Multymegaton ****storm :) Could the Germans win the war?

[sburke]

You are giving Japan credit for holding onto so much by the simple fact that it was not a contiguous land mass. The Allies did not need to reconquer all that territory to defeat Japan. The Soviets showed exactly what Japan could expect when faced with an opposition with a real army and room to maneuver. The Kwangtung Army never stood a chance. The German Army may have been largely horsedrawn, but the Japanese Army didn't even have that.

Digging in works on an island, you opponent has no options but to attack into your defenses. Given some room though, and that defense works about as well as stand fast did for Germany.

As to the question of nukes, I don't think even in the bitter climate of war the US casually decided to nuke Japan as a message to Russia. The fact is they looked at potential losses to America and decided, screw this if these guys don't know when they are beaten, then we need some way of dramatically proving that.

Whether the A bomb really fully accomplished it's goals or whether Japanese fear of Russian occupation was the primary motivation, one way or the other the handwriting was on the wall. Japan had seen 3 months previously the Allies had no qualms about Russian occupation of the Axis powers. They had no way to know Japan would not be subdivided amongst the allies and how much Japanese territory was gonna end up in Russian hands..

[IMHO]

That was not how the Allies saw it. I used "bamboo spears" to make a point but there were great numbers of Japanese Army with weapons and after the blood letting at Iwo and Okinawa the nukes were called in. The nukes caused fewer casualties than a protracted land campaign would have caused based on our experience in Okinawa where there were Japanese women and children in large numbers. They were advised, and did commit suicide in horrific numbers rather than be captured or occupied. In Okinawa the Jap troops also used their own civilians as shields as they drove them forward into American lines.

It was Okinawa that turned the page on to use or not use the nukes. There was also legitimate concern anout our own casualties and about the Russians who were rushing to get in against Japan and as you are certainly well aware still occupy parts of Japan's northern islands.

Kuril Islands

Here's the direct citation from the Yalta agreement

The leaders of the three great powers – the Soviet Union, the United States of America and Great Britain – have agreed... (a) The southern part of Sakhalin as well as the islands adjacent to it shall be returned to the Soviet Union; ... 3. The Kurile Islands shall be handed over to the Soviet Union.

Here's a direct quote (Article 2c) from the The Treaty of San Francisco (signed by Japan)

Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands...

So it's no more an occupation than the fact that Hawaii belongs to the US. Let's not grad it into the politics.

Nukes

Those were the bombing of civilian population not the military installations. Like the fire bombing of Japanese cities where 500'000 people died. Again cities not military targets. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were big cities not remote places to show the might of new weapons. It's exactly like 9/11 - deliberate killing of as many civilians as possible to reach military objectives by inducing terror among the population.

[sburke]

Nukes

Those were the bombing of civilian population not the military installations. Like the fire bombing of Japanese cities where 500'000 people died. Again cities not military targets. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were big cities not remote places to show the might of new weapons. It's exactly like 9/11 - deliberate killing of as many civilians as possible to reach military objectives by inducing terror among the population.

Whoa, you are probably gonna start a firestorm comparing a war time act (no matter how callous) with 9/11.

Actually the targets were selected for military industrial value. Nagasaki was actually a secondary target only bombed as the primary was overcast that day. Nagasaki was the launching shipyard for the Yamato class battleships though it's usefulness at this point in the war as a military base was questionable. The firebombing of Tokyo is a better example if you need one of an attack specifically targeting civilians. If the US wanted a gut check attack on Japan and really wanted to terrorize civilians, they would have hit Kyoto. As an attack on the Japanese psyche, it would have had a much bigger impact.

[Narses]

Kuril Islands

Here's the direct citation from the Yalta agreement

The leaders of the three great powers – the Soviet Union, the United States of America and Great Britain – have agreed... (a) The southern part of Sakhalin as well as the islands adjacent to it shall be returned to the Soviet Union; ... 3. The Kurile Islands shall be handed over to the Soviet Union.

Here's a direct quote (Article 2c) from the The Treaty of San Francisco (signed by Japan)

Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands...

So it's no more an occupation than the fact that Hawaii belongs to the US. Let's not grad it into the politics.

Nukes

Those were the bombing of civilian population not the military installations. Like the fire bombing of Japanese cities where 500'000 people died. Again cities not military targets. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were big cities not remote places to show the might of new weapons. It's exactly like 9/11 - deliberate killing of as many civilians as possible to reach military objectives by inducing terror among the population.

Wow! What a stretch. As I recall we were in a declared war with Japan and Germany and they declared war on the US - both of them. And we bombed German cites as well. The Japanese & Germans bombed open cities as well when they were able early in the war.

There were 2,000,000 Jap soldier in Japan and another 2,000,000 in Korea, Manchuko and the roughly 20% of China the Japs occupied. The Jap military was reluctant to surrender and the nukes gane them the reason to swallow and sign. How many additional Allied soldiers should we have sacrificed by land invasions of China, Korea, Manchuko and the Japanese islands. The US alone had just lost 50,000 casualties on Okinawa ( about 13000 dead).

As far as the Soviets go it was really the victor taking what he could like the Russians still in East Prussia. Naturally the Japanese agreed.

[IMHO]

Whoa, you are probably gonna start a firestorm comparing a war time act (no matter how callous) with 9/11.

