Who defeated Japan in the 2nd World War?

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,248
#71
Without the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Japanese would not have surrendered. They would have likely fought till Japan itself was conquered in a ground invasion. Therefore the obvious answer to your question is the United States defeated Japan.
They were already looking for ways to surrender before that – just not unconditionally. They knew they were beat. The real sticking point was that the Japanese effectively wanted guarantees the US wouldn't just put Hirohito before a firing squad. Agree to that, and the US + allies could have had capitulation on terms well before the nukes.
 
Jul 2016
8,950
USA
#73
The United States. We bombed them. My dad told me when he went to Japan in either 95 or 96 YOU SHOULDN'T MENTION THE BOMBING. I don't if that's still a thing now.
The Japanese spent 75 years rewriting WW2 history. In their version, they're the good guys. And the atomic bombs were greatest war crime ever committed. If you bring up the Nanjing Massacre or anything else, they'll either say its a lie or they'll not have a clue what you're talking about.
 
Likes: MG1962a
Mar 2019
850
Kansas
#75
The Japanese spent 75 years rewriting WW2 history. In their version, they're the good guys. And the atomic bombs were greatest war crime ever committed. If you bring up the Nanjing Massacre or anything else, they'll either say its a lie or they'll not have a clue what you're talking about.
Back in the day we had a Japanese exchange student. She was horrified to learn about some of Japans actions during the war. I really felt for her. She loved her country but really had trouble coming to terms with all this :(
 
Mar 2019
850
Kansas
#77
Of course it is. What patriot, Japanese or otherwise would want to be reminded of the worst military defeat in their nation's history?
I read an excellent article a few years ago, suggesting the bombing of Japan actually saved the world. People were so horrified by what these bombs could do they actively avoided using them in the future when there was far more of them to deploy.
 
Likes: Swamp Booger

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,248
#78
I read an excellent article a few years ago, suggesting the bombing of Japan actually saved the world. People were so horrified by what these bombs could do they actively avoided using them in the future when there was far more of them to deploy.
Perhaps. Otoh it did create a situation where every rouge dictator knows that the way to make yourself untouchable is to acquire nukes. It's also why the Cold War superpower were so decidedly keen on non-proliferation. That seems to have lapsed. While getting nukes is still a viable way to achieve outsized geopolitical clout. Nukes today is still a sign of who is a geopolitical Player...
 
Feb 2011
13,539
Perambulating in St James' Park
#79
The UK did not defeat Japan. Japan seized all of the UK's Asian colonies very early in WWII similar to how they took advantage of WWI to nab Germany's. Like the Germans in WWI the British had more pressing matters to attend to and that's exactly why Japan won so easily. The British did send battleships and the Japanese defeated them. After that UK only turned their eyes back on Asia once Germany was dealt with and they were riding on the coattails of an American victory even more so than in Europe where the UK served as a base for D-Day and provided a sizeable percentage of the soldiers on the Western front.

The Soviet's affirmed the hopelessness of the situation. Before the invasion of Manchuria, Japan still held much of urban China, the war mostly involved the Japanese navy. With the Soviets hitting Manchuria it would only be a matter of time before they were driven out of China and the US wouldn't even need to launch an amphibious invasion. Not that their holdings in China secured Japan at all.

The UK had been allies with Japan. However to get the Americans to sign the Washington Naval Treaty agreeing to having navy's capped at the same size (because we could build more ships than them if they didn't sign), we forced the British to abandon Japan as allies as we didn't want the treaty to give the combined Japanese and UK fleet a size advantage. This isolation put the Japanese in a corner where conquering Asia for resources was an economic necessity. Crazy thing is(save the atomic bombs) most Japanese military experts knew the likely outcome of WWII before it happened and the war was engaged with that mindset. So the idea the Japanese needed to be compelled into realizing the war was lost is silly, they knew if they didn't win early they were screwed. Unconditional surrender was a new concept at the time of WWII, when great powers fought, one usually made territorial concessions to another when there was a winner, but annexation(westernwise which the Japanese would have studied) was for small neighboring regions, not opposing major powers. Thus the Japanese never thought the US would hold out for unconditional surrender and they always thought it was talk and they would get stuck with some Treaty of Versailles like situation.
Kohima & Imphal.
 
Feb 2011
13,539
Perambulating in St James' Park
#80
I read an excellent article a few years ago, suggesting the bombing of Japan actually saved the world. People were so horrified by what these bombs could do they actively avoided using them in the future when there was far more of them to deploy.
It probably saved more allied lives from a Japanese invasion. The Japanese Empire was also evil and wouldn't have hesitated to
nuke numerous allied cities. There's a good case for MAD being a great excuse for peace keeping, primarily because you'd have to be mad to use nukes. Unfortunately our modern enemies want to die.
 

Similar History Discussions