This day in history… the end of World War II

80 years ago today, September 2, 1945, the leaders of Japan signed the articles of surrender, ending the War in the Pacific. The treaty was signed aboard the USS Missouri anchored in Tokyo Bay. The document was signed by by representatives from Japan and from the Allied nations: the United States, Australia, New Zealand, China, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, the Soviet Union, Canada, and France.

The document was first signed by the Japanese foreign minister Mamoru Shigemitsu and by General Yoshijirō Umezu, Chief of the Army General Staff. Both were later convicted of war crimes. Shigemitsu served 7 years but later served again as Japan’s foreign minister. Umezu was sentenced to life in prison. He died in prison from cancer on less than a year into his sentence.

The majority of all Japanese representatives present at the signing were later convicted of war crimes. Emperor Hirohito was not present at the ceremony.

Ketsu-Go

Ketsu-Go (“Operation Decisive”) was Japan’s final defense plan in World War II.  It outlined the defense of the Japanese home island. At this point in the war the plan is an Imperial Army-led plan with the Imperial Navy playing a limited role apart from Naval Aviation. As noted in the previous post, as from the outset of the war the Imperial Army was “in charge” – not only in the Supreme War Council but in operational planning.

The goal of Ketsu-Go was to mass Japan’s remaining troops, planes, and special attack units (kamikaze) to repel the invasion, especially on the southern island of Kyushu, expected to be the first invasion point – as it would be in the Allied plan for invasion. The hope of Ketsu-Go was to make the battle so bloody and costly for the Allies that they would lose the will to continue the invasion and offer better surrender terms than complete and absolute surrender. At stake was Kokutai, an expression that literally means “national body” or “national essence”. This is explored in greater detail in the next post, but sufficient for now, this concept was not differentiated from the Emperor and the royal household.

In Ketsu-Go there was a fundamental realization that this would not be a repeat of their 1905 naval victory at Tsushima but only a last ditch effort to achieve what was always the goal of the original Kantai Kessen – an armistice with the United States that left Japan and its early war gains intact. Ketsu-Go would run head-long into the Allied demand for unconditional surrender that had no intention of leaving Japan militarized or with any of its early war gains. The allied demand for unconditional surrender had already been decided at the Casablanca Conference two years earlier (January 1943). 

In addition there was a more fundamental issue at play: the idea of surrender. For the western soldier, surrender was not good, but it was logical. When the circumstances indicated that you’d run out of options the only “reasonable” options were retreat (live to fight another day) or simply live and place yourself at the mercy of your captor. For the Japanese soldier, surrender was the greater shame. The view was grounded in a complex mix of military indoctrination, cultural values, and fear of dishonor. Surrender was considered not only shameful but a betrayal of one’s duty to the Emperor and nation – to the Kokutai

This difference was clear from the beginning of the war. Consider General Wainwright’s decision to surrender the Bataan Peninsula (Philippines) at the beginning of the war. The Filipino and American troops were out of ammunition and food; further resistance meant sure death. Their Japanese captors considered them shameful cowards who had betrayed their country – and were treated as such, the Death March of Bataan giving ample evidence.

The Japanese resolve to not surrender was experienced in every land battle from Guadalcanal to Okinawa. In campaigns such as Tarawa, Biak, Kwajalein, Saipan, Tinian, Guam, Peliliu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa fewer than 2% of the Japanese garrison was captured. The remainder fought to the death.  At the same time the casualty rates among allied ground troops in the Pacific were rising especially in comparison to the European Theater of Operations. Here are comparative casualty rates:

  • D-Day Normandy France – 6-7%
  • Tarawa – 20%
  • Peliliu – 35%
  • Iwo Jima – 37%
  • Okinawa – 27%

These differences were well known to the American public.

From the high-levels of strategy to the on-the-ground reality of war, the mindset of the warring parties could not be farther apart. Ketsu-Go was not a strategy to win a battle or defend the Japanese home islands from devastation and death. It was a strategy to exact a high price of Allied casualties to avoid the shame of surrender. Ketsu-Go reflected a mindset that, if implemented, would extract an unimaginable price in human life and leave the survivors with scars for a lifetime.

Ketsu-Go was first presented to the Emperor in January 1945. In the background of the plan was the uniquely Japanese concept of kokutai.


