What if Japan had not surrendered?

[Blademaster]

BM,



simply put, the US public was never very impressed by the island campaign: tens of thousands of soldiers/airmen/sailors lost to capture piddly-little islands, many of which lost meaning once the japanese were killed off.

but talking about an invasion of japan-- about tojo and hirohito and the rest getting what they deserved for pearl harbor-- now that was more than worth it. the japanese thought over and over that if they only fought long enough, they would be able to force the US to a stalemate, or at least a negotiated surrender. they were wrong. the US public was actually quite pissed off when it became clear that the US was NOT going to have hirohito tried and strung up as a war criminal.

All that anger for a military base bombed. Hell, Americans have done worse to itself and to others and gotten off lightly.

No I don't think it was justified anger. There has to be something more to this anger than what Pearl Harbor did.

[Officer of Engineers]

Pearl was just the start. The IJE then proceeded to confirm American opinion of them through the Bantam Death March, Hong Kong, Comfort Women, Nanking, cannibalism, etc. The only reason why they didn't butcher white women like pigs is because their officers prefer white women. At Nanking, after being raped, Chinese women were pig meat.

There is only one other theatre with such hatre involved - the Soviet-Nazi War. There, like the Pacific War, no quarters were asked nor given. The BIA fought with that same intense ferocity against the IJA.

[Blademaster]

Pearl was just the start. The IJE then proceeded to confirm American opinion of them through the Bantam Death March, Hong Kong, Comfort Women, Nanking, cannibalism, etc. The only reason why they didn't butcher white women like pigs is because their officers prefer white women. At Nanking, after being raped, Chinese women were pig meat.

There is only one other theatre with such hatre involved - the Soviet-Nazi War. There, like the Pacific War, no quarters were asked nor given. The BIA fought with that same intense ferocity against the IJA.

Now that makes sense to me.

[vsdoc]

Why do you read what you want instead of what the histories tell you.

History is written by historians. From both sides. And while history should ideally just be a bland canvas having a narrative of only the facts, and not colored by opinions and beliefs and prejudices from a biased viewpoint, the fact of the matter is that it was a World War. Everyone was involved, and it is thus impossible to get a truly unbiased account.

You therefore read what is written, the scenarios and the possibilities, and after attempting to separate the wheat of the facts from the chaff of "analyses," come to conclusions based on what you read and what you know and what you then deduce based on how you see the complete picture.

So what I write and where I stand with regard to the debate is based on what I believe based on what I know and have read. As does everyone else.

The fact of the matter is that Operation Downfall did not happen. The fact of the matter is that the bombs were dropped first. Those are facts. All else is just debate based on could be's and would be's and the why's and why not's - all of which are not facts and are opinions based on history. As mine are. As your's are too.

Stalin would have only invaded Japan if the US invaded. He was upholding his end of the bargain. He was perfectly happy with Manchuria, Korea, and the islands he took. He would have only gone further if the prize was worth it and if he had go alone, it was not worth it.

I put it to you that America made their decision based on what happened in Germany earlier. America could not and did not not want to risk another Berlin in Tokyo.

But be that as it may, why do you insist the Americans were bluffing? They were not. DOWNFALL was going to happen if Hirohito did not yeild. All the prep work was done. All the PURPLE HEARTS were ordered. All the coffins and body bags were being set aside. While the top echelons may have known about the nukes, every bellycrawler and squid was ready, able, and willing to take the fight to Japan.

The Americans did not start off bluffing. They had no other option then with the bombs not ready. Hence Iwo Jima. Hence Okinawa. Hence the plans in place for the final push. But they were not ready for what happened at Iwo Jima. And definitely not the immensely costly drawn out campaign in Okinawa. Be it due to poor/incomplete intelligence at the time or underestimation of the enemy's willingness to fight and resources to carry on that fight.

Added to that for Truman and MacArthur, against the backdrop of low morale and even lower staying power of the Allied war machine, was the new intelligence of what the enemy was amassing for the coming invasion as part of their own Ketsu-Go.

Then the bomb finally becomes available. As does the chance to leave the Purple Hearts and the body bags for sometime later in the future. It was a no-brainer really. Everything else is window dressing sir. And rationalization for future generations on the right and wrong as well as wargaming the options available at the time - as we did elsewhere earlier.

