Instead of employing atomic weapons, the US proceeds with a ground based invasion of the Japanese islands in World War 2. What do you think would have happened and what changes would occur in the modern world?
Actually, I have read that the nuclear bombing of Japan was not as decisive as many think in Japan's surrender. Tokyo's fire bombing was as deadly so losing civilian lives was not something that the Japanese leadership was afraid of. If I remember correctly, the Japanses military knew that they would not win a war that last more than one year and USA uncompromising attitude was not in their plan (they gratly underestimate USA fighting spirit). Japanese econmy was collapsing and the USSR was about to declare war to Japan (they did so in the last months of the conflict), severing their last line of supply.
I honestly think that the nuclear bombing was not necessary to the Allies' victory over Imperail Japan but it had sure hastenend the process and put a lot of fear in to everyone (so not operation Downfall for you). At worst, the USA army would have firebombed Japan into oblivion
What little I recall reading lines up with yabaziou's post above, with the added tidbit (which I can't source and may be misremembering) that projected casualties for a land invasion were ridiculously high, in the hundreds of thousands (military and civilian, both sides).
I'm not convinced that either the nuclear attacks nor a full-scale invasion were needed to prevent Soviet invasion, nor to get Japan to surrender. I also think a bomb dropped over water off the coast at a pre-anounced time/place would have been as good or better demonstration of the power of the bomb.
I think blockading Japan and/or invading Hokkaido could have kept the Soviets away, and/or a discussion with Japan about how they should prefer surrender to potential Soviet invasion.
But a full-scale invasion of Japan by the US could have resulted in a lot more death of both Americans and Japanese, and delayed the peace.
The biggest effect on the post-war, I think, would be on the thinking about nuclear weapons. Without a public demonstration/use, ideas about nuclear weapons would probably have evolved differently, though I can imagine various ways, and have no certainty what the difference would have been. I think it's possible they would have been used later in someplace such as Korea... or perhaps they never would have been used and a similar or even more sober attitude might have developed, if tests got pubic attention but no one had ever dropped one on a city. It would probably take longer for people to know/appreciate/fully understand the radiation effects on populations.
Quote from: yabaziou;900746Actually, I have read that the nuclear bombing of Japan was not as decisive as many think in Japan's surrender.
A friend of mine who is married to a Japanese woman is
adamant that the A-bomb had nothing to do with Japan's surrender; it was rather their fear of an invasion by Russia. As the theory goes Japan saw unconditional surrender to the US as preferable to an invasion by the USSR.
Given that there was an actual coup d'etat planned by the Japanese army to keep Japan fighting to the death, I'm not sure how much credence I give the theory.
Quote from: Skarg;900751I also think a bomb dropped over water off the coast at a pre-anounced time/place would have been as good or better demonstration of the power of the bomb.
That's a common canard by people who don't understand military R&D.
John Toland, a renowned military historian who married a Japanese woman and paid considerable attention both to Japanese sources and to the numerous calamities that resulted from mistranslations (especially into the runup to the war), opined that the nuclear strikes weren't so much the finishing blow as a dandy excuse for the Emperor to step in and surrender, without being overthrown by the die-hard rejectionists.
Quote from: daniel_ream;900753A friend of mine who is married to a Japanese woman is adamant that the A-bomb had nothing to do with Japan's surrender; it was rather their fear of an invasion by Russia. As the theory goes Japan saw unconditional surrender to the US as preferable to an invasion by the USSR.
Given that there was an actual coup d'etat planned by the Japanese army to keep Japan fighting to the death, I'm not sure how much credence I give the theory.
Not sure myself; truth be told, what WITH? Besides, say Russia did carry out the theoretical invasion of Hokkaido -- what, Stalin was going to divert troops he needed to secure his hold on eastern Europe to get some snow covered mountains?
A quarter of Japan's civilian population dies (mostly due to starvation), Stalin gets Hokkaido at least, and probably a good part, such as the northern third of Honshu. All of Korea as well, the Korean War probably becomes the Japanese War. Economically Japan is still a major player today, economically, Korea is Romania.
Quote from: daniel_ream;900753A friend of mine who is married to a Japanese woman is adamant that the A-bomb had nothing to do with Japan's surrender; it was rather their fear of an invasion by Russia. As the theory goes Japan saw unconditional surrender to the US as preferable to an invasion by the USSR.
Given that there was an actual coup d'etat planned by the Japanese army to keep Japan fighting to the death, I'm not sure how much credence I give the theory.
The Red Army obliterated the Japanese in Manchuria with relative ease. That was the final nail in the coffin for Imperial Japan, not the A-bomb. The interesting part of the whole finale to the war is that Japan was refusing to surrender unconditionally. Since the main condition they were holding out for was keeping Hirohito as a figurehead emperor, all those people were shot, blown up, burned alive or run over by tank treads for nothing, seeing as how MacArthur kept Hirohito in place.
Quote from: The Butcher;900750What little I recall reading lines up with yabaziou's post above, with the added tidbit (which I can't source and may be misremembering) that projected casualties for a land invasion were ridiculously high, in the hundreds of thousands (military and civilian, both sides).
This is Operation downfall : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
There was an attempt at a military coup : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident (they even made a movie about it : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor_in_August
As interesting all this discussion about was happened is, Nexus is looking for alt history, so I will present this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_%28Conroy_novel%29
If you are looking for other alt WW 2, check this : Uber (super nasty alt with Nazi UberMensch, trigger warning : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cber_%28comics%29) or that : Jin-roh, the Wolf Brigade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jin-Roh:_The_Wolf_Brigade)
Jin Roh is actually a very good anime movie, which also part off a wider alt history setting upon which Mamoru Oshii works. There is probably a quite interesting spy focus campaign to do in this setting (maybe with Night's Black Agent ?).
