what if...

[orion549]

I've never heard this Soviet angle, anybody have some info on it? I'd like to read what they had started for preparations for this type of excursion. Because I would've thought the Soviets were not in the position to make an attack elsewhere, as I had always heard they were not anywhere near the strength of the Allies in the West, and had there not been the "mutual tolerance" between the Western Allies and the Soviets, the Western forces could have almost walked into a good portion of the USSR instead of sweeping up into Germany.

[ToughOmbre]

The idea in war is to end it ASAP, utilizing any available resource. Japan still had an army in the field; in the course of enforcing a blockade/siege there were still going to be American casualties. After four years of war and 405,000 Americans killed, that was not an option. And incredibly, the A-bombs saved more Japanese lives than American lives in the long run.

TO

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by orion549

I've never heard this Soviet angle, anybody have some info on it? I'd like to read what they had started for preparations for this type of excursion. Because I would've thought the Soviets were not in the position to make an attack elsewhere, as I had always heard they were not anywhere near the strength of the Allies in the West, and had there not been the "mutual tolerance" between the Western Allies and the Soviets, the Western forces could have almost walked into a good portion of the USSR instead of sweeping up into Germany.

From what I understand, Russia was moving aggressively to take control of land Japan occupied, and ended up with half of Korea. If the war would have continued, Russia would have certainly occupied all of Korea and possibly occupied the northern part of Japan, which they did anyway by occupying the Kuril Islands.

The atomic bomb detonation also dampened Russian ambitions in Europe, most likely preventing a follow-on war with the Soviet Union.

In my opinion, the atomic bomb, up to now, has been the most peace inducing weapon ever developed.

[Evil_Merlin]

Originally Posted by Marcel

Not convinced yet. Japan was different from germany in the fact that it had no real borders with any other country. It's much easier to seal off. If you seal them of from oil, they have no freedom to wage war, because they have no fuel to power the machine. It's the principle of siege in the middle ages which still could be applied.

Marcel you need to understand just what the Japanese mindset was at the time. In its history it had never lost a battle, and was very much a war based country starting with the inital unification wars of the Heian Period which was full of civil war and the real foundation of what is Japan, the Mongol invasions of the 1200's during the Kamakura Period which forged the Japanese into a true feudal society based on violence and extereme segregation between classes. And then the start of the Muromachi period which really only started once the shogunate was destroyed, again with civil war.

By the time the Muromachi period ends (around 156 and the Azuchi-Momoyama period starts, Japan very quickly becomes one of military stabilization under Nobungaga and Hideyoshi. They waged many wars against Korea in order to capture the orient for their own use.

With the rise of Edo (Tokyo) things began to stablize but there was much to fight about especially during the Boshin War...

We all know what started in the early 20th century.

Japan has always, until it's defeat in WW2 been a very war based society.

What happened was bound to happen eventually.

[merlin]

Originally Posted by plan_D

Merlin is right. You cannot allow the enemy freedom to wage war; it's been one of the most important aspects of war throughout history. Denying the enemy the ability to wage war was the primary reason the Roman Empire grew so large and the reason that Japan would have needed to be invaded.

No, it's nothing to do with me! That's EVIL Merlin - not 'Merlin'.

But to add my opinion while I'm here!

Any attempt to modify the Unconditional surrender requirement would be seen as a sign of weakness by the Japanese. They surrendered when they did, because as they had no defence against the A-bomb, they were able to 'save face'. Without the 'bomb', it was back to plan-A - make it so expensive in lives that the Allies will negotiate. But then that was always the Japanese plan - one big battle: Pearl harbor, Midway & Leyte Gulf!

In preparation for an invasion, the railways were going to be cut - which would just to isolate the battlefield, but also cut off the cities from the farmland. Gradually, but inexorably the population would leave the cities in search of food, or starve.
By this time Japan would have little or no coastal shipping - all sunk by aircraft. In Germany P-47's strafed horse drawn carts, in Japan, it would be similar with all the aircraft amassed in Okinawa & on carriers, plus the US built V-1's.
The big problem would be - who would be able to surrender, i.e. have the authority!?

[fly boy]

so i guess the nuke helped us and keep the ussr form more land then they had at the end of the war

[Njaco]

Evil Merlin (not merlin ) had a good post about the mind-set and to add. Civillian casualties for Japan would have been horrific also because of the propaganda pumped at them about the evil US. Suicides would have been rampant.

As for sealing up the island. You have to also understand the mindset of the US. They attacked us on our soil (or close enough) and nothing less than stomping around their pagodas would suffice as an end to the war.

[Elvis]

As tragic as the dropping of the A-bombs were, I kinda thank God for them, because they brought a quicker end to the war and stopped the planned invasion.
Had that invasion occurred, I might have never been born.



Elvis