if USA was failed to invent A-bomb during WWII, would Japan surrend
peacefully?

On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 06:44:51 +0000 (UTC), phyx wrote:

> if USA was failed to invent A-bomb during WWII, would Japan surrend
> peacefully?

Well, it would have taken longer if they did. Even a slight delay would add
a lot of deaths.

The war in the Pacific killed about 36 million or 50%
of the total casualties of ww2. If you consider it lasted about four years,
we are looking at 3/4 of a million dead a month.

One report I read stated
that the Emperor was planning to surrender after the US invaded and over a
million Japanese had died. That is at least three months away, so at best,
we are looking at an extra 2 to 3 million dead assuming the Emperor could
pull it off; then, as it was with the bomb, it was unclear whether Japan
would surrender.

> phyx
>
> if USA was failed to invent A-bomb during WWII, would Japan surrend peacefully?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

"On 15 January 1945, the U.S. Army Service Forces released a document,
"Redeployment of the United States Army after the Defeat of Germany."
In it, they estimate that during the 18 month period after June 1945
(that is, through December 1946), the Army would be required to furnish
replacements for 43,000 dead and evacuated wounded every month. From
analysis of the replacement schedule and projected strengths in overseas
theaters, it suggested that Army losses alone in those categories, excluding
the Navy and Marine Corps, would be approximately 863,000 through the first
part of 1947, of whom 267,000 would be killed or missing."

To put that in perspective, the total U.S. deaths in the OTL (military and civilian)
in WWII was 420,000 while for Japan, the OTL total was 2.5-3.1 million.

Japan would have eventually surrendered but there wouldn’t have been many
Japanese left to do so…

On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 18:57:49 +1000, SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com>
wrote:

>One report I read stated
>that the Emperor was planning to surrender after the US invaded and over a
>million Japanese had died. That is at least three months away, so at best,
>we are looking at an extra 2 to 3 million dead assuming the Emperor could
>pull it off; then, as it was with the bomb, it was unclear whether Japan
>would surrender.

Not to mention that Japan suffered a crop failure in their rice crop
in 1945 (it has been suggested that this was 1 due to US bombing and 2
many farmers being away at war) and that a major starvation event
would have occured without US food aid which would not of course be
forthcoming if Japan was not already US occupied. I've heard projected
death numbers in the 3-5 million range and THAT is without any US
military action at all.

On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 20:42:41 -0700, The Horny Goat wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 18:57:49 +1000, SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com>
> wrote:
>
>>One report I read stated
>>that the Emperor was planning to surrender after the US invaded and over a
>>million Japanese had died. That is at least three months away, so at best,
>>we are looking at an extra 2 to 3 million dead assuming the Emperor could
>>pull it off; then, as it was with the bomb, it was unclear whether Japan
>>would surrender.
>
> Not to mention that Japan suffered a crop failure in their rice crop
> in 1945 (it has been suggested that this was 1 due to US bombing and 2
> many farmers being away at war) and that a major starvation event
> would have occured without US food aid which would not of course be
> forthcoming if Japan was not already US occupied. I've heard projected
> death numbers in the 3-5 million range and THAT is without any US
> military action at all.

There was an allied proposal rather then attack Japan to keep the blockade
in place and wait it out.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 17:57:15 +1000, SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com>
wrote:

>> Not to mention that Japan suffered a crop failure in their rice crop
>> in 1945 (it has been suggested that this was 1 due to US bombing and 2
>> many farmers being away at war) and that a major starvation event
>> would have occured without US food aid which would not of course be
>> forthcoming if Japan was not already US occupied. I've heard projected
>> death numbers in the 3-5 million range and THAT is without any US
>> military action at all.
>
>There was an allied proposal rather then attack Japan to keep the blockade
>in place and wait it out.

And when it eventually comes out Truman has a bomb that has previously
unimaginable power and HASN'T used it against Japan - doesn't that
mean impeachment? How long is the Manhattan project gong to remain
secret particularly since the US Navy WILL be taking casualties
maintaining a blockade.

