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 October 19th, 2015, 01:14 PM   #1

Futurist's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2014
From: SoCal
Posts: 11,491
Blog Entries: 8
Why didn't Italy & Japan lose massive amounts of their territory after World War II?


Why didn't Italy and Japan lose massive amounts of their territory after World War II like Germany did?
Futurist is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 19th, 2015, 01:18 PM   #2
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: the world
Posts: 297
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist View Post
Why didn't Italy and Japan lose massive amounts of their territory after World War II like Germany did?
Because the Japanese still had a largely intact Army on their home islands, and another 25 million people who would die for the Emperor. The US had another two bombs until 1948 if they had to spend money fighting to take Japan by boot.

It was part of the deal that Japan would give up, become a vassal for a time, and keep its territrory, and the Emperor his throne.

In Italy, it was largely seen as Mussolini's henchmen who were guilty of forcing the Italians to do as they wanted, including the army, which was as you probably know, was the worst of WW2, probably because they didn't want to win.

Plus, Italian partisans were insturmental to our landings along the peninsula

Last edited by WodenTheWise; October 19th, 2015 at 01:20 PM.
WodenTheWise is offline  
Old October 19th, 2015, 01:20 PM   #3

notgivenaway's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2015
From: UK
Posts: 5,230

because it was largely ethnic Poles in those areas. Italy's borders haven't changed much since it became a unified country in 1861.
notgivenaway is offline  
Old October 19th, 2015, 01:46 PM   #4

Futurist's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2014
From: SoCal
Posts: 11,491
Blog Entries: 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by WodenTheWise View Post
Because the Japanese still had a largely intact Army on their home islands, and another 25 million people who would die for the Emperor. The US had another two bombs until 1948 if they had to spend money fighting to take Japan by boot.
Where exactly are you getting your data for 1948 from, though? After all, it states here that the U.S. already had 11 nuclear weapons in 1946 and 110 nuclear weapons in 1948:

NRDC: Nuclear Data - Table of US Nuclear Warheads, 1945-2002

Quote:
It was part of the deal that Japan would give up, become a vassal for a time, and keep its territrory, and the Emperor his throne.
This actually appears to be an extremely good point. After all, looking at the text of the 1945 Potsdam Declaration, I have found this statement:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration

"(8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine."

Thus, it appears that the Allies (informally?) promised to Japan that it would be allowed to keep its four main islands, possibly in the hopes of getting Japan to unconditionally surrender sooner.

Quote:
In Italy, it was largely seen as Mussolini's henchmen who were guilty of forcing the Italians to do as they wanted, including the army, which was as you probably know, was the worst of WW2, probably because they didn't want to win.
OK.

Quote:
Plus, Italian partisans were insturmental to our landings along the peninsula
Source, please?
Futurist is offline  
Old October 19th, 2015, 01:48 PM   #5

Futurist's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2014
From: SoCal
Posts: 11,491
Blog Entries: 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by notgivenaway View Post
because it was largely ethnic Poles in those areas.
False (Poles are in dark green on this map):

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.
Futurist is offline  
Old October 19th, 2015, 02:03 PM   #6

Nemowork's Avatar
Teflon Soul
 
Joined: Jan 2011
From: South of the barcodes
Posts: 8,006

Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist View Post
Why didn't Italy and Japan lose massive amounts of their territory after World War II like Germany did?
Italy lost their conquered territories like Ethiopia, Libya and albania but by the end of the war the fascist state had ceased to exist and Italy was on the side of the victors.

You dont penalise the winners.

As for japan, they lost their colonies in Korea and manchukuo/manchuria and parts of nominally mainland Japan like the Kuril islands but who would have taken part of the country? Britain and France had their hands full, so did the Chinese leaving the Russians as the obvious candidate but the Americans werent going to let that happen.
Nemowork is offline  
Old October 19th, 2015, 02:07 PM   #7
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: the world
Posts: 297
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist View Post
Where exactly are you getting your data for 1948 from, though? After all, it states here that the U.S. already had 11 nuclear weapons in 1946 and 110 nuclear weapons in 1948:

NRDC: Nuclear Data - Table of US Nuclear Warheads, 1945-2002



This actually appears to be an extremely good point. After all, looking at the text of the 1945 Potsdam Declaration, I have found this statement:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration

"(8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine."

Thus, it appears that the Allies (informally?) promised to Japan that it would be allowed to keep its four main islands, possibly in the hopes of getting Japan to unconditionally surrender sooner.



OK.



Source, please?
Codename Downfall, by Richard Frank, and Downfall, by the same author.

The Invasion of Japan, by John Ray Skates.

Mr. Truman's War, by J. Robert Moskin

The Fall of Japan, by William Craig

It took us years to produce the fissionable Uranium and Plutonium for the two that they dropped. Extrapolate. Mr. Truman's war goes into detail.

Last edited by WodenTheWise; October 19th, 2015 at 02:09 PM.
WodenTheWise is offline  
Old October 19th, 2015, 02:46 PM   #8
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2013
From: australia
Posts: 2,449

Poland lost land to Russia because Poland started WWII we are reliably informed.
chimera is offline  
Old October 19th, 2015, 02:49 PM   #9

Futurist's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2014
From: SoCal
Posts: 11,491
Blog Entries: 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemowork View Post
Italy lost their conquered territories like Ethiopia, Libya and albania but by the end of the war the fascist state had ceased to exist and Italy was on the side of the victors.

You dont penalise the winners.

As for japan, they lost their colonies in Korea and manchukuo/manchuria and parts of nominally mainland Japan like the Kuril islands but who would have taken part of the country? Britain and France had their hands full, so did the Chinese leaving the Russians as the obvious candidate but the Americans werent going to let that happen.
Losing one colonies is much different from losing one's core territory, though. Indeed, both Japan and Italy only lost a small amount of their core territory after the end of World War II.

Also, in regards to Hokkaido, perhaps the Koreans could have received it after the end of World War II.
Futurist is offline  
Old October 19th, 2015, 02:50 PM   #10

Futurist's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2014
From: SoCal
Posts: 11,491
Blog Entries: 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by WodenTheWise View Post
Codename Downfall, by Richard Frank, and Downfall, by the same author.

The Invasion of Japan, by John Ray Skates.

Mr. Truman's War, by J. Robert Moskin

The Fall of Japan, by William Craig

It took us years to produce the fissionable Uranium and Plutonium for the two that they dropped. Extrapolate. Mr. Truman's war goes into detail.
Thanks for these links. That said, though, are you suggesting that the information in the chart which I posted above is inaccurate?
Futurist is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
amounts, italy, japan, lose, massive, territory, war



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Would Japan Lose? mingming Speculative History 20 January 26th, 2018 03:37 AM
What made France lose interest in Italy? bartieboy Medieval and Byzantine History 15 August 20th, 2015 07:19 AM
Why exactly didn't Russia demand more territory from China back when China was weak? Futurist Asian History 14 November 1st, 2014 11:01 AM
What were Japan's plans for their conquered territory in the long run? Lee-Sensei Asian History 2 August 13th, 2014 07:24 PM
Would Japan be in World War 2 if Tokugawa Shogunate didn't fell? vlmirano Speculative History 2 April 14th, 2012 12:25 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.