Different view why Japan surrendered

Discussions on WW2 in the Pacific and the Sino-Japanese War.
User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 3685
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Silesia Inferior

Re: Different view why Japan surrendered

Postby wm » 08 Aug 2017 15:09

A very nice publication, the Americans have everything.
So at the very end of the war the Soviets were given some naval vessels and were trained by American instructors.

As Japanese weren't aware of this project, it couldn't be the reason, or even one of the reasons for their capitulation, especially that the end results were no different than results of Soviet earlier attempts:
The operation began at 0500 hours on 17 August. Twenty-one hours later, the strike force entered the First Kuril Strait and took up positions off Capes Kokutan and Kotomari. The first wave, consisting of the naval infantry battalion of some 1.000 men, waded ashore at approximately 0430 hours on 18 August, completely surprising the Japanese.
Even though Japanese resistance was disorganized, the attackers revealed their lack of tactical combat experience and amphibious training as small units made uncoordinated advances inland rather than securing the beach. Within the first hour, Japanese machine-gunners, well emplaced in pillboxes and foxholes, began to inflict heavy casualties.
In addition, belated Soviet attempts to destroy enemy shore batteries our fierce resistance, and Japanese guns soon found the range of the ships off-shore. As Grechko feared, naval gunfire support proved ineffective, in part because of an almost total lack of radio communication with the troops ashore. Asa result, enemy shore batteries wreaked havoc on the amphibious force when it approached at 0530.
'Project Hula : Secret Soviet-American Naval Cooperation in the War Against Japan


and this:
Many people believed that Project Hula would have given the Soviet Union the ability to invade the Japanese home islands.
However, many historians agreed it was still not enough for the Soviets to pose a serious threat to Tokyo. As of 20 December 1945, 3,741 American lend-lease ships were given to the Soviets, 36 of which were capable of mounting an invasion of Japan. This was clearly not enough to pose a large threat to Japanese forces in the mainland.
Given how the Soviets conducted in their invasions of southern Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands with limited U.S. Navy ships and landing craft, it was likely that Soviets would not have succeeded in taking entire Japanese-occupied territories, including Hokkaido.


For example, the Soviets in their invasion of southern Sakhalin on August 11 outnumbered the Japanese by a factor of three but they were unable to advance due to strong Japanese resistance. The Soviet invasion of the Kuril Islands took place after Japan's capitulation on August 15, and despite this, the Japanese forces in these islands resisted quite fiercely (although some of them were unwilling to fight due to Japan's surrender on August 15).

In the Battle of Shumshu, the Soviets had 8,821 troops unsupported by tanks and without larger warships. The well-established Japanese garrison had 8,500 troops and fielded around 77 tanks. The Battle of Shumshu lasted for five days in which the Soviets lost over 516 troops and five of the sixteen landing ships (most of these ships were ex-U.S. Navy) to Japanese coastal artillery while the Japanese lost over 256 troops. At the end, Soviet casualties totaled up to 1,567 while the Japanese suffered 1,018 casualties, making it the only battle in the 1945 Soviet-Japanese War where Russian losses exceeded the Japanese.
If the war had actually gone on, the death toll among the Soviets in their invasion of the Kuril Islands would have been far higher and the logistics supply would be severely strained due to lack of Soviet capability to supply its forces and equipment overseas. At the time of Japan's surrender, an estimated 50,000 Japanese soldiers were stationed in Hokkaido. If the Soviets attempted to land at Hokkaido with limited naval capability, it would have run high up to 20,000 Soviet casualties each week, which would have easily destroyed the Soviets' will to wage war against the Japanese.

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 1925
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: Different view why Japan surrendered

Postby South » 08 Aug 2017 15:56

Good morning all,

A major difference is present in this year's memorial service at the Hiroshima Peace Park.

It really does involve history. Plus, it involves current events. Thus, had to figure out how to prep this post in compliance with our rules.

PM Abe spoke about this 72nd anniversary of the atomic attacks with the usual "Never Again". He spoke of Japan being the only country to be Irradiated in war".

Immediately after the official, formal speeches, PM Abe was obliged to respond to some related questions.

Recall our Japanese history ref "the dagger" pointed at Japan.

The history's about the same but the trajectory won't initiate in Tagau or Inchon.

Cannot continue.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 3157
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Different view why Japan surrendered

Postby OpanaPointer » 08 Aug 2017 18:48

How does any of that change history?
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2454
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: Different view why Japan surrendered

Postby Takao » 08 Aug 2017 23:38

Maybe he is talking about how the Japanese tend to "rewrite" history to show Japan in the most favorable light during the 1930s-1940s.

South
Financial supporter
Posts: 1925
Joined: 06 Sep 2007 09:01
Location: USA

Re: Different view why Japan surrendered

Postby South » 08 Aug 2017 23:56

Good afternoon Opana Pointer,

I don't know.

I wrote : "The history is about the same".

~ Bob
eastern Virginia

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 3157
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Different view why Japan surrendered

Postby OpanaPointer » 09 Aug 2017 00:20

And what does that mean?
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 3685
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Silesia Inferior

Re: Different view why Japan surrendered

Postby wm » 09 Aug 2017 00:28

South wrote:I wrote : "The history is about the same".

I see. Thanks for the warning.
I'm starting construction of my fallout shelter right now.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 22769
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: Different view why Japan surrendered

Postby David Thompson » 18 Aug 2017 02:46

An insulting post from Guaporense was removed.


Return to “WW2 in the Pacific & Asia”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot]