
The Japanese had previously stated that they could not handle a war on multiple fronts, since their army had been massacred by the Americans AND, my people, the Australians (across Kokoda, where the Japanese suffered one of their biggest defeats and the Americans were humiliated beyond all belief )
Once the Americans had bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese were going to continue to fight. The Americans offered a peace treaty after the bombings (which should actually be classified as a war crime-Genocide) AND THE JAPANESE REFUSED!!! it wasn't until three days later when the Russians threatened to invade from the North that the Japanese surrendered.
So, technically, it could have been any army to invade the South of Japan, the bombing was never necessary, all that was needed was one other country to threaten to invade, from a different direction, and the war would have been over, without hundred's of thousands of CIVILIANS being killed.
 
Quote    Reply

obitpoh    RE: The Japanese surrundered...isn't that all that matters?   5/3/2007 11:02:16 PM
Sorry...I can get a bit carried away, and i often make mistakes in that instance...Surrendered is what i meant...
 
Quote    Reply

Panther    obitpoh   5/13/2007 3:54:18 AM
Where did you learn your world history? You seem to have half of it mixed up!
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       5/13/2007 2:36:05 PM
We should remember that the Japanese end game strategy included a diplomatic effort aimed at making a separate peace with the USSR. The Japanese stalled the West as long as they still thought there was a chance to use the USSR as a peace broker. The Soviets allowed the Japanese to persist in this dillusion while they prepared to transfer their divisions out of Europe to the East.
 
It does not take much imagination to see that a prolongation of final stage of the war would open the door to a Soviet occupation of Japanese home territory with the eventuality of at least part of Japan becomimg an Iron Curtain vassal state of the USSR. Also, the Red Army had demonstrated in East Prussia a complete lack of inhibition when it came to butchering enemy civilians. Finally, the Red Army had very little feeling of humanity as regards the lives of its own troops whom it could feed into a meat grinder fight without compunction.
 
I believe that the Macado came to see that the costs of delayed surrender in terms of the inevitable peace were such as to risk the viability of the Japanese nation. As with the attack on Pearl Harbor allowing Roosevelt a means of justification for entering the war, the atomic bombs provided like means to the Macado for avoiding an invasion which could be lethal to the Japanese nation.
 
Quote    Reply

OSAAMA    CJH   5/14/2007 9:21:02 PM
I agree with your assessment regarding the Marcado who was very wise.
Given that he sanction the attack on USA!
The captains of Japanese industry celebrated on news of the surrender as they preferred the Amercan Industrialist
to the Communist.
 
Quote    Reply

buzzard       5/16/2007 12:24:30 PM


The Americans offered a peace treaty after the bombings (which should actually be classified as a war crime-Genocide) AND THE JAPANESE REFUSED!!!

Genocide? Do you have any clue about history or anything for that matter? Ever hear of the firebombing of Tokyo (or Dresden, etc.)? The nukes were a drop in the bucket compared to that. Why don't you get your panties in a bunch over that instead?

This nonsense cheapens the usage of the very word genocide.

buzzard

 
Quote    Reply

OSAAMA    Tokyo Fire bombings   5/17/2007 10:16:25 AM
Which was the genocide the 300,000 deaths in the Tokyo fire bombings or the 2 atomic attacks with 150,000 deaths.
The genocides were the Death Marchs forced on the Allied POWs.  buzzard.

 
 
Quote    Reply

buzzard       5/22/2007 12:04:34 PM

Which was the genocide the 300,000 deaths in the Tokyo fire bombings or the 2 atomic attacks with 150,000 deaths.

The genocides were the Death Marchs forced on the Allied POWs.  buzzard.


 


Actually I'd be curious to see how many Chinese civilians the Japanese killed. That would be in the genocide category if anything. Killing POWs wouldn't count as genocide either. I imagine it might be misconstrued that I believed that the allied firebombings were genocide, but I certainly don't. They weren't exactly humane, but they are also IMO well short of war crimes or crimes against humanity. That was how wars were prosecuted back then. People who play present day moralist on historical events don't do much for me. I was really just griping about the fools who make a big deal out of the nukes, when they actually amounted to very little but shock value (though they worked well in that regard).

buzzard
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       5/26/2007 9:13:24 PM

I agree with your assessment regarding the Marcado who was very wise.

Given that he sanction the attack on USA!

The captains of Japanese industry celebrated on news of the surrender as they preferred the Amercan Industrialist

to the Communist.

It was American policy, I believe, that the Japanese emperor would be the best insurance against political and social instability after the war. It is reasonable to believe that had Germany retained its monarchy in a constitutional form after the First World War, Nazism would never have become a problem in Germany. Perhaps the West had learned lessons from the failures of Versailles.

 
Quote    Reply

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy