With complete foresight, none of the Axis would have started a war.
Without the US taking the war to the Japanese, it would leave them “undefeated” in their minds. Even is the scenario were possible, how would the leadership react? Would they surrender or simply start moving the civilian populations out of the cities?
Where I’m coming from is this: Japan had as much right as the USA to strive to be the central power of their region. They didn’t embargo US trade when the US took steps to politically and economically dominate the American continents, nor even central Pacific Islands.
Whether it is Britain or France or Germany in Europe, or Japan then or China now in east Asia, or Iran today in Islamic Asia or Brazil in South America, regional dynamics have a right to play themselves out without the USA directing traffic. America stood mute as the British and the French and the Dutch divvied up what the Japanese coveted. But they were Christians, so that was OK.
Japan was not a threat to the USA, had neither the interest nor the capability of occupying and dominating the Americas, except to neutralize the potential military threat threat the USA made very, very conspicuous by putting our entire Pacific attack force in the middle of what Japan had a right to consider their ocean. Their purely defensive attack on Pearl Harbor targeted only military assets, with no effort to harm a single civilian.
A nice statement of how things looked to Japan, but not to other nations, including the future victims of Japan’s “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”.
If you want, you can go way back to Commodore Perry’s refusing to accept the Japanese demand that he not enter Tokyo Bay in 1853 as justification for subsequent Japanese imperialism. But using “complete foresight”, I think that the Japanese overreacted a tad.
I am not so certain. Both the PNG and the Solomon Island campaigns were linked with the defense of Australia, and the reduction of Rabaul. Also, this 18 month time period involved a war of attrition between Japan and the Allies, and the end result was the decimation of the experienced Japanese pilot corps.
After saving Asia from the Japanese, how many people were killed or tortured or denied human rights by US puppet tyrants in Korea (Park), Indonesia (Sukarno), Philippines (Marcos)?
Oh, I didn’t know we were playing ‘Atrocity Whattabout Olympics’.
Well let’s look at one of these dictators: Marco is accused of having some 3200+ killed under his 10 year regime. Probably some very nasty things like politcal imprisonments and beatings, etc.
Now let’s see what happened during Imperial Japan’s 3 year occupation. Huh, 1/2 a million killed by the best esitmates. Some 100,000 of those seem to have happened during Japan’s final fights for Manilla, but even subracting that your looking at 400,000 deaths over a 3 year period.
Really? You went there?
Firstly - no, not defensive. Secondly, they made no effort to target civilians because they would have considered it a wasted effort when there were plenty of military targets that they needed to hit.
This is like those Hitler apologists who insist Operation Barbarossa was a ‘defensive invasion’.
I think this is a major factor that people are discounting. Had the US held off operations against Japan until the atomic bomb was available, they’d have then faced the problem of delivering it to a Japan that had an extra 4 years to consolidate their gains in Asia and the Pacific, to build up their navy, air force and army, and more importantly, to not have lost any of that build up to US actions. They’d have many more experienced veterans available from their conquests, as well.
Cracking that nut would be quite the challenge. I don’t think a purely carrier-based atomic strike group would have much chance of making it to Japan at all, and certainly not multiple times in a row as would be needed to hit 10+ cities as suggested.
We’d likely be faced with trying to secure forward bases just as we did, but facing Japanese forces that had an extra 4 years to get ready for us. Considering how hard it was the way we did it, I can’t imagine it being easier had we started much later. I suppose we could use some A-Bombs here, but then we had the problem of how many bombs we can produce, and can we use the islands we just nuked as forward bases?
We could also try using nukes to fight the war at sea, but then we have the problem of, how many ships can we take out with one bomb? And would that take out submarines?
Compared to the millions the Japanese killed and raped in China? Compared to the Japanese forcing Korean women into slavery? The treatment of the Japanese by the West was no different than the treatment of Hitler or Napoleon.
Is that really true? I don’t know a lot about it, but my understanding was there was more taking-body-parts-as souvenirs from the Japanese. Not to say it was one-sided, but rather that viciousness was higher in the Pacific theater for the US (different in European theater and Soviets and Germans were more vicious to each other - Germans treating Soviet POWs much worse than American or British).
Weird that Hitler and Napoleon get names and “Japanese” is used as a whole, BTW.
Yes. If anything madsircool is giving a shortened list of horrors inflicted on other Asian countries by Japan.
It was quite vicious but its not like the US soldiers collectively decided to start taking body parts - the ones that did had experienced or knew the sheer fanaticism and brutality of Japanese soldiers.
I don’t know why Napoleon is even on that list. I don’t recall him calling for exterminations or taking actions in that direction. He started wars, not massacres of civilians.
Because Hitler and Napoleon were the faces and driving forces of their empires. There were no one single face of Japan. Also, the Pacific War was only a small part of the Japanese war effort. For one example of their barbarity in China, google The Great Rice Offensive.
Because he started wars of conquest, like the Germans and Japanese. And the Japanese weren’t genocidal; they simply didn’t value the lives of their victims.
No, I don’t think that would work. There weren’t any good bases in China from which we could have staged atomic bomb raids into Japan. We didn’t capture all of those islands for our health…that was the most cost-effective way to be able to logistically support bomber raids into the home islands.
Honestly, the best way to have ended the war in the Pacific would have been to never have had it. Basically, what the allies (who weren’t allied at the time) SHOULD have done is when Japan invaded Manchuria they should have fully come to the nationalist Chinese aid and forced Japan, who was in a much weaker position at that time, to the negotiating table…at the point of a gun if necessary. From a cost to benefits perspective this far outweighs anything else, especially if you look at the war from some of the nations involved locally (like China). Not only would a much greater war have been averted, and all of the massive civilian deaths Japan inflicted on nations in the region, but the CCP wouldn’t have come to power either, which would have save 10’s of millions of additional lives.
Can’t find a quick link for the Rice Offensive but here is the wiki link to their war crimes. Its shocking.
Do you know how many millions that was?
America does not to to war over human rights, only for economic advantage. The USA would nave never laid a finger on Japan, were it not to defend the economic interests of our British, French and Dutch allies in the threatened colonies.
They were in an alliance with Axis Powers in Europe and were rampaging all over Asia like their buddies the Germans were rampaging over Europe. A truly Imperial Japan was in no ones interests and there are maybe 20 million dead reasons why. They also used state-sponsered rape in a way the Germans never did. The sheer brutality of the Japanese seems like it doesn’t bother you at all.
Or, we could have gone to war over this;
I believe that the OP is under the misconception that Japan surrendered simply because of the two atomic bombs where the reality was the it took the bombs and (1) the entry of the Soviets;* (2) after almost all of Japan’s major cities had been burned to rubble (3) with 15 million out of 72 million people homeless; (4) the almost total blockade of Japan (5) leaving the civilians were starving, (5) and no fuel available other than the dwindling stockpiles; (6) the IJN completely eliminated as a threat; (7) the IJA decisively defeated in numerous battles; and (8) the entire war manufacturing base either directed destroyed or idled from a lack of material, among other problems.
Japan surrendered because of the totality of the loss, it wasn’t simply two cities. I’ve posted extensively about how the decision was finally made after the Supreme War Council was deadlocked, and how most of the members of that council who were active duty military still wanted to fight and it took the extra constitutional measure of the Emperor intervening to break the tie.
Look at an imperfect analogy. Say that aliens who are somewhat more advanced than us came and destroyed a chunk of New York City and LA. Then they demanded an unconditional surrender which would involve the US giving up democracy, accepting a foreign king, and allowing the political and military leadership to submit to tribunals for war crimes. Would the US simply roll over and accept that without any fight?
If one had perfect knowledge of the progress of the war, it would be a relatively simpler matter of ensuring that neither the Philippine Islands nor Singapore would fall. Japan would no longer be able to simply take the DEI with the rubber, oil and other natural resources and would run out of oil within a year.
There would be several other issues such as taking care of the faulty torpedoes by early 1942 and Japan would be set to starve to death several years earlier.
Notes:
*: Although not accepted by everyone, some historians have argued that it was the Soviet entry by itself which was the final straw that caused Japan to surrender. I don’t agree, but take that for what it’s worth.
In China alone it was tens of millions
The USA went to war with Japan after they sneak attacked Pearl Harbor, followed by several attacks on other US locations. This was done after the USA decided they werem’t going to sell any more oil to Japan so they could continue their abuse of China and other Asian nations.
We didn’t lay a finger on Japan until they decided a sneak attack without a declaration of war was a great thing to do.