Image credit: various photographs from Naval Aviation Museum, National World War II Museum, and US Navy Archives.

Japanese Intelligence: Past as Prelude

The Japanese could intercept Allied radio traffic, but they lacked the computational resources and personnel to break complex Allied codes like Naval Cypher No. 5. Their cryptanalytic efforts were centralized and bureaucratically fragmented, lacking the scale and success of U.S. or British efforts. As a result Japan remained largely blind to Allied operational planning, especially in the Central Pacific campaigns. In addition, their intelligence analysis and interpretation – especially on a strategic level – was hindered by their rigid military culture and intense rivalry between the Army and Navy. Their military intelligence units operated as though in silos. Intelligence was often ignored or suppressed if it conflicted with existing assumptions or the wishes of senior commanders who operated on biases about the lack of a warrior spirit among allied soldiers and sailors. The senior commanders also underestimated American industrial strength, technological innovation, and the ability to sustain large-scale operations across the Pacific.

But it does not mean they were uninformed.

Continue reading

This day in history

The Battle of Midway (June 4, 1942) was one of the key battles in World War II and in naval history. It marked the first major aircraft carrier v. aircraft carrier engagement in naval history and was the first defeat in the onslaught of what were otherwise victory after victory for the armed forces of the Empire of Japan.

On this day in history in 1867, Captain William Reynolds of the screw sloop Lackawanna raised the American flag over Brooks’ Islands (later renamed Midway Atoll). It was formally annexed on 28 December. by the United States as the Unincorporated Territory of Midway Island and was administered by the United States Navy.

There were attempts to settle the island but the first successful effort was by the Commercial Pacific Cable Company as part of the effort to lay a trans-Pacific telegraph cable. A small contingent of US Marines were stationed on the island. In 1935 Pan American Airlines operated out of the island as part of it trans-Pacific routes – and as a tourist destination.

Continue reading

War of Resolve and Propaganda

As the war in the Pacific moved into the summer of 1945 combatant casualties continued to mount as discussed in the previous post – so too did civilian deaths. On Saipan the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) incorporated civilians into combat roles – it was the first but not the last time allied forces would encounter this blurring of military and civilian roles: Guam, Tinian, Iwo Jima, Okinawa and Manilla in the Philippines. By any measure, these were war crimes, but the effect was to implant in allied war planners the seeds of what they might expect if and when it came time to invade the main Japanese home islands of Kyushu and Honshu where the civilian populations were in the tens of millions

Historian Richard Frank (in Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire) and John Dower (in War Without Mercy) detail this evolution. Both historians see evidence of a “total-war” mindset that developed as the war in the Pacific progressed when it was clear to Japanese military leadership that they were fighting a war of attrition. Twin allied advances in the Southwest and Central Pacific campaigns were inexorably driving towards the Japanese home islands leading into the brutal logic of late-war defense. By mid-1944, Japanese commanders had recognized that defeating U.S. forces in head-to-head combat was unrealistic. Their goal became to:

Continue reading

Kokutai

Kokutai is a uniquely Japanese concept often translated as ‘national polity’ or ‘national essence.’ 

It refers to the unique constitutional and spiritual essence of the Japanese nation and its people, centered historically on the Emperor as a symbol of continuity and unity. Kokutai is not just a political constitution but a broader idea of Japan’s national identity and political order. It embodies ideas about the Emperor’s divine descent (from Amaterasu, the sun goddess), Japan’s unique historical destiny, and the special relationship between the ruler and subjects.

In prewar and wartime Japan, Kokutai was used to legitimize the Emperor’s absolute sovereignty and Japan’s political system. It was often invoked to promote national unity, loyalty, and resistance to foreign political ideas like liberal democracy or socialism. Kokutai placed the Emperor at the center of sovereignty and moral authority. This made Kokutai both a political doctrine and a national ideology that justified Japan’s imperial system and mobilized the population. 