Quote from: The Butcher;900750What little I recall reading lines up with yabaziou's post above, with the added tidbit (which I can't source and may be misremembering) that projected casualties for a land invasion were ridiculously high, in the hundreds of thousands (military and civilian, both sides).
Hundreds of thousands of causalities on each side would be a low projection. Allied casualty estimates ranged between hundreds of thousands and 4 million casualties. Japanese casualties were estimated to be significantly higher.
Quote from: Bren;900828Hundreds of thousands of causalities on each side would be a low projection.
And people say *nuclear weapons* stress the fabric of space-time :p
Quote from: Nexus;900744Instead of employing atomic weapons, the US proceeds with a ground based invasion of the Japanese islands in World War 2. What do you think would have happened and what changes would occur in the modern world?
With the Japanese gone, the US would make the island part of the US. Lexus, Datsun, Honda, SONY... things like that wouldn't have happened. Japan would just be a huge-ass military training area for the US to test their new A-bombs on while China watched from across the way.
First off, it would have been a massacre, similar to but larger than Okinawa. Civilians would have been ordered to commit suicide when Americans approached etc (again like Okinawa).
Maybe the Soviets would have entered from the north and Japan would have been split like Germany.
Either way, Japan was NOT ready to surrender without a massive loss of life. They weren't even convinced after the first bomb. It was only when they believed that the only options were to surrender or to let the whole nation, leadership included, go up in flames that they surrendered (and even then after much squabbling).
The old WW2 Flight Sim from Sierra/Dynamix, Aces of the Pacific had an alternate reality expansion, based on an Allied invasion of WW2. You might try tracking down the manual for that, seems like most old games have manuals online
In my opinion not using nukes would have had absolutely no effect on what Japan ultimately did... which was to surrender to the US due to the USSR declaring war on Japan and beginning its offensive into Manchuria (at the US and GB's request). The US was in no military position to invade in August, needing another 2-3 months to ready itself for a land invasion.
Since the Soviets rolled up the entire 700k Kwantung army in under two weeks, it was inevitable they would have continued to sweep over mainland Japan via Hokkaido. Japan's fear of living under Soviet rule lead them to surrender to the US instead, in all likelihood saving hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives from voluntary and enforced suicides, as well as being conquered by the Soviets.
For those who are interested, I suggest watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTzLM6lInK0
Whilst interesting, i'm struggling to see how relevant this thread is to the forum.
Are there any RPG supplements that have dealt with this sort of thing, something for Weird World War perhaps?
Someone is trying to min/max their wargame is all.
You may use this premise for a GURPS time patrol (I am not that it is the proper name, so GURPS enthusiast, feel free to correct me on this) or for the incoming TimeWatch, a RPG from Pelgrane using the Gumshoe rule set, where the PC are Time travelling troubleshooters.
Quote from: One Horse Town;900874Whilst interesting, i'm struggling to see how relevant this thread is to the forum.
Are there any RPG supplements that have dealt with this sort of thing, something for Weird World War perhaps?
I'm fishing for some inspiration for a time travel scenario. I wanted to get some idea what the PCs world will look like when their antagonists actions alter the time line so I thought I'd ask for ideas.
Wasnt there a d20 modern RPG with that sort of "What If" premise instead of the usual focus on Germany?
I though agree with some of the other comments in that according to several historical accounts either Japan would have surrendered to the US anyhow due to looming Russia.
Or would have died in shocking numbers as the military takes over and orders everyone to fight to the death or kill themselves.
Or would have been occupied by Russia totally if the US was stalled.
Timing is the big factor.
As someone upthread pointed out. You might end up with a setting like Jin-Roh.
In the Jin-roh timeline, the nuclear bombing and the military occupation happened, but it was done by (Nazi) Germany.
One can argue thus that, with a full scale invasion by the Allies, the following military occupation will have deposed the Emperor, crushed the Japan elite and been more oppressive that the acual Allies occupation during the middle 40s to 50s.
But yeah, a Jin-Roh inspired cloak and dagger espionage game with a late 40s Kurosawa (Druken Angel, Stray Dog) touch might be awesome !
Two forums?
Really?
- Ed C.
Quote from: Koltar;901189Two forums?
Really?
- Ed C.
Actually more than that. Different communities, different outlooks and opinions.
Does anyone have any thoughts on how the modern world would have changed?
Quote from: Nexus;904302Does anyone have any thoughts on how the modern world would have changed?
I don't believe in "would have" conclusions. But I can make up things that seem plausible. The main difference I anticipate is that without ever having had a nuclear weapon detonated in a city, humans know less about the effects of nuclear weapons & radiation on populations, or the knowledge is slower to advance, and/or less detailed. There would still be tests and public knowledge of the weapons, though, before too long. I expect there _might_ be a stronger idea of "using these on cities is unthinkable/inhumane"... but there might be less. It would be possible for the USA to take a slightly higher moral ground on their use if they hadn't ever used them on cities. The post-war Japanese might be slightly less pacifistic and would probably make fewer films about radioactive monsters like Godzilla. The shifts in attitudes could affect the heat and escalation levels of the Cold War in either direction, or not at all. Overall I think it could have essentially zero effect to not have dropped the bomb, or to slide the conversations and Cold War events in either direction a bit.
