If the nuclear devices dropped on Japan had failed to go off, or the plug had been pulled on the Manhatten project for some reason or another, what sort of plans did the Allies have for dealing with the Japanese Mainland. Considering the way the Japanese threw themselves into fighting it seems unlikely the Allies would have thrown themselves behind the A-Bomb and said hey it’ll work for sure. Even so the only mention of any non-nuclear plans against the Japanese mainland that I have come across was a large collection of RAF Lancasters to be used in something called operation Tiger Force IIRC.
Step 1: Go to google and search for “operation olympic” and “operation coronet”.
After some brief searching, probably the best site for some introductory info would be this. Hope you like to read.
Great article, Ino.
Also, the book of the same name (Operation Downfall, by Richard B Frank) is an excellent, well-written book on the same subject.
An interesting point to ponder is, without the A-bombs, would the US forces have beaten the Soviets (who had just started an enormously successful campaign against Japan, smashing through Manchuria and invading the Kurile islands) in occupying Japan? And if not, what would the implications of a Soviet-occupied or joint-occupied Japan have been for the post-war world? If there’s one thing the cold war didn’t need, it was another flashpoint.
Didn’t the Soviet declaration of war against Japan come after the first atomic bomb was dropped?
Yes, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan after the A-bomb attack on Hiroshima. However, Stalin had promised that he would join the war against Japan and he kept his promise.
The fact that it completely suited his needs at relatively little risk to him was beside the point.
Strangley, the U.S. and British navies created conditions that quite possibly could have led to a Soviet invasion of Japan. The months preceding Hiroshima saw the complete obliteration of the only two forces standing between the Soviets and the beaches of Japan: the Imperial Japanese Navy and Air Force.
It seems unlikely that the Soviets were interested in undertaking such an expedition since they had already suffered upwards of 20 million casualties fighting the Germans. They had also never conducted a large-scale amphibious operation before, and never to an area that was as distant from supply sources. Most importantly, they had fairly limited ambitions in the Far East.
Interesting conjecture but the best bet it that American Marines and soldiers hit Honshu in November of '45 and soon thereafter the main island. Who knows if the Emporer would have been persuaded to force surrender when faced with a land invasion as opposed to American superweapons?
I read somewhere, take this with a grain of salt, that Japan may have been considering surrendering before the bomb was dropped. Or at least that they weren’t as comitted to fighting to the end as many people thought. I realize that this is not what most people have heard about the Japanese, but I’m willing to consider the possibility.
If indeed the Japanese were wide open to attack by the Soviets, then perhaps the Japanese leaders (at least some of whom knew defeat was inevitable) might have sued for peace with the Americans. They really didn’t like the Soviets. Admittedly the allies had pledged not to accept a separate surrender from either of the remaining Axis powers, and they also had agreed on only accepting unconditional surrender. The Japanese were not likely to accept unconditional surrender and although they officially surrendered unconditionally after the bombings, they were allowed to keep their emperor.
SJC wrote:
I hate to do this, but I have to make this singularly annoying request that turns up on this board from time to time:
Cite?
It doesn’t make sense to me that the Allies would refuse surrender from one of the Axis powers if the other was still fighting. I say this for two reasons:
First, it would mean that a large portion of the active combat troops and support personnel could be pulled out of one theater of operations, and either moved to the other theater or allowed to stand down. Any general or Commander-in-Chief would look upon this as a Good Thing[sup]TM[/sup] if he had an ounce of sense.
Second, a declaration such as you presented is the same as Space Ghost telling Moltarr to stop conquering galaxies or he, Blip, and the Twins will continue to blast Zorak while he’s tied up in their space-jail. How can you continue a war against a nation that isn’t fighting anymore? Even with our “Remember Pearl Harbor” attitude going for us, pursuing a campaign against a defeated enemy on their home ground would become a propaganda nightmare with the American public.
Please enlighten me. I like to pretend I understand the major issues of WWII, and this one is new to me. Fight my ignorance!
Cap’n Crude, I really don’t think that that is what sjc meant by “separate surrender”. I think that what he meant was that if, for instance, Germany surrendered to the US but continued to fight Russia, the US would be obligated to keep fighting the Germans until they surrendered to the Russians as well.
p.s. sjc, you didn’t name yourself after an airport, did you?
TheRyan, that makes a lot more sense. I’m surprised I didn’t look at it that way. Assuming, of course, that it’s what sjc meant.