Continue reading

Civil and Military Leadership in 1945 Japan

In the previous post we reviewed the legacy of battle as 1944 came to a close and noted the lethal legacy of Japanese military choices and led to one loss after another. The once powerful Combined Fleet of the Imperial Navy was but a memory. They had once roamed the western Pacific at will; now they were limited to coastal water and home island ports. The Imperial Army fared no better losing garrison after garrison, sacrificing their most experienced battlefield leaders and soldiers to death. There was no surrender. Japan wanted a “decisive victory” conclusion to conflict. What they started was a war of attrition they had no hope of winning. All the while war draws closer to the home islands. At this point one has to ask about civil and military leadership at the start of 1945.

Here is an overview of leadership dynamics and structures in January 1945 (as it had been through out the war):

  • Real decision-making power rested with the military, particularly the Army, as it had since the 1930s 
  • The civilian government had limited independence, often subordinate to military interests.
  • The Emperor held ultimate constitutional authority, but his actual role in daily governance and war policy remained ambiguous. Many war decisions were “approved” by his silence. That strikes us as strange, but that was the operative culture of governance.
Continue reading

The Series Going Forward

As noted in the previous post, “War in the Pacific to this Point”, the series has focused on the strategic plans and tactical experience that has shaped the war on land and sea, and in the air. 1944 ended with the Philippine island of Leyte under Allied control. An invasion of Luzon was next with the hope that Japan would declare Manila an “open city” as MacAruthur had done in 1942.

After Luzon, the “road to Tokyo” was clear: Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and then (most likely) the southern Japanese home island of Kyushu.

This is a good point in the series to look at Japan and consider its governance, national identity, and their plans to defend the home islands. From the Allied perspective it is clear that the Imperial Japanese Army has effective control of future war plans and actions, but as allied intelligence operations reveal (via diplomatic code MAGIC) there are some misgivings about the military dominated governance. What remains a point of uncertainty is the role of Emperor Hirohito.

Continue reading

War in the Pacific to this Point

Since the beginning of this series on August 6th we have looked at a variety of topics, issues, and experiences that are being poured into the cauldron of war. The series was never intended to be a review of all the battles, campaign tactics, or evolving strategies – there are far better resources available in print, online videos and more – presented by far more knowledgeable people, scholars and historians. 

From the beginning, this series was never intended to describe the horror of combat, the mounting death toll, and  conclude with “the atomic bomb was the lesser of all the evils about to be faced.” But the series is intended to explore harsh realities about war that frame the landscape, not just of tactical options, but of the moral landscape that will face the war fighters – the ones who will bring home the memories of things that can not be unseen. This is even more important when one understands the long-term strategy of the two sides. 

On one side was Japan, a nation that had never been invaded and when the Mongols under Kublai Khan attempted just such in the late 13th century, a typhoon (a divine wind, kamikaze) destroyed the invasion fleet. On the other side were the Allies who 20 years after the armistice of World War I were facing another war from what they thought was a defeated enemy. This time the enemy would know they were defeated; surrender would be unconditional.

Continue reading

Battles that changed the War

There is no doubt that given the juggernaut of the 1942 Japanese Army and Navy expeditions the Battle of Midway and the Guadalcanal Campaign were turning points in the war – each in their own different way. There is no shortage of books and online sources that can offer outstanding detail, commentary and analysis of the importance of Midway and Guadalcanal. But there are other events in the war that shaped the strategic and tactical vision of the Japanese military from the Spring of 1944 until the end of the war. The lessons learned from these events shaped the Japanese plan Ketsu-Go, the defense of the main home islands against allied invasion. The events were the Battle of Biak Island, Peleliu, the Battle of Philippine Sea, and the air Battle of Formosa.

The Battle of Biak

Most people have never heard of the Battle of Biak Island. Biak is not a large island. It is 45 miles long and 23 miles wide – about the size of the Hawaiian island of Moloka‘i. It is located near the western end of New Guinea and is part of the modern Indonesian Province of Papua. For reasons important to General Douglas MacArthur’s Southwest Pacific command, its capture was planned as a one week operation in late May 1944. The goal was to secure the “next island” in the overall advance that could support an airfield and extend MacArthur’s land-based air cover for scouting and operations.

The Southwest Pacific Command ran a separate intelligence operation from that of Admiral Nimitz’s Central Pacific Command. It was not that they did not share intelligence, but MacArthur preferred his own council – and his experience on intelligence was that it grossly overestimated or underestimated Japanese resistance or the suitability of the next step in the campaign to provide a locale for constructing a suitable airfield. This was his experience with intelligence reports associated with the campaigns of Hollandia and Atape, both of which failed to provide suitable ground for building an army air force base. The intelligence on Biak grossly underestimated the size of the Japanese garrison and its pre-invasion disposition. 