One possible scenario though could be that the governments all successfully kept nuclear weapons largely secret from populations. So there could be an enticing cover-up about it including mysteriously disappearing whistleblowers etc. PCs could either start out in the know, or in the dark (GM tells them the alt history is that there is no nuclear weapons tech). The absence of public nuclear weapons could change the Cold War quite a bit, either heating it up because in theory there's less reason to escalate, or it could cool it down, because in theory there's less threat. What's actually going on would need to involve an added layer of collusion and conversation between the nuclear powers, who would all need to have reasons to all stay quiet about them.
Quote from: Ravenswing;900755the nuclear strikes weren't so much the finishing blow as a dandy excuse for the Emperor to step in and surrender, without being overthrown by the die-hard rejectionists. [/COLOR]
Yeah, that fits exactly with Game Theory and seems very plausible to me. The atomic bombing gave the Japanese 'permission' to do what they already wanted to do - to surrender. It also gave the Americans permission to accept the conditional surrender they had previously rejected (Emperor stays). There needed to be a discreet event like that.
Quote from: Nexus;900744Instead of employing atomic weapons, the US proceeds with a ground based invasion of the Japanese islands in World War 2. What do you think would have happened and what changes would occur in the modern world?
Japanese infrastructure would have been far more damaged and the death toll significant. Eventually, with a high death toll on both sides, the US would win. At that point, I think the Emperor would have been executed. The US would prop up Japan as they did, but Japan would likely take longer to recover and US expectations would be less 'gentle'. It is possible that the seven year occupation time would have been much longer as a result.
A few dark
speculations:
- Russia could have moved forward with the invasion of Hokkaido, and the US engages them there with forces from the south as well as the forces hidden in the Aleutian Islands. That could have lead directly to an ongoing military conflict with Russia. If (speculatively) the two atomic weapons were created, the war with Russia could have been 'shut down' with dropping both (probably one on Vladivostok), and ramping up production of more.
- War rekindles in Europe against the Soviets, namely, Russia. East Germany and Soviet controlled Poland don't happen. Ukraine may have broken away.
- Okinawa and Hokkaido (as a result of the invasion) remain under the control of the USA - perhaps indefinitely. Japan would become an economic power house but the population wouldn't recover quite as quickly.
- A scaled down Cold War begins, but the face of communism is more that of China and a more aggressive Mongolia (Mongolia vs Soviet Union vs China). The Soviet Union is much smaller but survives World War 2.5.
- The Cold War would eventually cause the implosion of the Soviet Union, but the new Russia (or possibly "United Nations of Russia") would look significantly different
One thought.
There is also the possibility that any stalling on the US and/or USSR front would have allowed Japan to advance one of their horror weapons enough to use. Or used more competently.
Example: The Submersible Aircraft Carriers were sent to seed the US with plagues. But failed for various reasons. Imagine had they succeeded and the US was swept with some virulent disease.
take a look at a game called ring of red it takes a gander at the idea of alternate out comes to ww2 with retro mecha in the 60s
Quote from: Omega;904481One thought.
There is also the possibility that any stalling on the US and/or USSR front would have allowed Japan to advance one of their horror weapons enough to use. Or used more competently.
Example: The Submersible Aircraft Carriers were sent to seed the US with plagues. But failed for various reasons. Imagine had they succeeded and the US was swept with some virulent disease.
yah there where only 2 of them the I-400 and the I-401 and the project had been scraped so only the 2 where built you'd need a lot more then 2 for that to be practical
Quote from: Lynn;904356Japanese infrastructure would have been far more damaged and the death toll significant. Eventually, with a high death toll on both sides, the US would win. At that point, I think the Emperor would have been executed. The US would prop up Japan as they did, but Japan would likely take longer to recover and US expectations would be less 'gentle'. It is possible that the seven year occupation time would have been much longer as a result.
A few dark speculations:
- Russia could have moved forward with the invasion of Hokkaido, and the US engages them there with forces from the south as well as the forces hidden in the Aleutian Islands. That could have lead directly to an ongoing military conflict with Russia. If (speculatively) the two atomic weapons were created, the war with Russia could have been 'shut down' with dropping both (probably one on Vladivostok), and ramping up production of more.
- War rekindles in Europe against the Soviets, namely, Russia. East Germany and Soviet controlled Poland don't happen. Ukraine may have broken away.
- Okinawa and Hokkaido (as a result of the invasion) remain under the control of the USA - perhaps indefinitely. Japan would become an economic power house but the population wouldn't recover quite as quickly.
- A scaled down Cold War begins, but the face of communism is more that of China and a more aggressive Mongolia (Mongolia vs Soviet Union vs China). The Soviet Union is much smaller but survives World War 2.5.
- The Cold War would eventually cause the implosion of the Soviet Union, but the new Russia (or possibly "United Nations of Russia") would look significantly different
No Cold War at all. If the Soviets engaged the U.S. militarily, they would have been eradicated. Might have been for the best, really.
Quote from: Matt;904679No Cold War at all. If the Soviets engaged the U.S. militarily, they would have been eradicated. Might have been for the best, really.
I don't agree. We didn't have the technology, then, to nuke the Russians out of action, and we didn't have remotely the manpower necessary to subdue the whole damn country, and WWII tired us out more than somewhat.
Quote from: Ravenswing;904774I don't agree. We didn't have the technology, then, to nuke the Russians out of action, and we didn't have remotely the manpower necessary to subdue the whole damn country, and WWII tired us out more than somewhat.
Except that the Soviet economy was pushed as far it could go in the closing months of WW2 and the United States was still ramping up.
My view is that a plausible case can be made for a number of alternatives resulting from a WW3 between the US and the USSR right after World War 2. The most likely alternative is the Soviets making numerous gains at first, followed by the frontlines stabilizing followed by economic collapse and chaos throughout Soviet territory. Politically it would be chaos as what various countries want is to get on with rebuilding after the war. If the Soviet win it is because they scored enough early victories to break the Western Allies morale. Otherwise if the war drags on they are facing collapse.
Quote from: estar;904777Except that the Soviet economy was pushed as far it could go in the closing months of WW2 and the United States was still ramping up.
I don't think unless the Soviets did something really nasty to the US that the war would go on very long. The Soviets would realize their mistake quickly and try to negotiate terms. They'd be fighting the US (and its allies) in Europe and in the Pacific, and I also think some Soviet states would be thinking its time to switch sides (like Ukraine). And if we had some nukes handy, we would have used them against Soviet military targets.
Although the US was in a position of strength, I can't really see the US waging a wrathful war against the Soviets as against Japan without provocation stronger than the invasion of Hokkaido.
Quote from: Pete Nash;900872In my opinion not using nukes would have had absolutely no effect on what Japan ultimately did... which was to surrender to the US due to the USSR declaring war on Japan and beginning its offensive into Manchuria (at the US and GB's request). The US was in no military position to invade in August, needing another 2-3 months to ready itself for a land invasion.
Since the Soviets rolled up the entire 700k Kwantung army in under two weeks, it was inevitable they would have continued to sweep over mainland Japan via Hokkaido. Japan's fear of living under Soviet rule lead them to surrender to the US instead, in all likelihood saving hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives from voluntary and enforced suicides, as well as being conquered by the Soviets.
For those who are interested, I suggest watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTzLM6lInK0
How would the Soviets have invaded mainland Japan though at that time. Their Pacific Naval forces were not very strong tjhen and there were they? And more importantly did they have many if any Troop Ships and Landing Craft in the Pacific?
They USA however had years of experience island hopping and naval assaulting the Japanese held islands. The USA was in a much better positron to stage a large scale invasion of the Japanese home islands, even if it would take an extra month or three to prepare for the assault.
Quote from: estar;904777Except that the Soviet economy was pushed as far it could go in the closing months of WW2 and the United States was still ramping up.
My view is that a plausible case can be made for a number of alternatives resulting from a WW3 between the US and the USSR right after World War 2. The most likely alternative is the Soviets making numerous gains at first, followed by the frontlines stabilizing followed by economic collapse and chaos throughout Soviet territory. Politically it would be chaos as what various countries want is to get on with rebuilding after the war. If the Soviet win it is because they scored enough early victories to break the Western Allies morale. Otherwise if the war drags on they are facing collapse.
one other thing to keep in mind the Russians where running all most entirely on us equipment.
if we had gotten in a war with them just after the end of ww2 they would have run out of supplys quick.
its also worth noting that Paten wanted to take on Russia right after the end of ww2.
Quote from: Gwarh;904804How would the Soviets have invaded mainland Japan though at that time. Their Pacific Naval forces were not very strong tjhen and there were they? And more importantly did they have many if any Troop Ships and Landing Craft in the Pacific?
The Soviet Pacific fleet was not designed for deep water flotilla missions, but rather it was intended for littoral area denial. So on paper at the start of August they had 2 cruisers, 12 destroyers, 19 coast guards, 10 mine layers, 52 mine sweepers, 49 submarine hunters, 204 torpedo boats, 78 submarines and 1,618 aircraft (including 1,382 combat planes). In addition, the Amur river flotilla had 8 monitors, 11 gunboats, 52 armoured launches, 12 minesweepers and some other warships, which could sortie out in calmer weather.
Bare in mind that this is just the armed vessels. They had countless small freighters, fishing trawlers and other support craft which were used to carry troops, including a lot of auxiliary boats captured at the Korean ports of Yuki, Seishin and Rashin. You might think that this would be insufficient to land a force on Hokkaido, despite Soviet willingness to simply run aground 'expendable' vessels loaded with troops as a one-way assault force. However, thanks to Project Hula, from May to July the US had very kindly supplied the Soviet navy with additional warships, including 30 Large Infantry Landing craft LCI(L), of which 5 were lost during the capture of the Kuril Islands. Atop that were 17 LCT(6)s, and 50+ LCM(3)s (although the latter I haven't been able to validate with online US Naval records).
Despite claims that the Soviets would have had troubles mounting an invasion of Hokkaido, by that time there were no fully functional Japanese naval assets left in the Sea of Japan. Everything they had left had been moved south to defend Kyushu against US invasion. The only troops left on Hokkaido were 2 divisions and a few battalions, under-equipped and supplied, having to protect an extremely long coastline. So wherever the landings occurred the Japanese would have been defeated in detail. The Soviets had learned some sharp lessons from taking the Kuril islands and they would also have unified all of their dispersed landing/support ships now that the other island chains had been taken.
Added to that, was the fact that the Soviets had absolute air superiority and the 128th Airborne Division available to support a coastal assault. So between sea landings and air drops they could have landed 2 division's worth of troops in the first few hours, after which things would only have gotten worse for the Japanese, who were cut off on Hokkaido; whilst the Soviets would have continued to shuttle yet more men to the beachhead. It was simply a matter of time.
Indeed, if not for the fact that Stalin wanted to seize the territories promised him before Japan signed the peace treaty, both Shimushu/Kuril operations would have been coordinated better. As it was, the entire campaign had been a rush job using minimal resources. Despite success, Gnechko was four days behind schedule for the planed invasion of Hokkaido, so Stalin refused him permission to continue.
If Stalin didn't have a time deadline, the only thing the US could have done to slow the conquest of Hokkaido would be to start a submarine campaign against the Soviet navy - which would have been of limited success considering the Soviets now formidable logistics chain, territorial proximity and air superiority which could have resupplied Hokkaido by plane.
