Project Hula

Morning Worsham.
I had not heard of it either. When did it start?

I’d never heard of this either.  Very interesting but rather puzzling too.  The Russians didn’t need ships to go to war against Japan in places on the Asian mainland like Manchuria and Korea, and they already held the northern half of Shakahlin Island, so a naval force would only have been useful to them for the purposes of invading the Kuril Islands and the Japanese home islands (particularly Hokkaido).  It’s odd that the U.S. would have provided the Soviets with the means to mount an amphibious invasion of the Japanese home islands because, if they’d set one foot ashore there, that would have given the USSR a territorial claim.  The Americans wanted to keep the Russians out of the main Japan islands – or at least that was the case when Truman succeeded Roosevelt.  So perhaps Project Hula, which was conceived in late 1944, reflected earlier American views on how post-surender Japan should be handled…though that doesn’t explain why the ship transfers continued right up to early September 1945.

Thanks Marc. I understand now and have to agree with your observations.
I had presumed this project was pre Barbarossa!

Good points Marc. I have always been interested in the hypothetical invasion of Japan. I think given the estimated casualities, the Western Allies would have been more than willing to accept the Soviets in Japan.

First, it would draw Japanese forces possibly to the north thinning defenses in the south where the Americans would focus much of thier assault. Second, It would tie the Soviets up in the Pacific Theater and might divert attention and resources from Europe. Last, morbid as it sounds, having the Soviets lose massive numbers of men and machine to the Japanese rather than the Western European allies may have been an attractive option should it come to war after the Axis defeat.

Good Topic!

The reality is that we look at everything with 20/20 hindsight.

For example, consider the invasions of Palau or Okinawa.  Many people argue they were entirely unnecessary, and knowing all the information, can lead someone to that conclusion…

However, you have to put your mind into the period, and arm yourself with the only information you have.

1. You believe anything could still happen, and that there is still a long war/road ahead.  With alot of blood to be spilled.
2. Your enemy is ruthless, and fanatically devoted, you believe in the distinct possibility, that you may have to kill nearly ALL of them to win.
3. The whitehouse/your-government is full of different opinions, different people, and different motives.  Everyone doing what they think is right to give your side the best edge to win.  Leading to all kinds of efforts.  Many of which you probably won’t even hear about in your lifetime.

Suddenly the thought that it may be beneficial to have -some- soviet support in the endeavor isn’t so bad.  Especially with costly amphibious operations.  And what if the Atomic bomb had failed to garner the effect that was desired?

The fact alone, that with all the “experts” on this site, we haven’t even heard about this operation until now, leads me to agree fairly closely with CWO Marc’s opinion.  Everyone was doing what they could, keeping all the options open, and we ended the war whilst honoring our word, and exploring all options.

The right arm doesn’t always know what the left is doing. But what does it matter so long as they are both planning to punch out the target!

only thing I know on the subject is the Russians were “drawing up plans” to invade the Japanese home islands. But having the plans and having the means are two different things.

@Yavid:

only thing I know on the subject is the Russians were “drawing up plans” to invade the Japanese home islands. But having the plans and having the means are two different things.

Yes, there’s an interesting echo of Operation Sealion here.  Napoleon also had plans to invade Britain back in his time, but they came to nothing.  Apparently his landing barges made the later Higgins Boat look like a triumph of seaworthiness.

I just read up on Project Hula and it was rather strange. In that it didn’t even start until March '45 so yes it was America giving USSR ships to invade islands. The only thing I can think of is America thought it would cost 1 million lives to take Japan why not let half of them be Russian lives.

Good Job ABWorsham for finding out about this Project

From everything I’ve read or heard Roosevelt operated under the assumption that Stalin could be trusted it was Churchill that didn’t trust Stalin. So it would stands to reason America would have let Russia take part of Japan on the assumption that Stalin would give it back.

@rjpeters70:

What’s worse is that he could have picked and groomed his successor; instead, he let the convention pick Truman as his running mate (which speaks well for conventions and ill for primaries), and did nothing to keep him in the know of the deals with Churchill, Stalin, the a-bomb, etc.  He should have made Truman his Deputy President, or his Chief of Staff, so that on the day he died (which he had to know would be soon), Truman could step into his shoes and hit the ground running.  That he did not do this is almost criminal malfeasance in my mind.

Interesting – I didn’t know this about the FDR/Truman relationship.  I wonder if his non-grooming of Truman may have owed anything to constitutional factors.  From what little I know about the subject, the US Constitution does designate the VP as the President’s successor (if this is needed) but doesn’t really prescribe any other role except the chairing of Senate.  There probably wasn’t anything that would have prevented Roosevelt from informally training Truman and allowing him to be present during important meetings, but there may have been legal reasons that would have prevented him from formally designating Truman as his Chief of Staff. (Is that a position which requires Congressional confirmation?  The Republicans might have had one or two words to say about the idea of the VP simultaneously holding two different high-level jobs within the administration)  I also suspect there are no constitutional provisions for designating a Deputy President, if such an office even exists – but I could be completely wrong about this.

@rjpeters70:

Was one of the weird things about FDR, who he trusted and did not.  He did seem far more trusting of Stalin than of Churchill.

He did not trust Truman one iota, when he knew he was dying.  This is one of the things that has always bothered me about Roosevelt.  He was dying.  Everyone knew it (Churchill writes about how the Brits even knew that Marshall was drafting FDR’s telegrams for him, because FDR was too weak to do so for himself).  Harry Hopkins knew.  Churchill knew at Yalta.  FDR had to know… and yet, he ran for a fourth term.  What’s worse is that he could have picked and groomed his successor; instead, he let the convention pick Truman as his running mate (which speaks well for conventions and ill for primaries), and did nothing to keep him in the know of the deals with Churchill, Stalin, the a-bomb, etc.  He should have made Truman his Deputy President, or his Chief of Staff, so that on the day he died (which he had to know would be soon), Truman could step into his shoes and hit the ground running.  That he did not do this is almost criminal malfeasance in my mind.