MacArthur’s attitude towards his own Intelligence Operation will come to the fore during discussions of the 1945 amphibious landings on the home Japanese islands.

In early 1944 at the Battle of Sio on New Guinea, Australian troops recovered a complete set of Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) code books and ciphers. Nonetheless, MacArthur’s “code breakers” missed communications indicating that the IJA had moved the 41st Division’s 222nd Infantry Regiment, an elite, battle-hardened and well-trained group to Biak just before the invasion. Because of an over reliance on aerial surveillance, the allies downplayed information that would have indicated efforts and materials to fortify caves and ridges inland, not the beaches—contrary to standard Japanese tactics, and contrary to Allied expectations.

Allied planners envisaged a week-long operation based on intelligence that there were approximately 2,000 Japanese troops defending the island. In fact, the Japanese garrison was 11,000-12,000 troops. 

Based on an appreciation of the Allied objectives (capturing the already built and operational airfields), island commander Colonel Kuzume Naoyuki focused his defensive plans away from the water’s edge. His plan was to let the Americans come ashore unopposed so that they would advance into the trap he had prepared for them utilizing a series of caves that were located west of Mokmer air field and to the east of Bosnek airfield. This defensive complex was intended to turn the area around the airfields into a honeycomb of defended caves and pillboxes filled with riflemen, automatic weapons, artillery, batteries of mortars, and a single company of light tanks. The western caves were connected by a series of underground tunnels that were constructed for fighting purposes. Kuzume also stockpiled these positions with ammunition, food, water, and other supplies, with several supply depots located around the eastern cave area, along with living quarters for the defenders. Water was limited on Biak and had to be strictly rationed by the US troops. Heat and humidity would take a heavy toll during the fighting.

Kuzume had no expectations other than he and his fighting force would ultimately be defeated but he carried out his orders as he well understood the larger objectives of inflicting casualties to weaken the will of the allied war fighters and the public back home.

Many online sources are available to provide the details of fighting on the island. Combat began with the May 27, 1944 landings and continued until June 22nd which marked the end of all organized resistance. Some 3,000 Japanese remained on the island attempting guerrilla-style warfare to no particularly successful end.  At the end of the campaign (late July) virtually all Japanese had died in combat or from disease and/or starvation. Allied losses were 460 killed in action with 2,440 additional non-lethal casualties the majority of which were disease related. Some 600 British Indian and Javanese forced laborers were also rescued.

Reports from Colonel Kuzume that reached IJA headquarters indicated that the strategic objectives of extracting mounting Allied casualties was a good strategy in the face of overwhelming allied ground forces, equipment, logistics support, air superiority, and control of the waters around Biak by allied naval forces. This strategy was implemented and faced the allied invasions of Peleliu (the Palau Islands) and the battles of Iwo Jima and especially Okinawa. They were intended – and we understood them to be harbingers of what awaited any attempted invasion of the Japanese home islands. In a different form, the same strategy was implemented at Leyte and Luzon in the Philippine Islands: unopposed landings with interior defenses in place to extract maximum allied casualties.

Peleliu

There is and will ever be controversy on the need to invade and secure Peleliu instead of bypassing the island to let its defenders “wither on the vine.” That is a topic for another post. For purposes of this series, Peleliu is important in that it exemplifies the changing strategy of the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) in island invasions following the campaign on Biak.

The planners predicted that the island would be secured within four days. But IJA plans were that instead of defending the beaches, they focused on fortified inland positions, allowing U.S. forces to land relatively unopposed and then drawing them into a kill zone. It was a plan similar to Biak, but the terrain on Peleliu was radically different – more akin to that of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The island’s central highlands (Umurbrogol ridges) became the core of Japanese defense. The coral ridges were honeycombed with over 500 caves, interconnected by tunnels that allowed troops to move, reinforce, and resupply without surfacing. Positions included machine gun nests, mortar pits, anti-aircraft guns, and artillery camouflaged and embedded into the ridges. Many caves had steel doors and ventilation, enabling troops to survive prolonged bombardments. The “four day” operation began on 15 September 1944 and lasted until 27 November 1944 when the island was declared secure. Nonetheless the  Army’s 81st Infantry Division remained engaged on the island until the end of organized Japanese resistance on 18 January 1945. Even then, a Japanese lieutenant with 26 infantry soldiers and 8 sailors held out in the caves on Peleliu until 22 April 1947, only surrendering after a former Japanese admiral convinced them the war was over.