Quote from: kosmos1214;904857one other thing to keep in mind the Russians where running all most entirely on us equipment.
if we had gotten in a war with them just after the end of ww2 they would have run out of supplys quick.
its also worth noting that Paten wanted to take on Russia right after the end of ww2.
I'm afraid that is not actually true. Whilst lend-lease helped out at the beginning in 1941 when Germany invaded Russia, by 1945 the Soviet Union was churning out its own arms and equipment at a furious rate. By the end of the war Lend-lease aid represented about 10-12% of the total Soviet war production.
Quote from: Pete Nash;904861I'm afraid that is not actually true. Whilst lend-lease helped out at the beginning in 1941 when Germany invaded Russia, by 1945 the Soviet Union was churning out its own arms and equipment at a furious rate. By the end of the war Lend-lease aid represented about 10-12% of the total Soviet war production.
interesting i had always heard they where running out of there own stuff because there manufacturing was wrecked
Patton's views not withstanding, selling the American people on continuing the war for years so we could turn right around and fight our Soviet ally would have been a very hard sell - 1945 was not 1950.
Quote from: Pete Nash;904859Despite claims that the Soviets would have had troubles mounting an invasion of Hokkaido, by that time there were no fully functional Japanese naval assets left in the Sea of Japan. Everything they had left had been moved south to defend Kyushu against US invasion. The only troops left on Hokkaido were 2 divisions and a few battalions, under-equipped and supplied, having to protect an extremely long coastline. So wherever the landings occurred the Japanese would have been defeated in detail. The Soviets had learned some sharp lessons from taking the Kuril islands and they would also have unified all of their dispersed landing/support ships now that the other island chains had been taken.
Hokkaido was extremely rural and no real manufacturing (and at that point, no connection to Honshu), while Kyushu was very much a part of the war machine (and a nose blow away from Korea) so it makes sense that it was a lower priority for the Japanese government. But it would be too big and too close to Honshu for the US to ignore.
I got nothin to contribute except that the timing is amusing: I just started reading Man in the High Castly by PKD. US loses WWII and is divided between Japan and Nazi Germany. Can't say how it looked when written, but to me its an interesting premise spoiled by wildly out of whack logistics... or perhaps grossly unrealistic expectations of what the various powers were capable of. Seems a common mistake for even good authors, to forget that its not just guns and men on the ground winning wars, but how fast you can get more men and more guns on the ground to keep winning.
Given that it's Dick, however, I suspect he just didn't give a damn, he really wanted a Japanese San Franscisco (San Frantokyo!), and Nazi Ubermensh being mocked by hidden jews, damn the logic!
Quote from: kosmos1214;904664yah there where only 2 of them the I-400 and the I-401 and the project had been scraped so only the 2 where built you'd need a lot more then 2 for that to be practical
Actually 3 were built. But I-402 never launched. And during the war at least two predecessors the I-13 and I-14 were in service to near the end of the war. Apparently over 40 of varying models were built.
It only takes one release of plague to potentially hit the whole continent. As was though Japan never implemented the subs to carry them. But as noted. Given more time. Who knows. Its one more potential "What IF?" scenario to consider.
Quote from: Spike;904880I got nothin to contribute except that the timing is amusing: I just started reading Man in the High Castly by PKD. US loses WWII and is divided between Japan and Nazi Germany. Can't say how it looked when written, but to me its an interesting premise spoiled by wildly out of whack logistics... or perhaps grossly unrealistic expectations of what the various powers were capable of. Seems a common mistake for even good authors, to forget that its not just guns and men on the ground winning wars, but how fast you can get more men and more guns on the ground to keep winning.
Given that it's Dick, however, I suspect he just didn't give a damn, he really wanted a Japanese San Franscisco (San Frantokyo!), and Nazi Ubermensh being mocked by hidden jews, damn the logic!
Actually, Dick mainly wanted a literary exercise in using the I Ching to write a novel.
I loved the TV series but one thing that frustrated me is how the I Ching barely figured in it.
I can buy that. The damn story drags like a mule with a heavy load, but man is there ever time for two page loving depictions of consultations of the damned I Ching.
But I still find myself frustrated by the utter failure of logistics represented. Why, you'd think Luxembourg hasn't conquered all of Russia simply because they are to damn polite, and not because, well, population actually matters.
Gamers, being obsessed with mechanistic representations of pocket universes, often have a blind spot for fiction based primarily on allegory or morality play.
In other news, "red allotropic iron" is not a real thing.
Quote from: Spike;906891I can buy that. The damn story drags like a mule with a heavy load, but man is there ever time for two page loving depictions of consultations of the damned I Ching.
But I still find myself frustrated by the utter failure of logistics represented. Why, you'd think Luxembourg hasn't conquered all of Russia simply because they are to damn polite, and not because, well, population actually matters.
Well, in the novel that doesn't matter really, because part of the point in the novel is that the world of the novel isn't reality.
In the series, that's a more valid point. Unless they end up taking the series in directions far too bold for me to expect them to take.
As a different spin on the question: what if the US opted to use atomic weapons on Germany?
Quote from: Nexus;962321As a different spin on the question: what if the US opted to use atomic weapons on Germany?
We didn't have them that early in the war not usable any way.
Downfall goes ahead; American soldiers and marines meet peasants charging with bamboo spears as ordered. Things go about as you'd expect, but someone eventually calls a surrender before Japan is literally depopulated. [This far I'm on solid ground, everything that follows is wild speculation.]
Japan gets occupied and rebuilt despite that (we did it for Germany), but with more deaths and hard feelings on our side, and far more deaths and loss of infrastructure on their side than the atomic bombs caused, Japan is not so much an ally during the coming cold war as an outpost and resource sink.