If we take into account the political aims of FDR and his wife, I don’t find it surprising at all. There is historical suggestion that Ellenor would have liked FDR to become the dictator of the USA! FDR curbed this idea somewhat, but had he lived longer I believe he would had continued to run for president beyond a fourth term were it possible. Â

@CWO:

@rjpeters70:

What’s worse is that he could have picked and groomed his successor; instead, he let the convention pick Truman as his running mate (which speaks well for conventions and ill for primaries), and did nothing to keep him in the know of the deals with Churchill, Stalin, the a-bomb, etc.�  He should have made Truman his Deputy President, or his Chief of Staff, so that on the day he died (which he had to know would be soon), Truman could step into his shoes and hit the ground running.�  That he did not do this is almost criminal malfeasance in my mind.

Interesting – I didn’t know this about the FDR/Truman relationship.  I wonder if his non-grooming of Truman may have owed anything to constitutional factors.  From what little I know about the subject, the US Constitution does designate the VP as the President’s successor (if this is needed) but doesn’t really prescribe any other role except the chairing of Senate.  There probably wasn’t anything that would have prevented Roosevelt from informally training Truman and allowing him to be present during important meetings, but there may have been legal reasons that would have prevented him from formally designating Truman as his Chief of Staff. (Is that a position which requires Congressional confirmation?  The Republicans might have had one or two words to say about the idea of the VP simultaneously holding two different high-level jobs within the administration)  I also suspect there are no constitutional provisions for designating a Deputy President, if such an office even exists – but I could be completely wrong about this.Â

You know It really is funny. As an American I think we as a nation for the most part subconsciously see the presidents and vice-presidents as “buddies”. In most cases it’s a totally different story. Even knowing this you still might think that Barrack Obama and Joe Biden go out for beers or play cards together.

Thank you for that information on Roosevelt. Had no idea.
So Truman could have not been the next President if Roosevelt had not stood and chosen a successor! Did the Republicans have no chance of winning, even if he had not stood?

@toblerone77:

@CWO:

@rjpeters70:

What’s worse is that he could have picked and groomed his successor; instead, he let the convention pick Truman as his running mate (which speaks well for conventions and ill for primaries), and did nothing to keep him in the know of the deals with Churchill, Stalin, the a-bomb, etc.��  He should have made Truman his Deputy President, or his Chief of Staff, so that on the day he died (which he had to know would be soon), Truman could step into his shoes and hit the ground running.��  That he did not do this is almost criminal malfeasance in my mind.

Interesting – I didn’t know this about the FDR/Truman relationship.�  I wonder if his non-grooming of Truman may have owed anything to constitutional factors.�  From what little I know about the subject, the US Constitution does designate the VP as the President’s successor (if this is needed) but doesn’t really prescribe any other role except the chairing of Senate.�  There probably wasn’t anything that would have prevented Roosevelt from informally training Truman and allowing him to be present during important meetings, but there may have been legal reasons that would have prevented him from formally designating Truman as his Chief of Staff. (Is that a position which requires Congressional confirmation?�  The Republicans might have had one or two words to say about the idea of the VP simultaneously holding two different high-level jobs within the administration)�  I also suspect there are no constitutional provisions for designating a Deputy President, if such an office even exists – but I could be completely wrong about this.�

You know It really is funny. As an American I think we as a nation for the most part subconsciously see the presidents and vice-presidents as “buddies”. In most cases it’s a totally different story. Even knowing this you still might think that Barrack Obama and Joe Biden go out for beers or play cards together.

There have been a few very contentious prez-VP pairings in history, with JFK and LBJ being one of the most famous.

@rjpeters70:

My understanding was that the Democrats needed to shore up their support with middle America, given the excesses of Henry Wallace and the rising support for Republicanism after 12 years in the wilderness.  Truman represented middle America (Missouri), agrarianism (was a farmer before being a Senator), hawkish, and moderate for the Democrats (which is one of the reasons Truman is seen in such good light today by both parties:  he appealed to both liberal and conservative principles, albeit more hawkish in foreign policy and more progressive in domestic policy).

I’m not as well read as your or many others here rjpeters, but adding to your post I believe Truman at some point heavily encouraged Eisenhower to run for president on the Democratic ticket.

@LOL General Veers! Yes you are most correct. I almost posted that, but feared de-railing the thread by encouraging a long JFK conspiracy fest LOL!
Yes, I agree with your post.

@rjpeters70:

My understanding was that the Democrats needed to shore up their support with middle America, given the excesses of Henry Wallace and the rising support for Republicanism after 12 years in the wilderness.  Truman represented middle America (Missouri), agrarianism (was a farmer before being a Senator), hawkish, and moderate for the Democrats (which is one of the reasons Truman is seen in such good light today by both parties:  he appealed to both liberal and conservative principles, albeit more hawkish in foreign policy and more progressive in domestic policy).

Thank you.

@General:

There have been a few very contentious prez-VP pairings in history, with JFK and LBJ being one of the most famous.

On the other side of the Atlantic, in 1940, when Chamberlain lost the confidence of Parliament after the Noway fiasco, there was initial speculation within the political establishment that Halifax (regarded as a weak but safe known quantity) would succeed him as PM and that Churchill (seen as a fighter but also as a dangerous loose cannon) would be made Minister of War, with the result that “Churchill would run the war under Halifax.”  It was a model which appealed to a great many people, with one unsurmountable exception: Winston Churchill.