invasion japan

Thanks for the salute.....but it is the bravery of our soldiers that is most admirable......and there was mention of Ketsu-Go and doubts about our success in an invasion of Japan. There is much to consider how our lives would be different today if we had carried out an invasion of Japan. Perhaps the term "war babies" would refer to an extremely small minority of people instead of a generation. Essentially it was a plan to throw everything we had at the Japanese. We had to use our best airplanes, as the distances were so great, old planes couldn't easily be used for this. I also recall my dad's predicament once again. I mentioned he was on his way by ship to invade Japan when the bombs were dropped. Besides his mission which he did not think he would survive he was also to help install the invasions guns his ship was bringing. They were very large 16" monster guns. Only one catch in the plan......these were WWI vintage guns that had to be hauled off with crains and then transported by large vehicles to their destination where it took 24 hours of crew work to dig them in. They were not mobile by WWII standards and installation may have been impractical. These soldiers were fully aware of this and were willing and anxious to do their part. I really admire what they were willing to do. We owe so much to WWII soldiers. These soldiers had been busy in the Philipines and like my dad had suffered their bouts with Cholera, Yellow Fever, Malaria and other jungle illnesses. Would we have lost?..........it does tease the mind.

 

Hey I miss this I'm from what I read and many documentaries I've seen those are some of the Factors Involved in dropping the Bomb I never said your stating that, but my assessment Or Individuals +++ all had much to gain if the Bombs dropped were a complete success. This is your comment

So Who's own Agenda?? Who's is Their?? Must be many individuals and organizations +++++ Involved, in assuring the two Bombs were used and dropped on Japanese AKA "Nips" Seen British Documents with that term used? I remember reading The President had to be lobbied and had his reservations on dropping the Bombs which was left to President Truman after the death of Roosevelt.

HIROSHIMAWHO DISAGREED WITH THE ATOMIC BOMBING?


DWIGHT EISENHOWER

I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..." - Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380


Hiroshima: Quotes


American Military Leaders Urge President Truman
not to Drop the Atomic Bomb

MILITARY VIEWS About Dropping the Atomic Bomb


consider a diary entry by Walter Brown, an assistant to Secretary of State Byrnes which clearly suggests Truman and Byrnes saw the bomb as a way to reduce Soviet political influence in Asia. Brown noted that Byrnes, whom Truman had designated his main adviser on the issue, was 'hoping for time, believing that after (the) atomic bomb Japan will surrender and Russia will not get in so much on the kill, thereby being in a position to press for claims in China'.

In other words, to ensure that the Americans had an advantage in the US-Soviet scramble to grab China, a quarter of a million Japanese, mostly women and children, had to die. ​

Debating the American Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb

​

In the end it came down to simple mathematics. A man of common sense like Truman would clearly see that the deaths resulting from an atomic attack on a Japanese city, terrible though they were likely to be, would pale before the death toll if the US was forced to invade. Additionally, a campaign against the Japanese home islands would likely last through at least 1946, whereby the bombs could bring the Japanese to surrender much more quickly, if the weapons were effective in their demonstration of US power in ultimately defeating the Japanese.

Judging Trumans decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan - by Ray Peters - Helium


International Law on the Bombing of Civilians



Appeal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Aerial Bombardment of Civilian Populations, September 1, 1939


The President of the United States to the Governments of France, Germany, Italy, Poland and His Britannic Majesty, September 1, 1939.

The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers of population during the course of the hostilities which have raged in various quarters of the earth during the past few years, which has resulted in the maiming and in the death of thousands of defenseless men, women, and children, has sickened the hearts of every civilized man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.

If resort is had to this form of inhuman barbarism during the period of the tragic conflagration with which the world is now confronted, hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings who have no responsibility for, and who are not even remotely participating in, the hostilities which have now broken out, will lose their lives. I am therefore addressing this urgent appeal to every government which may be engaged in hostilities publicly to affirm its determination that its armed forces shall in no event, and under no circumstances, undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations or of unfortified cities, upon the understanding that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all of their opponents. I request an immediate reply.
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT Protection of Civilian Populations Against Bombing From the Air in Case of War, League of Nations, September 30, 1938

PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN POPULATIONS AGAINST BOMBING FROM THE AIR IN CASE OF WAR
Unanimous resolution of the League of Nations Assembly,
September 30, 1938.​

The Assembly,
Considering that on numerous occasions public opinion has expressed through the most authoritative channels its horror of the bombing of civilian populations;
Considering that this practice, for which there is no military necessity and which, as experience shows, only causes needless suffering, is condemned under the recognised principles of international law;
Considering further that, though this principle ought to be respected by all States and does not require further reaffirmation, it urgently needs to be made the subject of regulations specially adapted to air warfare and taking account of the lessons of experience;
Considering that the solution of this problem, which is of concern to all States, whether Members of the League of Nations or not, calls for technical investigation and thorough consideration;
Considering that the Bureau of the Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments is to meet in the near future and that it is for the Bureau to consider practical means of undertaking the necessary work under conditions most likely to lead to as general an agreement as possible:
I. Recognizes the following principles as a necessary basis for any subsequent regulations:

1) The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal;

2) Objectives aimed at from the air must be legitimate military objectives and must be identifiable;

3) Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighbourhood are not bombed through negligence;​

II. Also takes the opportunity to reaffirm that the use of chemical or bacterial methods in the conduct of war is contrary to international law, as recalled more particularly in the resolution of the General Commission of the Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments of July 23rd 1932, and the resolution of the Council of May 14th, 1938. International Law - Bombing of Civilians

 

OK now we both habla Inglesh thats all I was trying to say.