Russia moves on/towards Japan, but for reasons articulated above doesn't get much. Say they do get some northern islands though, that puts us in a second West/East Germany situation, and is a further step towards Japan being a drain rather than a bulwark for the US.
Without nukes being used in Japan we don't acquire the revulsion we did in the real timeline; we don't know what we don't know, and the American death toll in ground fighting makes it look more attractive, not less. Nukes get used a little later after all. Could be the Soviets somewhere, but let's say it's McArthur in Korea getting what he wants. Things can go a couple ways from here, but say the Russians don't back the North all the way to a general nuclear exchange, it's quite possible that's enough to tip the Korean war our way. Except for the part about the nukes, that's on balance a good thing. The domino strategy actually works, and communism (with it's attendant starvation and purges) doesn't get as far in Asia as it did. Vietnam goes differently, the Cambodian killing fields are far enough out the butterfly effect wipes them out.
To recap, now we have a situation where south-east Asia is more firmly in the American camp, but the north Pacific is more in play after Russia's try for Japan, and that second front in Japan weakens our focus on Europe and Germany. I think that changes Europe somewhat. Russia plays harder for it, or a diluted American presence comes across as weaker locally, despite victories in Asia. More middle European countries go Soviet. With a stronger iron curtain, the Berlin wall doesn't fall on schedule, nor does communism in Russia. There's still a cold war going in the present day.
Quote from: Omega;904481One thought.
There is also the possibility that any stalling on the US and/or USSR front would have allowed Japan to advance one of their horror weapons enough to use. Or used more competently.
Example: The Submersible Aircraft Carriers were sent to seed the US with plagues. But failed for various reasons. Imagine had they succeeded and the US was swept with some virulent disease.
I forgot about that. Yeah, things get bloody after that.
Quote from: Bren;904868Patton's views not withstanding, selling the American people on continuing the war for years so we could turn right around and fight our Soviet ally would have been a very hard sell - 1945 was not 1950.
Patton getting his way is one of my favorite counter-factuals, but you're right, politically it was not happening.
The nukres gave the Japanese leadership psychological 'permission' to surrender (& there was still an attempted coup) - that plus the offer to let the Emperor stay, was enough for them. I can imagine some similar kind of break point + offer having a similar effect later on. Otherwise it would have been Okinawa times a hundred. Possible break points might include USA establishing a beachhead & taking some major city, or possibly a Soviet invasion likewise. But Stalin did not seem very keen on taking lots of casualties invading mainland Japan, and Soviet naval power was limited. My guess would be the likeliest result would not be that far off US military projections, with millions of Japanese dead and at least hundreds of thousands of US.
Gore Vidal claims otherwise but I haven't read widely enough to say.
Yeah, it would have been a massacre. Of course, atomic weapons had a serious scarring effect on the Japanese psyche in many ways, but I think the devastation that a prolonged invasion of Japanese soil would have caused likely would have been much, much more devastating. It's hard to say just how, though. Would Japan have gone through its adoration of all things American like it did in the regular timeline? Would it have become industrial and futurist like it did in real life? Or would it have become deeply conservative? Or much more extremist?
Quote from: RPGPundit;962761Yeah, it would have been a massacre. Of course, atomic weapons had a serious scarring effect on the Japanese psyche in many ways, but I think the devastation that a prolonged invasion of Japanese soil would have caused likely would have been much, much more devastating. It's hard to say just how, though. Would Japan have gone through its adoration of all things American like it did in the regular timeline? Would it have become industrial and futurist like it did in real life? Or would it have become deeply conservative? Or much more extremist?
Could postwar Japanese society have been broken down and rebuilt the way the US did to Germany? That effort was helped by the US having a deep understanding of German society and the OSS having the Frankfurt School Jewish exiles in their employ. But even IRL Japan was flipped from militarist to anti-militarist, it just wasn't inflicted with the sense of race guilt the Germans received. East-Asian cultures are more 'Shame' cultures compared to the very Guilt-culture orientation of NW European societies, so maybe with Japan it went as far as it could. But I could imagine Japan being inflicted with a sense of culture-shame for her atrocities in China & SE Asia that IRL is absent.
Maybe. But I doubt it. To really confront Japanese atrocities and accept culpability for them would be essentially a kind of cultural suicide. Japan would need to radically reinvent itself even more than it did after the war, become so totally different, that I don't think it would be possible.
Quote from: RPGPundit;963251Maybe. But I doubt it. To really confront Japanese atrocities and accept culpability for them would be essentially a kind of cultural suicide. Japan would need to radically reinvent itself even more than it did after the war, become so totally different, that I don't think it would be possible.
That's my gut feeling too, yes.
Usually that total a crushing defeat and that great a humiliation doesn't do anything good for a society. Odds are the Japanese would not have been very nice after that.
Quote from: RPGPundit;963825Usually that total a crushing defeat and that great a humiliation doesn't do anything good for a society. Odds are the Japanese would not have been very nice after that.
There were strong feelings right up to (and through) the radio announcement by Emperor Hirohito (the first time most Japanese had ever heard the Emperor's voice). There were attempts to steal the recording while on its way to the radio station by militarists who didn't want to accept surrender.
As much as a full on invasion would have changed things, executing Hirohito would have been equally profound in its impact. I imagine if the invasion had been that bloody, the US would have considered doing this.
Quote from: Lynn;963840There were strong feelings right up to (and through) the radio announcement by Emperor Hirohito (the first time most Japanese had ever heard the Emperor's voice). There were attempts to steal the recording while on its way to the radio station by militarists who didn't want to accept surrender.