All the histories stated the invasion was real.

The invasion never happened and thus was never real and a matter of conjecture and debate. And one persons opinion against another's.

What's more, the American bloodlust was not sated. The Americans burned 6 cities to the ground and were still clamouring for more. As much as you wanted to nuke Pakistan, the Americans wanted Japan dead 10 times more.

Sure. No one is doubting the American blood lust. But that does not change the facts. They are just motives. Blood lust down the ages often goes unsated. Without the means or the will to do so. The bomb gave the Americans the means to do what they had lost the will and the means for. And the means included Time. With the Russians coming. Not just ready warriors and the means to wage war.

You are entitled to your opinion but all the histories have stated that DOWNFALL was real and would have had happened.

As you and all of us are to our own sir. The plans for Downfall were real. Whether it would have happened is always going to be open to debate. For all the reasons mentioned above.

[Officer of Engineers]

None of what you wrote contradicts the warning orders, the preparations, and the general sense of needing to attack Japan had they not surrendered. No, the Soviets were not going to take Tokyo. That ability was beyond them for another 3 years.

[Doktor]

vsdoc,

What I can see is: plans, troops, means and motivation to end IJA's war machine and to make Japan capitulate, what you are implying is if the Americans didn't have the nukes, the wouldn't go for Downfall?

I am confused. What do you think those troops would do?

[vsdoc]

None of what you wrote contradicts the warning orders, the preparations, and the general sense of needing to attack Japan had they not surrendered.

Nimitz when told about preparations for the bomb famously shrugged and said "Meanwhile I have a war to fight."

Sir you are a military man. Do you start-stop plans and preparations for amassing and deploying the scale of forces needed for the mother of all invasions, from as far off as the European theater, in 1945 logistics scenarios, on the whims and unpredictabilities of whether a geek/boffin toy would happen or not?

You plan for the worst, and hope for the best. That still does not mean that were the bomb not to have happened, or Japan not have surrendered even if it had, the invasion would have gone to plan.

I put it to you that in terms of allied morale, the effects would have been devastating had Japan called the American bluff.

An enemy that fights as it did in Iwo Jima and Okinawa, an enemy that screams Banzai and plummets out of the sky, and enemy that willingly would disembowel themselves rather than surrender, and enemy that will die but ensure that they take one of you for every three of theirs, an enemy that can absorb two irradiated cities and still wait for you on its shores, is not an enemy that the Allied forces would have willingly engaged in frontal invasion. Not the allied forces brutalized themselves by 5 years of war.

No, the Soviets were not going to take Tokyo. That ability was beyond them for another 3 years.

I stick to what I said. They would have gone to blockade. And tried to work out the best they could manage from the Russians when they came. As they would. The world war was over and a new world order was at stake. They would have come. And America would have taken half at best, as it it did in Germany. I am not saying Tokyo would have gone to the Russians. But all accounts agree that America would use Japan as a counter-lever to Europe/Germany, where by all accounts the Russians took the lions share of the honors and the spoils.

[vsdoc]

vsdoc,

What I can see is: plans, troops, means and motivation to end IJA's war machine and to make Japan capitulate, what you are implying is if the Americans didn't have the nukes, the wouldn't go for Downfall?

I am confused. What do you think those troops would do?

Doktor, I think my reply to OoE answers the second part of your question (confusion).

As for the first part, I am not implying that Downfall would not have happened had the bomb not happened.

I am stating my belief that Downfall would not have happened had the bomb happened and Japan still did not surrender.

The plans were in place. As were most of the troops (minus those that fell at Okinawa - many many more than what was planned for - and way over the schedule planned for as well). The hatred was there too.

But so was fear. So was fatigue. So was a war machine on the brink of economic, manufacturing, and logistical collapse.

And so was the realisation that time was running out, with the very real chance of coming up second best to an equally powerful "ally" of convenience in the present, who would be an ideological threat in the very near future, as the victors scrambled to divvy up the spoils of a war ravaged planet lying defenseless to the strongest of the survivors and their versions of the new world order.

I'll go a step further here - just as the USSR was a relic of WWII whose time had come, so is NATO today a relic of the same war whose time has come.

