Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If nukes did not exists, how long do you think Japan will last

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Tsar View Post
    It sometimes surprises me that the West was able to defeat Italy all by ourselves. We didnít have the help of the all-powerful Soviet army so how did we do it?

    Considering that the Soviets defeated Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania and virtually Germany by themselves then had to come to the aid of the West to defeat Japan since we just spent 4 years destroying Japans fleet, air force and any ground forces not on the Asian continent. But once the Soviets came in Japan decided that they had no chance against the all-conquering Soviet army and threw in the towel.

    Thank God for the Soviet Union without them the West would still be fumbling around unable to land the knockout blow.
    I'm not going to present the record of the Japanese Cabinet, war council, or whatever meeting line by line, but my take from reading various extracts and summary of those is: The Soviet DoW was the primary effect & the Red Army attack only a punctuation point.

    The Japanese view had been that the US and USSR were not Allies of choice against Germany and there was no chance the USSR would join with the US vs Japan. The view of the Japanese leaders was the two were far to incompatible politically and would cease cooperation the instant the last German soldier ceased shooting. Thus Japanese policy of the previous several years had ben to seek every opportunity for detente with the Soviet leadership with the object of covering their back with a friendly nuetral nation.

    Right up through the Postsdam confrence Japans leaders had been operating as if theis policy was succeeding. They did perceive the change in Soviet attitudes after the Postdam Conf. and were disturbed by the lack of Soviet cooperation when Japanese diplomats sought Soviet help in opening talks with the US over a ceasefire and potiential peace treaty.

    As late as August the Japanese leaders were still deluding themselves that the USSR would remain nuetral & some sort of diplomatic support from that direction might be had. The Soviet DoW completely shattered that dream before the first shot was fired. In retrospect Soviet hostilities should not have been a suprise, but these were men who thought it was still possible to force negotiations with the US as a equal and arraign a peace where Japans army and empire were preserved.

    Comment


    • #92
      The Americans can just step up the bombong campaign and let tge crippling blockade do its magic

      Comment


      • #93
        I think another aspect of this question is how long would WE last. The US was going broke,

        http://www.treasurydirect.gov/kids/h...istory_ww2.htm

        and bond tours weren't enough. Imagine the paying off of the dead (Insurance) and the treatment of the wounded. We didn't want to invade either.

        The only way I can see is to relent on the Emperor issue and claim victory.
        In Vino Veritas

        Comment


        • #94
          Japan would last as long as the emperor told it to and not a day longer.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Axis of Evil View Post
            Japan would last as long as the emperor told it to and not a day longer.
            And if the emperor willed it, every last man, woman and child will sacrifce themselves to the glory of their god emperor.

            Comment


            • #96
              I'm skeptical. Colonel Yaharas eyewitness description of the Okinawan campaign suggests otherwise. I expect collaborating evidence could be turned up with a little digging.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post
                I'm skeptical. Colonel Yaharas eyewitness description of the Okinawan campaign suggests otherwise. I expect collaborating evidence could be turned up with a little digging.
                Agreed. For the first time in the war, a large number of Japanese National citizens and troops willingly surrendered on Okinawa. An empty belly can be a stronger persuader to the civilian populace.
                "Profanity is but a linguistic crutch for illiterate motherbleepers"

                Comment


                • #98
                  The conversation goes like this:

                  Originally posted by At ease View Post
                  ....... but Truman would have been lynched if he settled for a blockade and a deal.
                  ......
                  I have edited my above post for brevity. All of the following are as posted(except for bold emphasis).

                  Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
                  I'm not so sure about that. If memory serves, news of the realities of Iwo Jima and Okinawa were spreading across the States and they weren't favourable in respect of we can't go on like this. The notion that the American public was like yeah we don't care what it takes , let's get 'them is false. Sure they wanted the war to be won but a blank cheque of mass slaughter on the battle field didn't sit well....
                  Originally posted by At ease View Post
                  I'd welcome some material covering this "war weariness".

                  It would, of course, not have been allowed to "go public" at the time without some comprehensive "massaging", for if the Japanese Militarists got wind of this, it would have strengthened their hand enormously.
                  Originally posted by johnbryan View Post
                  Operation Olympic and Coronet had already been given the "go order" by Washington, so that massive construction preparations were then taking place on Okinawa to support those two invasions. A large number of US bomber squadrons and support aircraft from Europe's 8th AirForce and other tactical and fighter air commands had already been detailed to transfer to the Pacific Theatre of Operations. General MacArthur seemed destined to become the most powerful Field Marshal in history. The American people were united in their resolve that Japan pay the ultimate price for their treachery and go down to defeat, so there were no protest marches or acts of resistance in the US to the invasion of the Japanese homeland.
                  Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
                  I think you misunderstand. I meant if the allies had chosen not to invade and brought hostilities to an end with out an invasion I don't think the American public would have revolted against Truman as was suggested. I know they had the resolve but had sacrificed enough (and knew it) not to look a gift horse in the mouth. Okinawa times 10 was if it could be aoided I think they'd have taken it. The Japanese were beaten and starving.
                  From pp18 of 41 of the pdf linked to below:

                  Unconditional
                  Surrender,
                  Demobilization,
                  and the Atomic Bomb
                  __________________

                  by
                  (Doctor) Michael D. Pearlman
                  .....
                  No one is more devoted to a dead president's slogans than his former
                  understudy, When Truman met the JCS and the service secretaries in June
                  1945, he said that "he did not feel that be could take any action at this time to
                  change public opinion" about unconditional surrender. He had already addressed
                  a joint session of Congress three days after he took office, saying that "the vision
                  of our departed Commander in Chief ... must and will remain unchanged and
                  unhampered!" ("Unconditional surrender" was the main applause line in the
                  speech.) He had also been advised by his own and Roosevelt's secretary of
                  state, both of whom he thought were very close to FDR, that anything other than
                  unconditional surrender would seem "too much like appeasement of Japan." That
                  would produce "terrible political repercussions in the United States" and lead to
                  the "crucifixion of the President."44
                  .....
                  http://www.cgsc.edu/CARL/download/cs...b_Pearlman.pdf

                  "The Combined Arms Research Library (CARL) is a comprehensive military research center supporting the (US) Army Command and General Staff College."

                  So I was wrong.

                  I used the term "lynched"....instead of "crucifixion".....my bad.
                  Last edited by At ease; 03 Jan 13, 05:06.
                  "It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
                  "You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

                  "Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
                  ó Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    A good find. Thanks....

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by dongar1 View Post
                      I think another aspect of this question is how long would WE last. The US was going broke,

                      http://www.treasurydirect.gov/kids/h...istory_ww2.htm

                      and bond tours weren't enough. Imagine the paying off of the dead (Insurance) and the treatment of the wounded. We didn't want to invade either.

                      The only way I can see is to relent on the Emperor issue and claim victory.
                      The US was not going broke at war's end.

                      Unprecedented(up 'till then anyway) borrowing, yes.

                      Overstretched, yes.

                      Strict rationing of consumer goods, yes.

                      Inflationary pressures, yes.

                      Broke?



                      From:

                      The Big 'L'

                      American Logistics in World War II


                      Chapter 3: The Economics of America's World War II Mobilization

                      Donald L. Losman, Irene Kyriakopoulos, and J. Dawson Ahalt

                      .....
                      Conclusions

                      The accomplishments of the American economy in support of our World War II mobilization efforts were nothing less than spectacular, going beyond what even the wildest of imaginations in the early 1940s could have possibly conceived. The production of war materiel over the 1940-1945 period was and remains unprecedented. Military production increased its share of total output twenty-fold over the 1939-1943 period. Not only did the United States arm the allies, it helped feed them as well. While military, genius and heroism were critical ingredients in winning the war, without the accomplishments of the economy's industrial and economic mobilization, they would have been for naught (or victory would have been attained at a far higher price).

                      Driven by military, production, America's economy for the first time exceeded the one trillion dollar level in 1942. By the war's end, America's GNP was roughly half of the global GNP. Note should be made of a key fact, however: unlike the other major belligerents, the United States did not fight on its own soil and did not experience destruction of its capital stock due to the war. To the contrary, led by the public sector, an enormous capital expansion occurred. The American industrial landscape also changed dramatically. There were major transformations in the agricultural sector, which emerged from the war with far fewer human resource inputs and a much greater orientation toward global agricultural markets. New products and industries were spurred by military production and needs, including an emerging soybean industry, synthetic rubber, commercial aviation, computers, and an emerging modern electronics industry.

                      --190--

                      In the United States, as in other belligerent countries, the scope of the marketplace continually narrowed as the economy became more centrally directed and micromanaged. Further, equity concerns over the fair apportionment of the costs of war pervaded policy decisions--the application of wage controls, measures against profiteering, income and excess profits taxes, and virtually all other such decisions. Similarly, the Great Depression and its legacy served as a double-edged sword, its imprint also touching most policy discussions. This was most evident in the reluctance to fight inflation with still higher taxes and in the reluctance to encourage capacity, expansion in both industry and agriculture (and thus impeding the mobilization effort). On the other hand, the Depression provided enormous excess capacity which allowed for rapid production increases. Although inflationary, pressures were pervasive, inflation containment was nonetheless very successful, particularly when compared to the World War I experience. Clearly, however, the most appropriate perspective on the inflationary aspects of war is the broader one which encompasses at least several years of the immediate postwar period.

                      Prewar mobilization and economic stabilization arrangements were distinctly beneficial, even though the organizational arrangements were far from optimal. Finally, more focused and centralized control earlier in the mobilization process and a more transparent interagency process would have been helpful. In the end, despite numerous inefficiencies and frictions, the arsenal of democracy's economic and industrial performance was incredibly impressive and stands as a major asset in our World War II victory.

                      --191--
                      http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/BigL/BigL-3.html
                      Last edited by At ease; 05 Jan 13, 06:54.
                      "It's like shooting rats in a barrel."
                      "You'll be in a barrel if you don't watch out for the fighters!"

                      "Talking about airplanes is a very pleasant mental disease."
                      ó Sergei(son of Igor) Sikorsky, 'AOPA Pilot' magazine February 2003.

                      Comment

                      Latest Topics

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X