The Japanese defence plan for Kyushu definietly involved large numbers
of "tokko" troops (what is known in the west as "kamikaze" though
strictly speaking that term only refers to aircraft suicide missions)

On Wednesday, 23 June 2021 at 16:13:25 UTC+1, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 17:57:15 +1000, SolomonW <Solo...@citi.com>
> wrote:
> >> Not to mention that Japan suffered a crop failure in their rice crop
> >> in 1945 (it has been suggested that this was 1 due to US bombing and 2
> >> many farmers being away at war) and that a major starvation event
> >> would have occured without US food aid which would not of course be
> >> forthcoming if Japan was not already US occupied. I've heard projected
> >> death numbers in the 3-5 million range and THAT is without any US
> >> military action at all.
> >
> >There was an allied proposal rather then attack Japan to keep the blockade
> >in place and wait it out.
> And when it eventually comes out Truman has a bomb that has previously
> unimaginable power and HASN'T used it against Japan - doesn't that
> mean impeachment? How long is the Manhattan project gong to remain
> secret particularly since the US Navy WILL be taking casualties
> maintaining a blockade.
>
> The Japanese defence plan for Kyushu definietly involved large numbers
> of "tokko" troops (what is known in the west as "kamikaze" though
> strictly speaking that term only refers to aircraft suicide missions)
>
NB that the heading reads "Re: what if USA ... failed to invent A-bomb during WWII" - i.e. Truman *doesn't* have the Bomb.

On 6/23/21 2:57 AM, SolomonW wrote:
> There was an allied proposal rather then attack Japan to keep the blockade
> in place and wait it out.

RAdm (then Captain) Dan Gallery was at that time serving as
an alternate member of the Logistics Committee of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. The plan for the invasion and occupation of
Japan came before the committee. Gallery (rather naively)
asked why it was necessary to invade Japan at all? Why not
just blockade Japan till it collapsed?

In his words (quoting from memory):

"I should have stood in bed. The Army and Air Force members
looked at me as if I had puked on the table."
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Wed, 23 Jun 2021 14:24:54 -0500, Rich Rostrom wrote:

> On 6/23/21 2:57 AM, SolomonW wrote:
>> There was an allied proposal rather then attack Japan to keep the blockade
>> in place and wait it out.
>
> RAdm (then Captain) Dan Gallery was at that time serving as
> an alternate member of the Logistics Committee of the Joint
> Chiefs of Staff. The plan for the invasion and occupation of
> Japan came before the committee. Gallery (rather naively)
> asked why it was necessary to invade Japan at all? Why not
> just blockade Japan till it collapsed?
>
> In his words (quoting from memory):
>
> "I should have stood in bed. The Army and Air Force members
> looked at me as if I had puked on the table."

However, there were many problems with the plan for an Allied naval
blockade of Japan. First, a large number of troops and sailors would be
required for a long time.

The blocking itself would starve the Japanese
civilians but do little to reduce the effectiveness of the Japanese
military units.

Check out this youtube on this point.

Why not blockade Japan into Surrender? by Military History Visualized

https://youtu.be/f9raqHGJH4Q

phyx <15255282760@139.com> on Tue, 22 Jun 2021 06:44:51 +0000 (UTC)
typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>if USA was failed to invent A-bomb during WWII, would Japan surrend
>peacefully?

No.

Why should they? Bushido is all about death before dishonor, and
surrendering is a great dishonor.

So, no atomic bombing, no "early" surrender, the Soviets take
Manchuria and Korea, Imperial forces in China are isolated from home,
there's a possibility of a three war civil war in China. The war
continues in Malaysia, Indonesia and elsewhere.
Operation Downfall proceeds, and a lot of Japanese die in the
ensuing ground conflict, either directly, or as collateral damage, or
from the famine and disease that accompanies war. Not to mention the
suicides rather than be killed and eaten by the barbarians.
Now, whether Japan surrenders after the first invasion (in
Kyushu), or after the second invasion of Honshu near Tokyo is anyone's
guess. There were crop failures across East Asia that year, and a
harsh winter.

But no shrines to the Atomic Bombs.

--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"