[Doktor]

Ah, I see.

To confuse you even more, some facts that we know and are undisputed:
- USSR's economy was in a worse situation then USA
- USSR land/leased weapons (including planes) from USA
- USSR suffered ~20 mil casualties during WWII while USA suffered ~1 mil.
- Main USSR troops were still in Europe.
- USSR was not able to make a successful landing on the Japanese shores, they didn't have the means nor the experience.
- USSR didn't have the experience how to fight Japanese even if the landing was a success, meaning they will have to do the learning the hard way.
- Finally, the war was over for USSR on May 9th, 1945, so sending vast amount of troops in Japan was not having any impact for Stalin. He was more concerned how to keep the Baltic, the Balkans and Poland.

[vsdoc]

Ah, I see.

To confuse you even more, some facts that we know and are undisputed:
- USSR's economy was in a worse situation then USA
- USSR land/leased weapons (including planes) from USA
- USSR suffered ~20 mil casualties during WWII while USA suffered ~1 mil.
- Main USSR troops were still in Europe.
- USSR was not able to make a successful landing on the Japanese shores, they didn't have the means nor the experience.
- USSR didn't have the experience how to fight Japanese even if the landing was a success, meaning they will have to do the learning the hard way.
- Finally, the war was over for USSR on May 9th, 1945, so sending vast amount of troops in Japan was not having any impact for Stalin. He was more concerned how to keep the Baltic, the Balkans and Poland.

All said and done, the agreement between Stalin and Truman was that Russia would be entering this war in August of 1945. And there are enough references in the Truman diaries which indicate that it was not a role limited to the mainland either. The same diaries also have enough references to Truman talking about the "dynamite" and "ace in the hole" long before that. But NOT with Stalin (the closest he came was towards the end of July - "a new weapon of unusual destructive force"). Do you not see the obvious here? Truman wanted the English and the Russians in on the final invasion. Till the last moment. He knew he could not go it alone. Till the bomb changed all that. Truman did not need the Russians anymore. Truman did not WANT the Russians even more.

[Officer of Engineers]

Vsdoc, look up Curtis Lemay.

[vsdoc]

Doktor, some more insight into the Russian angle -

Debating the American Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb

Critical Dates for Understanding Truman's Decision

1. Truman delays Potsdam meeting with the Soviets until he is informed that the atomic bomb was successfully tested. The atomic bomb exploded in Alamogordo, New Mexico, on July 16th, and the Postdam meeting began on July 17th, 1945.

2. At Postdam, Truman gets the Soviets to agree to enter the war a week later than they had originally promised, moving the date from August 8th to August 15th, 1945.

3. After Soviets agree to enter the war against Japan on August 15th, Truman then orders that the Atomic bombs be dropped on August 6th and 9th, 1945.

4. If Truman thought that the war would be over as soon as the Soviets entered the war against Japan, why did he drop the atomic bombs on Japan before the Soviets could enter the war on August 15th, 1945?

5. Recognizing that the United States had misled them, after the American atomic bombing of Hiroshima on August 6th, the Russians entered the war against Japan on August 9th. After the atomic bombing of Nagasaki and the Russian entry into the war on August 9th, the Japanese surrendered on August 10th and the U.S. accepted their surrender on August 15th--the day the Russians were scheduled to enter the war against Japan.

6. In order to keep the Russians out of any peace settlement with Japan and prevent any Russian claims on Asia, the United States accepted the Japanese offer of conditional surrender on August 10th.The Japanese surrender wasn't an unconditional surrender, which President Truman had demanded of the Japanese since May 1945.

7. Had the United States allowed the Japanese to keep their emperor the Japanese would have surrendered much earlier, as early as June 1945 when the Japanese offered a conditional surrender through Russian and Italian intermediaries.

There is more, much more ......

[Officer of Engineers]

None of which contradicts DOWNFALL had Japan not surrendered. And no, the US did NOT accept conditional surrender. That part is absolutely clear.

[vsdoc]

Vsdoc, look up Curtis Lemay.

Sir I am concentrating on Secretary of State James Byrnes currently.

But I will get around to Lemay as well.

[Officer of Engineers]

Curtis Lemay's firebombing killed more people than the two nukes combined and still DOWNFALL was going ahead.