As much as a full on invasion would have changed things, executing Hirohito would have been equally profound in its impact. I imagine if the invasion had been that bloody, the US would have considered doing this.
Yes. It was keeping the emperor that let the Japanese feel they were able to accept the defeat and move on to become America-philes and modernize, and to move on from their militarist past.
Quote from: kosmos1214;962326We didn't have them that early in the war not usable any way.
The subject is alternate history, however. One can extend the war in Europe or give atomic bomb develops a time table bump (meddling Time traveler perhaps? a few months would do) which would probably require less extrapolation aside from the "what if?" the question addresses.
Quote from: RPGPundit;964205Yes. It was keeping the emperor that let the Japanese feel they were able to accept the defeat and move on to become America-philes and modernize, and to move on from their militarist past.
If only we'd done that with the Germans after WW1 - blamed the General Staff and let them keep the Kaiser as a figurehead.
Quote from: Nexus;964213The subject is alternate history, however.
Prolong the war in Europe with some outstanding Nazi defensive victories in June 44. Overlord fails and Army Group Centre is not destroyed, thanks to pitch perfect deployment of Panzer reserves on both fronts thanks to unbelievable and unprecedented accuracy of German military intelligence. War drags on in Europe until August '45, and with the Allies/UN nowhere near the German national territory, the bomb is dropped on Berlin instead. Hitler obliterated or dies in the bunker buried under radioactive rubble. World is even more shocked because it's a major European city. Power struggle in Germany follows between true believers and pragmatics, throwing German defenses into confusion allowing for quick Allied ground gains and winding down of hostilities in October with a general german surrender. Or something.
Quote from: Nexus;964213The subject is alternate history, however.
The problem is coming up with a plausible point of departure. Good alt history make a single change and works out things from there. What would the PoD be to in order for the United States to have the atomic bomb earlier. Or alternately prolong the war long enough so that Germany is still around in the late summer of 1945 when the bombs were ready.
Remember in OTL (our time line) the moment the physics community realized that a chain reaction was possible they jumped on to warn the US Government of its potential. It was discovered in Germany in December 1938 and the letter to Roosevelt was written in August 1939. The United States was in the grips of isolationism and still wrestling with the Great Depression. Furthermore the discovery of Nuclear Fission still had a bunch of unanswered questions to whether it would amount to anything. The work that Fermi did at the University of Chicago decisively settled the lingering questions about nuclear fission particularly when it came to atomic bombs. And that occurred in late 1942.
It hard to see how the program could have been accelerated to produce an atomic bomb early to have been used on Germany.
Quote from: estar;964293The problem is coming up with a plausible point of departure.
Check the original post.
Quote from: S'mon;964248If only we'd done that with the Germans after WW1 - blamed the General Staff and let them keep the Kaiser as a figurehead.
That might have turned out better, yes. Though it might also have led to a Soviet Germany too, it's hard to say.
Speaking of this subject. There is a youtube poster who does alot of these. AlternateHistoryHub. And he did one on this very subject.
[video=youtube;-Rrmqju74A8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Rrmqju74A8[/youtube]
Quote from: RPGPundit;964594That might have turned out better, yes. Though it might also have led to a Soviet Germany too, it's hard to say.
If commie Germany means no Nazis and no WW2, I am down with that. Even WW2 vs the USSR (a la 2000 AD Volgan War time line maybe) would have had less of a long term destructive impact, whoever won.
(Volgan War is nominally set in the 21st century but is basically WW2 with robot soldiers. Cool stuff.)
Quote from: Nexus;964294Check the original post.
The OP is not a point of departure. A POD would be a specific event at a specific time. From that event a chain of further events would led to the United States choosing to invade Japan over using the atomic bomb.
Quote from: estar;964836The OP is not a point of departure.
I meant my first post suggesting a different question, not the thread start. Sorry. :)
Quote from: S'mon;964633If commie Germany means no Nazis and no WW2, I am down with that. Even WW2 vs the USSR (a la 2000 AD Volgan War time line maybe) would have had less of a long term destructive impact, whoever won.
It would have been an interesting question, given that we're talking a revolution possibly as early as the early 1920s here, whether it wouldn't really have been the USSR that would have become the center of International Communism or if a Communist Germany wouldn't have replaced the USSR as the central communist state. If both Germany and Russia had gone Communist within even 10 years of each other, it's absolutely certain that the USSR would not have gone the way it did, and Soviet Russia might well have ended up as either a satellite state or at least poorer-cousin of Soviet Germany.
Quote from: Skarg;900751I'm not convinced that either the nuclear attacks nor a full-scale invasion were needed to prevent Soviet invasion, nor to get Japan to surrender. I also think a bomb dropped over water off the coast at a pre-anounced time/place would have been as good or better demonstration of the power of the bomb.
I was inclined to that view, but then I read
Brighter Than A Thousand Suns, an account of the scientists involved in making the bomb. In that they mention a Japanese nuclear scientist (I think it was Nishina) who was sent to Hiroshima to figure out what had happened. The scale of the destruction, plus all the blank X-ray films in the local hospital being exposed, made him sure it was an atomic bomb. While he was visiting and writing his report, Nagasaki was bombed, too.
He presented his report to an intelligence colonel, who said, "If we gave you unlimited funds, labour and resources, could you build a similar bomb in 6 months? We could perhaps hold out that long." Nishina said no. Now, that one Intel colonel may have just been covering his arse with the inevitable questions he'd get from superiors, or maybe he was that fanatical - but it shows that even with atomic bombs dropping on cities every few days, some people seriously thought of fighting on.
