What if: Western Allies vs Russia- 1945

[MOPO3]

I suppose it could be interesting:
How Strong Is Russia?
How Strong Is Russia? -- Monday, Nov. 27, 1950 -- Page 1 -- TIME

The unavoidable and awesome fact confronting the world today is that before the decade or even the year is out, the U.S. and Russia may be at war...

[Guest]

I can't help but think that the A-bombs might have had a secondary message to the Soviets as well....who knows.

It had been suggested many times, that was the primarly cause of the Atomic bombing. I have mention this on many forums and each time 100 angry American attacked me for this daring to suggest such a suggestion that involves American killing inoccent people to impress a tyrant.

My POV is that an average Japanese civilian or soldiers couldnt possibly know what is an atomic bomb, therefore being impressed by it might is a stretch. Government wise, I believe that after the asension of Admiral Suzuki as the premier and fall of Berlin, the wheels were already turning for a surrender. Though the Americans did their best to snubb the Japanese peace gesture. Similiar gesture made by Japan through neutral USSR, failed to dis-lodge Truman who wanted to play tough. IMHO Japan was DEFEATED conventionally not atomically.

Here i wil point the consequences of Atomic bombing of Japan which was done by delaying for three months the cessation of hostility

The A-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, did GIVE the soviet union time (May-August 1945) to transfer a large number of troops to the far eastern theatre, where they declared war on Japan about the same time the a-bombs were dropped. They overrun Manchuria and northern part of Korea. As you can see, Truman's great genuis backfired, sense not only Stalin was not impressed, the USSR probably re-double its effort to knockout US atomic monopoly, NORTH KOREA was created as a result, as a result Chian-Kai-Shek was wiped off the continant with Maoist Communist taking over China. Needless to say Korean War is the direct result of the decision to A bomb the two Japanese cities. On top of that McNamara's shyness in invading North Vietnam (during Vietnam War) in fear of Communist Chinese intervention would have probably much less since China would have been divided between nationalist and communist and that Viet Cong and North Vietnam would have very minimal supply routs to be supplied by Moscow.

Therefore, the myth of Hirshima was created to "show" that it was done to save lives ... would average Japanse know the difference between Atomic bomb and a massive conventional fire bombings that was happening there for that last two years. Their cities were ruined and completey destroyed in the dozens prior of the atomic bomings, and you guys believe that it was because they saw the might power of A-bomb that they surrendered.

[Lunatock]

Oh Patton wanted to ally with the no less than 300,000 Germans so that Germany, America, and Britian could push Russia back to it's pre-war borders, not allow them to annex parts of western Europe.

[dalem]

Therefore, the myth of Hirshima was created to "show" that it was done to save lives ... would average Japanse know the difference between Atomic bomb and a massive conventional fire bombings that was happening there for that last two years. Their cities were ruined and completey destroyed in the dozens prior of the atomic bomings, and you guys believe that it was because they saw the might power of A-bomb that they surrendered.

Read the documents at the time - it was done to end the war and to save AMERICAN lives - the reality that it also saved Japanese lives is true, but secondary.

And the Japanese people were subjects, not citizens - they did what their Emperor told them to do. He saw that 2 planes had completely destroyed two cities, knew the Americans had thousands of planes, did the math, and reluctantly chose surrender.

-dale

[Guest]

Read the documents at the time - it was done to end the war and to save AMERICAN lives - the reality that it also saved Japanese lives is true, but secondary.

And the Japanese people were subjects, not citizens - they did what their Emperor told them to do. He saw that 2 planes had completely destroyed two cities, knew the Americans had thousands of planes, did the math, and reluctantly chose surrender.

-dale

I can certainly understand this part as this was my view for the past 10 years and I am aware of thos documents.

But my point is that bombing of cities using conventional methods would have done the samething, if the skies were free of any Japanese planes. US could have burned city after city without even the nuclear bombs and caused much greater casuallty by using flame-bombs against the paper-cities. The use of atomic bombs were primarly meant by Truman to scare the Soviets. I think it would be wise that most of you do consider diplomatic communication between Tokyo to Moscow and Washington, as it showed cased Japanese willingness to surrender except on the question of the emperor's post-war position. After the atomic bombing the same condition were largely accepted.
My point is that US didnot want to do anything with Japan's surrender issue, untill it had dropped the atomic-bombs.

Most of you ignore that General Tojo was no longer premier, and Admiral Suzuki was given the mandate of premiership with the single agenda to end the war. It is easy to classify Hirohito as the Hitler of Japan, but that would be quite incorrect. Hirohito, though emperor, never chose to rule but he rather reign.

There is a good movie not on this particular subject but about the 24 hours prior to the Japanese surrender: the movie is called Japan's Longest Day.

[Officer of Engineers]

And that communique between Tokyo and Moscow would also showed the Japanese had no intention of surrender. Moscow informed Tokyo that they intended to declare war. The Japanese, in the face of this new enemy, chose to fight.

[Guest]

^^^

wasnt that case where the Japanese ambassador appraoched Molotov and told him to act as mediator following the fall of Berlin, and that Molotov got pissed off and told him in certain terms that the Non-aggression pact between USSR and Japan will not be renewed at the end of its expiary date.