 

Ok I understand, I heard in the Cold War they had a great relationship and trusted each other like Hermano a Hermano, Brothers for ever . I think this cold War has been going on from the 1800 ?

During 1955, US President Eisenhower presented a proposal to the USSR named "Open Skies", in which the two countries would be free to conduct reconnaissance flights over each other's territory to ensure that neither was planning for war. The Soviets rejected the concept, mainly because they did not want to reveal the extent of their actual weakness relative to the West. It seems that the rejection was expected and Open Skies ended up being little more than a propaganda exercise to embarrass the Soviets. However, the US still needed to obtain intelligence on the Soviet Union, and WS-119L was an option that seemed almost ready to go. Unfortunately, the program was suffering from delays. Training flights over the US had been initiated in May 1955 under the cover name of MOBY DICK HI, but results were poor, with a variety of problems plaguing the program.

[3.0] Cold War Balloon Flights 1945:1965


Cold War origins and the continuing debate: a review of recent ...

 

While it might be argued that the Cold War began when the Soviets and western Allies "split" Germany into the occupation zone/sections, I would personally put the moment as coming to a head and becoming a true "cold war" when Stalin put the "Berlin Blockade" into effect in late June of 1948. When he was forced to abandon the policy in May of 1949, and loose face doing so, the "cold war" based on one upping eachother and brinkmanship really started.

That "Open Skies" proposition of July 25th, 1955 in Geneva to Bulganin was undertaken with the suspicion (at least) that the Soviets would refuse the offer. That is why as early as March of 1954 Ike had started the project which would become the U-2. He didn't trust the balloon idea either.

When Khrushchev publicly rejected the "Open Skies" offer, Ike was able to launch the first U-2 overflight a few weeks short of a year later on July 4th of 1956, and another one the next day.

Trust but verify was later the premise of the new "Open Skies" treaty which was signed.

 

As to the 16" artillery question, and I'm just guessing here, maybe the U.S. was planning to use spare 16s as conventional land based artillery. There's plenty of Japan outside the range of BB main armament. They're mighty big and cumbersome, and using them anyplace you don't have complete air superiority would be risky, as it would be rather hard to move them if something flew in, but in Japan we just might have been able to get away with it.

 

I am always amazed at what a tidbit of information can start. I personally never thought to wonder where or how the large guns would be used. I simply lumped them into my assumption that we were throwing everything we had into this final invasion. I do not have a firm understanding of the details of the planned invasion of Japan. I started on this forum trying to find out more about the 246th Coast Artillery that utilized this gun but have not been able to find much detail about how this group moved about in the Philipines and later. I suspect it would have been too slow to set up but could be deployed to viciously hold something that was already well taken. Those of you who have contributed insights....thank you.

 

I'd like to see the source on this info. There were no field mobile mounts for 16" naval or army guns. All those not on ships or in reserve for ship use were emplaced in permanent coastal fortifications on substancial concrete mounts.

 

246th Coast Artillery? There is a 246th Coast Artillery Regiment but, this unit never went overseas. It was part of the Virginia National Guard and formed part of the Harbor Defenses, Chesapeake Bay VA at Ft. Monroe VA.

There is a 246th Field Artillery battalion too. It was equipped with 105mm guns and was part of the artillery of the Americal Division seeing action in the Pacific including in the Philippines ending the war there.

 

Mr. Gardner,
I only have that unit to use to trace my dad's war history, perhaps you are correct about the 246th. So I ask a favor....since you are able to find this information about the 246th, can you also find out how the 246th was put together at the end of the war? My dad definitely was on ship with the large gun, and maybe other ships as well; my dad served in the Philipines and Hawaii. My dad was trained somewhere in Virginia to shoot the large gun, operate seachlights, identify aircraft, string communications and was a part of units of the Coastal defense like the 225th (of which a lot is known) but they went to the European theatre. My dad was sent to the Pacific theatre and I have not been able to trace anything more. When I try for his service record they respond "his records along with others were lost in a fire." I can tell you his name was Feliciano Gomez and he had a best friend overseas by the name of Victor Natale (who I am named after). His discharge papers say he was a member of the 246th Coast Artillery.There is a large family who knows and admires his general history but the specifics of his travel after Hawaii is not very well known. (in the Philipines) I think many who were in Coastal defenses were "modified" to be sent over seas for the great needs rather than leave them committed to a rather inactive Coastal defense as the attacks on our coast were minor in most known cases. Thanks to all who just consider my posts!

 

Alot of the Coast Artillery Units were turned into Anti-Aircraft Artillery Units. Could be at some point your fathers unit was deactivated (1st of 246th was deactivated at Fort Macon in late 44) and sent overseas as replacements for AAA units.

 

Thanks again....I did find reference to the 246th Field Artillery but I have supposed this to be a different group from the 246th Coast Artillery. It has a stirred a question for me I have not been able to answer. Perhaps someone can contribute more information. Since Coast Artillery were units broke up to go overseas.......would they then be referred to as "Field Artillery" ? I don't think so but where the 246th Field Artillery were may have been to similar places described by my dad but I cannot confirm such a thing. I do know other Coastal Artillery units continued to maintain their name as Coastal Artillery while serving in the Philipines. Thanks for so many sending me bread crumbs and other things. I will keep trying.