The Japanese also had many plans to use chemical and biological weapons, grandmas strapping explosives to themselves and rolling under Allied tanks, and all that. Of course, the Nazis had similar plans and also a planned postwar guerilla resistance on top of it, and that all fizzled out. So maybe nothing would have come of it. In both cases, resistance to the Allies stopped suddenly when the country's leader gave up - Hitler by suicide, Hirohito by a radio announcement. Before that... they all fought very hard and brutally.
If the bomb had been demonstrated offshore, and they'd laughed at it, and a land invasion had proceeded, it would have been brutal and bloody, we're talking civilian deaths in the millions. The US did that to North Korea and those guys STILL hate the US. We would now have everyone second-guessing and saying, "If they'd dropped the bomb on Japan, it wouldn't have been as bad."
It's war. Whatever you do people will die, maybe in their millions. This is why some people retreat into pacifism.
Quote from: Omega;964613Speaking of this subject. There is a youtube poster who does alot of these. AlternateHistoryHub.
Heh, Space Marines in the video, that was good for a chuckle.
Quote from: Omega;964613Speaking of this subject. There is a youtube poster who does alot of these. AlternateHistoryHub. And he did one on this very subject.
This is one of the dedicated forums (https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/) for alternate history.
Here one timeline (https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/decisive-darkness-what-if-japan-hadnt-surrendered-in-1945.296250/) dealing with an invasion of Japan.
A bunch of thread (https://www.google.com/search?q=best+alternate+history+invasion+of+japan&rlz=1C1GIWA_enUS663US663&oq=best+alternate+history+invasion+of+japan&aqs=chrome..69i57j0j69i64.9976j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=best+alternate+history+invasion+of+japan+site:www.alternatehistory.com&safe=off) talking about a US invasion of Japan.
Quote from: RPGPundit;965169It would have been an interesting question, given that we're talking a revolution possibly as early as the early 1920s here, whether it wouldn't really have been the USSR that would have become the center of International Communism or if a Communist Germany wouldn't have replaced the USSR as the central communist state. If both Germany and Russia had gone Communist within even 10 years of each other, it's absolutely certain that the USSR would not have gone the way it did, and Soviet Russia might well have ended up as either a satellite state or at least poorer-cousin of Soviet Germany.
There hasn't been any fully fleshed out Communist Germany timeline on the alt-history forums. But it has been discussed (https://www.google.com/search?q=best+alternate+history+invasion+of+japan&rlz=1C1GIWA_enUS663US663&oq=best+alternate+history+invasion+of+japan&aqs=chrome..69i57j0j69i64.9976j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=communist+germany+site:www.alternatehistory.com) from time to time.
Quote from: Pete Nash;904859The Soviet Pacific fleet was not designed for deep water flotilla missions, but rather it was intended for littoral area denial. So on paper at the start of August they had 2 cruisers, 12 destroyers, 19 coast guards, 10 mine layers, 52 mine sweepers, 49 submarine hunters, 204 torpedo boats, 78 submarines and 1,618 aircraft (including 1,382 combat planes). In addition, the Amur river flotilla had 8 monitors, 11 gunboats, 52 armoured launches, 12 minesweepers and some other warships, which could sortie out in calmer weather.
Bare in mind that this is just the armed vessels. They had countless small freighters, fishing trawlers and other support craft which were used to carry troops, including a lot of auxiliary boats captured at the Korean ports of Yuki, Seishin and Rashin. You might think that this would be insufficient to land a force on Hokkaido, despite Soviet willingness to simply run aground 'expendable' vessels loaded with troops as a one-way assault force. However, thanks to Project Hula, from May to July the US had very kindly supplied the Soviet navy with additional warships, including 30 Large Infantry Landing craft LCI(L), of which 5 were lost during the capture of the Kuril Islands. Atop that were 17 LCT(6)s, and 50+ LCM(3)s (although the latter I haven't been able to validate with online US Naval records).
Despite claims that the Soviets would have had troubles mounting an invasion of Hokkaido, by that time there were no fully functional Japanese naval assets left in the Sea of Japan. Everything they had left had been moved south to defend Kyushu against US invasion. The only troops left on Hokkaido were 2 divisions and a few battalions, under-equipped and supplied, having to protect an extremely long coastline. So wherever the landings occurred the Japanese would have been defeated in detail. The Soviets had learned some sharp lessons from taking the Kuril islands and they would also have unified all of their dispersed landing/support ships now that the other island chains had been taken.
Added to that, was the fact that the Soviets had absolute air superiority and the 128th Airborne Division available to support a coastal assault. So between sea landings and air drops they could have landed 2 division's worth of troops in the first few hours, after which things would only have gotten worse for the Japanese, who were cut off on Hokkaido; whilst the Soviets would have continued to shuttle yet more men to the beachhead. It was simply a matter of time.
Indeed, if not for the fact that Stalin wanted to seize the territories promised him before Japan signed the peace treaty, both Shimushu/Kuril operations would have been coordinated better. As it was, the entire campaign had been a rush job using minimal resources. Despite success, Gnechko was four days behind schedule for the planed invasion of Hokkaido, so Stalin refused him permission to continue.
If Stalin didn't have a time deadline, the only thing the US could have done to slow the conquest of Hokkaido would be to start a submarine campaign against the Soviet navy - which would have been of limited success considering the Soviets now formidable logistics chain, territorial proximity and air superiority which could have resupplied Hokkaido by plane.
Thanks for the detailed and informed reply "Pete Nash". I've not put any effort into reading up on the Soviet Pacific Fleet capabilities at that time, but also didn't bother "looking into it" as I "assumed" the had nothing really.
And now I know...
The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.
I am deleting my content.
I recommend you do the same.