The heavily outnumbered Japanese defenders put up stiff resistance, 98% fighting to the death in the name of the Japanese Emperor. The island became known in Japanese as the “Emperor’s Island” and held up as an example of the true spirit of the Japanese fighting forces.

The 1st Marine Division, the “Old Breed”, suffered a KIA and casualty rate that was unmatched among Allied forces during the war. When the men of the Army 81st Infantry Division relieved the “Old Breed” they saw men stumbling forward, their eyes sunken and glazed over with what became known as the “2,000 yard stare”, moving forward like zombies. Episodes 6 and 7 of the mini-series, “The Pacific” capture this experience. After the battle, Russel David, a private in the First Marines wrote about his experience of battle on Peleliu.

“I picked up the rifle of a dead marine and I went up the hill. I didn’t worry about death anymore. I’d resigned from the human race. I only wanted to be as far forward as any man when my turn came, As a fighting outfit the First Marines was finished.  We were no longer human beings. I fired at anything that moved in front of me, friend or foe. I had no friends. I just wanted to kill.”

On 24 November the Japanese force commander radioed Tokyo, “Our sword is broken and we have run out of spears”. He then burnt his regimental colors and performed ritual suicide. Prior to that IJA headquarter had been well informed about the “success” of the Peleliu strategy as a lethal strategy against any invasion of the home islands.

The Battles of Philippine Sea and Formosa

While the name might indicate a ship-to-ship engagement, the first two days of the conflict were fought in the skies in the area of the Marianas Islands. Just a few weeks after the start of the Biak landings, the massive Task Force 58 under the command of Admiral Raymond Spruance, began landings on Saipan. The importance of Saipan is covered in a later post focused on that battle. In short, were the allies to capture Saipan and neighboring Tinian, the Army Air Force B-29 Superfortress bombers would be in range of the main Japanese home islands.  A bombing campaign would (and did) begin.

From the very start of the conflict in December 1941, the Japanese war plan had been to inflict such substantial losses on the allied forces so that the U.S. public would become war weary and the American government would be convinced to sue for peace and allow Japan to keep its conquests. A central element of the plan was Japan’s ability to project naval power through its aircraft carriers and battleships. However, the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) had suffered extensive air wing losses at aircraft carrier battles such as Coral Sea, Midway, and the Solomon Islands campaign of 1942–43. The losses were not only in aircraft carriers, but in skilled carrier pilots. After the Solomons campaign it took nearly a year for the IJN to reconstitute their air groups.

Early in the war the United States had only one operational aircraft carrier, USS Enterprise. By June 1944, Task Force 58 approaching Saipan included 7 fleet carriers and 8 light carriers with a combined fleet air group of 900 planes. The Japanese came to the conflict with 3 fleet carriers, 6 light carriers with a naval air wing of 450 aircraft – but with 300 land based aircraft on Tinian and Guam. Not only were the numbers in favor of the U.S. forces, but the capabilities of the U.S. pilots was, on the whole, vastly superior to their counterparts. This was due in part to the efforts of U.S. submarines sinking merchant oil tankers thereby limiting the aviation fuel oil available for training Japanese pilots. Some reports indicated that the average IJN pilot entered the battle with 200-300 hours of flying and with little to no combat experience. The average U.S. aviator had 800-900 hours of flying, much of it combat.

As before, there are plenty of online sources that detail the ebb and flow of the air campaign of Philippine Sea fought over two days. After the second day of the battle, IJN losses totaled three carriers, more than 350 carrier aircraft, and approximately 200 land-based aircraft – and their aircrews. In the five major “carrier-on-carrier” battles, from the Battle of the Coral Sea to the Battle of the Philippine Sea, the IJN  lost nine carriers, while the USN had lost three. The aircraft and trained pilots lost at Philippine Sea were an irreplaceable blow to the already outnumbered Japanese fleet air arm. The Japanese carrier air groups lost 90 % of their force in two days. The Japanese had only enough pilots left to form a single air group for one light carrier. 

