Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 12th, 2017, 03:54 AM   #1

notgivenaway's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2015
From: UK
Posts: 4,772
Could the Allies have used contained Japan, instead of dropping Fat Man/Little Boy?


If the Allies stationed troops in Korea, USSR, and China, and the US Navy, Royal Navy, Royal Australian Navy, etc. blockaded Japan, would this have been preferable?

If Japan really was willing to fight to the last man, then the bombs should not dissuade that. Surely dying in a nuclear blast for them was a more glorious death than getting shot by a rifle, tank, or artillery piece. Either way, it's still dying. This showed they were reasonable, and could realise when the game was up.

So if Japan was on the verge of a mass starvation event, wouldn't they have surrendered still, if they could acknowledge defeat was inevitable?
notgivenaway is offline  
Remove Ads
Old August 12th, 2017, 04:18 AM   #2
Academician
 
Joined: Aug 2017
From: Portugal
Posts: 73

Most military officers and chief advisors sustained the idea at the time that there was no need for the use of the atomic bomb. There were even intelligence information of the intention of Japan to surrender, before the US used the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagazaki.

So, based on that, i think there's room to say that the US didn't need to get to that level of belligerance to win the war in the asian front.
Tuga is offline  
Old August 12th, 2017, 05:34 AM   #3
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: Dispargum
Posts: 1,545

For the Allies to occupy coastal China and all of Korea would require invasions, possibly as bloody as any invasion of Japan. So there's no gain with this strategy. Alternatively, the western Allies could have done nothing and let the Soviet Union occupy these regions.

One reason for the atomic bombings was the knowledge that the USSR was about to enter the war. The western Allies did not want to share the spoils of victory with the USSR, so there was great pressure to end the war quickly, before the Soviets could sieze too much territory. Waiting for the Japanese to starve would have allowed the Soviets to occupy all of the Korean penninsula and probably most of China, too. It may have also resulted in a divided Japan with both Soviet and US zones of occupation similar to Germany.
Chlodio is online now  
Old August 12th, 2017, 05:43 AM   #4

Matthew Amt's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: MD, USA
Posts: 2,128

It was WAR. We were trying to WIN. This seems to be a concept that no one understands today. What's wrong with winning as quickly as possible? Americans and their allies were dying every day, to regular attacks and kamikazes, as well as being starved and tortured to death in Japanese prison camps, and just in everyday accidents on ships or military posiitons on land.

How many more Americans do you want to kill? Heck, not to mention the millions of Japanese who get to watch their children starve to death--does that sound like fun?

Drop the Bomb. Win the war.

What's hard about this?

Matthew
Matthew Amt is offline  
Old August 12th, 2017, 06:04 AM   #5

Tulius's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2016
From: Portugal
Posts: 2,846

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Amt View Post
It was WAR. We were trying to WIN. This seems to be a concept that no one understands today.
I also have a hard time to understand the anachronism of the supposed scruples that we see in this kind of ideas. The main question is why the USA wouldn’t drop a new weapon recently developed to help to end the war as soon as possible? I can’t envision a single rational reason.
Tulius is online now  
Old August 12th, 2017, 06:28 AM   #6

Wizard From Oz's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2013
From: Hays Kansas (ex Australian)
Posts: 396

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Amt View Post

How many more Americans do you want to kill? Heck, not to mention the millions of Japanese who get to watch their children starve to death--does that sound like fun?

At Los Alamos there was a big sign showing the daily casualty rate of American servicemen each day the project was running.

The people developing this weapon fully aware what problems any delay in deploying the bomb would create.
Wizard From Oz is offline  
Old August 12th, 2017, 06:35 AM   #7

Wizard From Oz's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2013
From: Hays Kansas (ex Australian)
Posts: 396

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulius View Post
I also have a hard time to understand the anachronism of the supposed scruples that we see in this kind of ideas. The main question is why the USA wouldn’t drop a new weapon recently developed to help to end the war as soon as possible? I can’t envision a single rational reason.
One of the traps of history is to overlay our current moral compass on events of the past. A better question might be, how many lives did the bombing save in the future.

How many potential nuclear exchanges have been avoided because Japan was bombed
Wizard From Oz is offline  
Old August 12th, 2017, 06:39 AM   #8

M.S. Islam's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Dhaka
Posts: 2,369

One bomb would have been enough to achieve that 'stated' goal. The second bomb made it the most heinous crime against humanity.
M.S. Islam is offline  
Old August 12th, 2017, 06:40 AM   #9
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,005

Actually it would have been quite possible (and not too difficult either) to contain Japanese home islands. Submarines and aircraft delivered naval mines could have accomplished that almost just by themselves. Add to that carrier groups patrolling the waters nearby and that is about it. Problem really is that it might not have forced Japanese to surrender all that quickly (though on hindsight some of the comments indicate it might have) and could have cost even more lives than dropping the bombs.
Vaeltaja is offline  
Old August 12th, 2017, 06:44 AM   #10

Wizard From Oz's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2013
From: Hays Kansas (ex Australian)
Posts: 396

Quote:
Originally Posted by M.S. Islam View Post
One bomb would have been enough to achieve that 'stated' goal. The second bomb made it the most heinous crime against humanity.
Well blame the Japanese leaders for that. Even after the second bomb there was nearly a military coup to stop the Emperor deciding on peace.
Wizard From Oz is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
allies, boy, contained, dropping, fat, japan, man or little



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Japan allies with France in the Sino-French War WeisSaul Speculative History 4 January 28th, 2015 01:34 PM
Germany Allies with China Instead of Japan? EmperorTigerstar Speculative History 44 July 19th, 2014 04:50 PM
Debate: The Dropping of the Atomic Bomb Sparta91 General History 280 May 26th, 2014 08:05 PM
Proof supraethnic Han peoples contained several components wingerman Asian History 54 October 26th, 2013 04:20 AM
Had the Allies invaded Japan... Davidthefat Speculative History 6 April 11th, 2011 12:09 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.