[Officer of Engineers]

Doesn't change the fact that the Kwantung Army chose to fight instead of surrender.

[Guest]

I cannot remember well but I believe that the conversation between Molotov and the japanese ambassador were weeks before august sometimes in June? ... i have go back to my books to get all these dates (Russian-japanese)

you said "communique between Tokyo and Moscow would also showed the Japanese had no intention of surrender" .. i believe this to be wrong . i ll get back to you ...

[omon]

don't you guys think that russia would also have allyes? i think that china, poland, and others who got liberated from germans would be on russian side back than.
russian army was nothing compare to nazi germany at the beginings of ww2, but russia won, so do pure numbers tell a compleate story? i think there is more than just numbers to take into account,
us had bigger navy, so what, so did the nazi.
us had better af, so did the nazis.
did us have experience to fight in europe, as much as russians? no
did us need to bring everything to europe? yes.
could the ships get blown up? yes.
i sriously doubt that us would win, russia 3 times bigger landwise, i don't think us would have enough power to fully occupate russia, and hold on to it for long time.
don't forget allys. china especially, they would definatly be on russian side back than, even now.
great superpower nazi germany lost, to barbarian russians, and nazi army was much stronger than us. where are they now? russia is still here.

[astralis]

xerxes,

the japanese wanted a conditional surrender. the allies wanted an unconditional surrender.

[Guest]

^^ i know that

but the matter of the fact is after the dropping of nukes, the Allies did granted Japan unconditional surrender with clause regarding the position of emperor. That (clause regarding the emperor) was the primarily reason the that Japanese failed to accept the unconditional surrender prior to the atomic bombing. that is my view

But I just cant see that government and people of Japan were suddenly awed by the destructive power of the A-bombs, and that is assuming if they know what is A-bomb is considering that strategic bombing was more than casual. The offical emperor's speech to the people of japan might have had a part where he uses the new "destructive weapon" but that is merely an excuse. Japan (imperial leadership) was ready to giveup after the fall of Germany. Though Japanese army that wanted to fight on, and that was still the case after the Atomic bombing therefore making the case the A-bombs awed the Japanese army leadership void.

[astralis]

xerxes,

after the fall of germany, everyone saw the writing on the wall. japan knew she had been defeated, but she was holding out for a conditional surrender.

the IJA knew that operation downfall was coming along, and was making preparations to make the americans bleed. they were hoping that if they caused enough casualties, they could force america to the negotiation table and get at least a conditional surrender out of it.

the atom bomb persuaded some of the more "moderate", and crucial leaders, that america did not need to fight, and would not need to bleed, to destroy japan.

quite a few of the IJA wanted to fight on anyways- to them, surrender was unthinkable and was thus not subject to rational discussion.

but it took the atom bombs to seperate those few and those crucial leaders away from the "death of 100 million" worldview. they couldn't get their glorious final battle.

[Guest]

xerxes,

after the fall of germany, everyone saw the writing on the wall. japan knew she had been defeated, but she was holding out for a conditional surrender.

the IJA knew that operation downfall was coming along, and was making preparations to make the americans bleed. they were hoping that if they caused enough casualties, they could force america to the negotiation table and get at least a conditional surrender out of it.

the atom bomb persuaded some of the more "moderate", and crucial leaders, that america did not need to fight, and would not need to bleed, to destroy japan.

quite a few of the IJA wanted to fight on anyways- to them, surrender was unthinkable and was thus not subject to rational discussion.

but it took the atom bombs to seperate those few and those crucial leaders away from the "death of 100 million" worldview. they couldn't get their glorious final battle.

would you agree that the samething could have been accomplish using conventional methods? which would cause twice the casualty ...


about those moderate leaders like Suzuki, Admiral Yonai and Togo (not Tojo), they were already convince as early as 1937-38 that war between Japan and US would be disastrous. Even Yamamoto was agaist it. Generally speaking Japanese officers in the Navy had studied aboard and most of them had seen the industrial might of United States whereas the Army officers were did not had that forsight. The late cabinets ministers after the fall of General Tojo were dominated mostly by moderate with the possible exception of General Anami:

Post General Tojo's cabinet:

General Koiso Cabinet (July 1944-April 1945)

Vice Prime Minister: Admiral Yonai
Foreign Minister: Mr. Shigemitsu
Finance Minister: Mr. Ishiwata
February 1945- April 1945: Mr. Tsushima
War Minister: Field Marshal Sugiyama
Navy Minister: Admiral Yonai

Admiral Baron Suzuki Cabinet (April-August 1945)

Foreign Minister: Mr. Togo
Finance Minister: Mr. Hirose
War Minister: General Anami
Navy Minister: Admiral Yonai

In case of IJA, General Anami the war minister of the late cabinet, a diehard Samurai regardless of his personal opinion and that if the IJA did what the emperor commanded and he committed suicide only after he completed his work as war minister and the surrender was announced

[Officer of Engineers]

would you agree that the samething could have been accomplish using conventional methods? which would cause twice the casualty ...

With or without DOWNFALL?