Though still relatively unknown to general audiences of World War II history, the Formosa Air Battle (Oct. 12-16) was the single largest air-sea battle of the Pacific war. Japan committed a greater mass of air power to this battle—1,425 army and navy aircraft over the course of one week—more than anything the U.S. Navy had faced prior. In fact, the Japanese air force participating in the Formosa Air Battle was multiple times bigger than the carrier air formations encountered during the more well-known Battle of the Philippine Sea.

Overall the Japanese lost ~600 airplanes and crews. U.S. losses were 89 aircraft, however, almost all the U.S. pilots were rescued. Surviving Japanese pilots returned with tales of a stunning victory. It was reported that practically the whole U.S. Third Fleet had been sunk and the American carrier force was left in shambles with virtually all fleet carriers sunk.

The “victory” was celebrated by the IJA aviation wing, though the IJN command was initially skeptical of such reports. The “victory” narrative was carried forward by the military  members of the cabinet until it reached Emperor Hirohito. He congratulated the Navy and Army for their success and declared a national holiday. Newspapers in particular trumpeted these claims, repeating that the U.S. task force was broken and in retreat. Even those unconvinced members of the IJN, up to and including Admiral Toyoda of the Combined Fleet, believed some kind of victory had been achieved off Formosa. It was trumpeted as the “decisive battle” envisioned in Japan’s war plan, Kantai Kessen (“Decisive Battle Doctrine”) – not to defeat Allied forces, but to bring the United States to the negotiating table.

Consider how this affects the problem for war termination. Virtually all wars end when one side realizes it has been defeated. From civilian to Emperor, there does not seem to be the realization their defeat is inevitable at this point – nor that the Allies are not interested in armistice or negotiated settlements. The Allies intend to win this war and prevent the next one.

A Sea Change in Naval Aviation Strategy and Tactics

This marked a shift from offensive Naval aviation operations as seen early in war to a purely defensive posture. With battle losses at Philippine Sea, the fall of Saipan, Tinian and Guam were only a matter of time. Japanese planners knew that the Allied forces would next focus on the Philippine Islands themselves. The Japanese military believed its only hope was to inflict such severe losses on the landing fleet that the Americans could be drawn into negotiations with the goal of leaving the Home Islands intact and still maintain control of some of the territories in East Asia, especially those key to import of critical raw materials.

From this situation was born the Kamikaze, “divine wind” (officially Shinpū Tokubetsu Kōgekitai – Divine Wind Special Attack Unit). They were a part of the Japanese Special Attack Units of military aviators who would fly suicide attacks against Allied naval vessels in the closing stages of the Pacific campaign of World War II. 

The attacks began in October 1944 in the shadow of the losses at Philippine Sea. Japan had lost decisive battles key to their overall strategy. The corps of skilled aviators was decimated and replacements could not be trained fast enough. Japanese aircraft were becoming outdated with the introduction of new allied fighter planes. Japan had lost command of the air and sea. These factors, along with Japan’s unwillingness to surrender, led to the institutionalization of kamikaze tactics as a core aspect of Japanese air warfare strategy as Allied forces advanced towards the home islands.

In this atmosphere of strategic desperation, what appeared to the Western nations as erosion of psychological and doctrinal barriers to deliberate suicide was more likely a manifestation of the Bushido code. A tradition of death instead of defeat, capture, and shame was deeply entrenched in Japanese military culture – loyalty to the Emperor and honor until death. This was not limited to aircraft. In addition to kamikazes, the Japanese military also used or made plans for other Japanese Special Attack Units, including those involving Kairyu (submarines), Kaiten (human torpedoes), Shinyo (speedboats), and Fukuryu (individual divers). 

Bushidō code and militarist ideology had long glorified death in service to the emperor. The loss at the Philippine Sea helped shift this from a theoretical ideal into military tactics.

The Battle of Biak Island, Peleliu, and the Battles of Philippine Sea and Formosa changed the nature of warfare in the Pacific.


Image credit: various photographs from Naval Aviation Museum, National World War II Museum, and US Navy Archives.