Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Speculative History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 30th, 2012, 08:18 AM   #1
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: Soviet of Washington
Posts: 471
What would have been Japan's fate if the US had not used nuclear weapons?


A question to ponder 4 U.

Dave W.
Dave W. is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 30th, 2012, 08:25 AM   #2
.
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Valles Marineris, Mars
Posts: 4,835

lots of Japenese citizens will commit suicide american loses will be like 1,000,000. Japan might lose 30% of its population.
Gorge123 is offline  
Old December 30th, 2012, 08:46 AM   #3

ShoobeeDoobeeDoo's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: CCCP (Calif)
Posts: 252

The popular myth at the time was that the US military needed to invade Japan. It did not. There was simply no reason to do so.

With its fleet sunk and it air force shot down, there was very little Japan could have done after it was surrounded by the US Navy.

And with much of its manpower stranded across the various islands of the Pacific, the womenfolk back on the home islands had to do much of the work, including growing rice and farm animals.

A naval blockade therefore would have eventually starved the Japanese into surrendering, or else depopulated their military to the point where they could not oppose a conventional amphibious landing.

Saturation bombing was a popular military and strategic strategy in those times times, and it is likely the cities of Japan would have continued to be bombed, one way or the other, either with conventional high explosives or with nuclear weapons. A lot of people in the cities would have died either way, until the government there would have finally had to surrender.

Back in those times, clear victories with occupation by opposing armies had become quite popular, unlike the way we do things today, with a ceasefire followed by a long drawn out insurgency, such as in Afghanistan or Iraq.

There would have been little difference, whether the bombs were conventional or nuclear, either way.
ShoobeeDoobeeDoo is offline  
Old December 30th, 2012, 08:58 AM   #4

Vola's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 408

Instead of victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki we would have ten times more victims on both sides?
Vola is offline  
Old December 30th, 2012, 09:23 AM   #5

Soulstrider's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Portugal
Posts: 211

The war would prolong for perhaps 1 more year but I doubt the invasion of Japan would be needed, the Japanese government doesn't strike me as dumb enough to fight against nearly all the world no matter how fanatic some people seem to make it seem.

Also I am no expert in the Pacific War but wouldn't cutting the supplies to the homelands work effectively? Once they are cut from Manchuria it doesn't seem that Japan would be able to carry on the war effort much longer with just the home islands resources, after all that was one of the main reasons why they went for Korea and Manchuria in the first place.
Soulstrider is offline  
Old December 30th, 2012, 10:44 AM   #6
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: Soviet of Washington
Posts: 471

Anyone who knows the war in the Pacific know the Japanese where honor-bound to hold out to the end and then commit suicide by self-disembowlment. "Bushido" was the code of the warrior: translated "The die for the emporer is to live forever".

Japan had taken a tremendous pounding from the air during the war; incendary bombs ignited cities like Tokyo, Osaka and more.

According to the Potsdam Agreement between FDR, Churchill and Stalin, Russia was to enter the war again.

More later.....gotta run

Dave W.
Dave W. is offline  
Old December 30th, 2012, 11:19 AM   #7

f0ma's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: 英国
Posts: 805
Blog Entries: 8

One argument states that the Japanese surrendered because of the Russian invasion of Manchuria, rather than because of the nuclear bombings. So, in this light, perhaps they might have surrendered all the same, even had the US not employed such a weapon.
f0ma is offline  
Old December 30th, 2012, 11:31 AM   #8

Mangas Coloradas's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 795

The war may have went on for a few months more, maybe as long as a year but in the end they would have had no choice. I suspect when things became harsh enough for the people they may have rebelled. We would have most likely invaded in the end.
Mangas Coloradas is offline  
Old December 30th, 2012, 11:33 AM   #9

Soulstrider's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Portugal
Posts: 211

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave W. View Post
Anyone who knows the war in the Pacific know the Japanese where honor-bound to hold out to the end and then commit suicide by self-disembowlment. "Bushido" was the code of the warrior: translated "The die for the emporer is to live forever".
Yes but one thing is the average soldier, other is the government. I do believe if ordered to do so the Japanese soldiers would fight to their last man but would the ones in charge do that too ? They have to think about the future of the country besides simple personal honour, so if the situation really started to look grim even without nuclear bombs I believe they would surrender.
Soulstrider is offline  
Old December 30th, 2012, 11:56 AM   #10
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,468

The US might have had to contemplate accepting Japanese next to complete Japanese surrender, the sole provision being some form of promise regarding the future of the emperor (which once MacArthur was in place probably could be freely reneged upon — except we know the US kept the emperor around regardless, due to the general usefulness of the move).

That, or invade and possibly take that million US casualties.
Larrey is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Speculative History

Tags
fate, japan, nuclear, weapons


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
No nuclear weapons AlpinLuke Speculative History 17 July 3rd, 2012 06:07 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.