Discussion:
The Last American to Die in WWII Combat
(too old to reply)
WJHopwood
2015-08-28 22:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Every August since the end of WWII there has
been speculation in the media about whether
or not it was necessary for the U.S. to have
used atomic weapons to obtain the surrender
of Japan in August of 1945.

Most of those opposed to the use of "the
bomb" have taken the position that "other
military means" (probably invasion) would
have been morally superior and just as
effective. It seems to me that many of those
with such a view are individuals who would
not have had to participate in such "other
military means" themselves if the bombs
had not been used.

But in a new twist to the annual A-Bomb
discussion, in the August 28, 2015 Wall Street
Journal there is an interesting review of "The
Last to Die," a new book by the present editor
of "Military History" magazine, Stephen Harding.
This book describes the unique circumstances
under which a 20-year-old American airman,
Sergeant Toni Machione, was the last
American to die in combat with Japanese
forces in World War II even though his death
was on August 18, 1945, three days after
Emperor Hirohito had surrendered. How
could this have been combat related?.

Although there existed in this three-day interval
a "cease fire" between Japan and the U.S., a
part of the Japanese military not only did not
recognize the cease fire but defied the Emperor
and did not recognize an end to the war itself.

During the interim between the cease-fire
agreement and the official surrender
ceremonies, the U.S. was making preliminary
plans for the occupation of Japan. Thus it
was that two B-32's were scheduled for a
photo-reconnaissance mission to determine
the condition of several selected Japanese
air bases which were at desirable locations
for use of the occupying forces. .

The mission was dispatched on August 18,
1945. Aboard was Sergeant Marchione who had
volunteered to assist in the mission even though,
as the book reviewer wrote: "The crew on the
B-32 knew that powerful factions within the
Japanese government had opposed Emperor
Hirohito's surrender only three days earlier."

Unfortunately, as it turned out, the mission
encountered several Japanese zeros under the
direction of Japanese army officers who opposed
the surrender. The zeros attacked the B-32's
and in the gun battle which ensued Sergeant
Marchione was fatally shot.

When news of the incident reached General
MacArthur, he elected to consider that it was
not an act condoned by the Japanese
government in charge but an act by renegade
military personnel whom he chose to ignore
and continue with preparations for the official
surrender ceremony which took place on
September 2, 1945. Inasmuch as Sergeant
Marchione's death occurred before the official
surrender ceremony, the U.S. and Japan were
technically still at war so it was considered
combat-related and his family learned that he
would be posthumously awarded the Purple
Heart for the wound causing his death.

WJH
m***@netMAPSONscape.net
2015-08-29 18:13:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by WJHopwood
Every August since the end of WWII there has
been speculation in the media about whether
or not it was necessary for the U.S. to have
used atomic weapons to obtain the surrender
of Japan in August of 1945.
Not confined to "the media"; Eisenhower, Leahy, Zacharias, et al., all
opposed the bombings.
Post by WJHopwood
forces in World War II even though his death
was on August 18, 1945, three days after
Emperor Hirohito had surrendered. How
could this have been combat related?.
Wars don't usually end all of a sudden; fighting between Japan and the USSR
continued into September.

Mike
GFH
2015-08-30 19:27:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by WJHopwood
Every August since the end of WWII there has
been speculation in the media about whether
or not it was necessary for the U.S. to have
used atomic weapons to obtain the surrender
of Japan in August of 1945.
(snip)
IMHO, the outcome of not using the atomic bomb
would have been that Japan would have been defeated
and occupied by the USSR.

The USSR invaded Manchuria and in three weeks swept
across the mainland and then, by water, across the
water to capture Sakhalin. In the process they
captured 670K Japanese soldiers.

Keep in mind that this "three week war" took place
from August 15th until September 2nd. So after the
date we tend to accept as the end of hostilities.

IMHO, the USSR would have landed on Hokkaido and
occupied by September 15th. By the end of September
they would have invaded the Japanese main island.

I ask: If the USSR was already occupying much of
Japan, would the USA have invaded from the south?
Could the USA have justified the casualties?

GFH
Mario
2015-08-31 14:49:39 UTC
Permalink
On Friday, August 28, 2015 at 6:36:10 PM UTC-4, WJHopwood
Post by WJHopwood
Every August since the end of WWII there has
been speculation in the media about whether
or not it was necessary for the U.S. to have
used atomic weapons to obtain the surrender
of Japan in August of 1945.
(snip)
IMHO, the outcome of not using the atomic bomb
would have been that Japan would have been defeated
and occupied by the USSR.
The USSR invaded Manchuria and in three weeks swept
across the mainland and then, by water, across the
water to capture Sakhalin. In the process they
captured 670K Japanese soldiers.
That was land warfare.
Keep in mind that this "three week war" took place
from August 15th until September 2nd. So after the
date we tend to accept as the end of hostilities.
IMHO, the USSR would have landed on Hokkaido and
occupied by September 15th. By the end of September
they would have invaded the Japanese main island.
Where were the Soviet Navy and landing ships and Air Force
needed for that task?

They had to borrow/buy from the US all that, learn to use them,
gain expertise in landings that the US spent three years on.

Otherwise a combined URSS-USA operation should be planned.
I ask: If the USSR was already occupying much of
Japan, would the USA have invaded from the south?
Could the USA have justified the casualties?
GFH
--
oiram
Michele
2015-08-31 15:25:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by GFH
The USSR invaded Manchuria and in three weeks swept
across the mainland and then, by water, across the
water to capture Sakhalin.
I have news for you.

1. The Japanese army in Manchuria was not resisting. That does make
something of a difference.
2. The Soviets did not need to go "across the water" to conquer
Sakhalin, because _they were already there!_ The Northern half was
already Soviet and the conquest of the Southern half began with a Soviet
_land_ operation.

Hypotheses on events that did not take place are, IMHO, as valuable as
the knowledge of actual facts the hypotheses might be built upon. So I
will simply ignore your hypotheses.
Rich Rostrom
2015-08-31 18:17:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michele
1. The Japanese army in Manchuria was not resisting.
That does make something of a difference.
Not effectively, nor for very long, but the
Soviets had almost 10,000 KIA, so there _was_
fighting.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
William Clodius
2015-09-01 04:26:51 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
IMHO, the outcome of not using the atomic bomb
would have been that Japan would have been defeated
and occupied by the USSR.
The USSR invaded Manchuria and in three weeks swept
across the mainland and then, by water, across the
water to capture Sakhalin. In the process they
captured 670K Japanese soldiers.
<snip>
Keep in mind that the Soviets occupied Manchuria and North Korea and
left. They were going to have trouble digesting Eastern Europe and were
as exhausted from the war as anyone else. They wanted Japan out of
mainland Asia, free access to the Pacific, full control of Sakhalin, and
wouldn't mind some goodwill from the West. Their actions in Manchuria,
Korea, Sakhalin, and the Kurils met those goals. The US had provided
them with some amphibious capability, but not a lot. Occupying Hokkaido
would have been tempting if Operation Olympic had gone through keeping
the Japanese military occupied, but I can;t see them going beyond that.
Loading...