Actually the targets were selected for military industrial value. Nagasaki was actually a secondary target only bombed as the primary was overcast that day. Nagasaki was the launching shipyard for the Yamato class battleships though it's usefulness at this point in the war as a military base was questionable. The firebombing of Tokyo is a better example if you need one of an attack specifically targeting civilians. If the US wanted a gut check attack on Japan and really wanted to terrorize civilians, they would have hit Kyoto. As an attack on the Japanese psyche, it would have had a much bigger impact.

1. Japan couldn't have built any more Yamatos by that time so militarily it was just as useful as a junk cars yard.

2. War crimes are also war time acts. Truman had his victory in the pocket. He could have blockaded the islands and would have had a surrender negotiations within two or three months with no major loss of American life. But Truman didn't want just ANY military victory. He wanted his victory to be a swift and spectacular revenge for Pearl Harbor. Victory over Japanese nation not the Japanese armed forces. Here are the quotes from his atomic bombing announcement:

The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor. They have been repaid manyfold. And the end is not yet. With this bomb we have now added a new and revolutionary increase in destruction to supplement the growing power of our armed forces.

...

We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city.

...they [Japanese leaders] may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth.

To me this sounds exactly like Osama Bin Laden. Ready to sacrifice innumerable lives for achieving personal political goals.

[sburke]

To me this sounds exactly like Osama Bin Laden. Ready to sacrifice innumerable lives for achieving personal political goals.

Well you can't say I didn't warn you away from using that comparison. On that note, I'm stepping away from this one. It's going into the oddly warm area of the swimming pool if you get my drift. If you need something more graphic think of Caddyshack.

[IMHO]

Wow! What a stretch. As I recall we were in a declared war with Japan and Germany and they declared war on the US - both of them. And we bombed German cites as well. The Japanese & Germans bombed open cities as well when they were able early in the war.

There were 2,000,000 Jap soldier in Japan and another 2,000,000 in Korea, Manchuko and the roughly 20% of China the Japs occupied. The Jap military was reluctant to surrender and the nukes gane them the reason to swallow and sign. How many additional Allied soldiers should we have sacrificed by land invasions of China, Korea, Manchuko and the Japanese islands. The US alone had just lost 50,000 casualties on Okinawa ( about 13000 dead).

As far as the Soviets go it was really the victor taking what he could like the Russians still in East Prussia. Naturally the Japanese agreed.

1. Bombing German cities is no different. Just like German terror bombing London. Certainly I didn't mean that only American fire- and nuclear bombing are war crimes.

2. Allied casualties would have happen only in case of further landings onto Japan land. There was no way Japanese in China, Manchuko and Pacific islands were able to fight without supplies. A blockade would have done the job. May be then it wouldn't have been such a humiliating surrender for Japan but certainly a total win for Allies.

3. As for victor taking - I don't see your point. This was the way all countries were made including US. Again I don't think we shall call Hawaii "the land of the Kingdom of Hawaii temporarily occupied by US forces"

[Michael Emrys]

No oil, no metals, almost no food. Fighting with bamboo sticks Japanese would have hardly be major threat for allied armies.

You exaggerate. There was still a large and well armed army in the home islands determined to fight to the last man and last bullet. As important, the Japanese had been hoarding aircraft to use as Kamikazes. Okinawa had shown how brutally effective those were if even a small fraction managed to get through the interceptor screen. Conditions for their employment at Kyushu would have made them even more dangerous.

Michael

[poesel]

And of course, the Japanese got to keep their Emperor.

I think I better stay out of this 'who lost better' contest but let me say just one thing:

I'm very, very happy we didn't get to keep our Emperor...

[Michael Emrys]

Allied casualties would have happen only in case of further landings onto Japan land. There was no way Japanese in China, Manchuko and Pacific islands were able to fight without supplies. A blockade would have done the job. May be then it wouldn't have been such a humiliating surrender for Japan but certainly a total win for Allies.

The Japanese military leaders were prepared to allow the entire population to starve rather than face the humiliation of surrender. A blockade if pressed would have killed more than all the bombings put together. Plus the thousands of Chinese and other non-Japanese that were starving every month that the war continued. There were urgent and compelling reasons, some of them humanitarian, to conclude the war as quickly as possible.

Yes, the bombing was shocking and brutal, but it was the decision by its leaders to engage in a war of conquest that brought all that upon the Japanese people. Let's not lose sight of that fact.

Michael

[dieseltaylor]

I thought we had done this to death on the GF before. A couple of years back - I still have a copy of the post-war report on the mass-bombings of Japan which I am re-typing from a scanned copy.

There is no doubt that the peace party would have gained in strength, and were almost there prior to the nukes.

As for invading mainland Japan - are you crazy - you have the Japanese troops in three of the largest PoW camps in the world and you want to go and mix it! Letting them stew for another month, leaflet a few more towns to be evacuated prior to firebombing so the civilians realise who the good guys are. Piece of cake.

However I if wanted to show I was a real tough guy and had a wonder weapon - well

tricky.

The question I think last time was how aware was the US of how completely knackered the Japanese economy was and therefore the nukes were justifiable. I think I got the impression that the US had not really comprehended how weak Japan was - certainly in terms of any offensive threat if nothing else.

[IMHO]

You exaggerate. There was still a large and well armed army in the home islands determined to fight to the last man and last bullet. As important, the Japanese had been hoarding aircraft to use as Kamikazes. Okinawa had shown how brutally effective those were if even a small fraction managed to get through the interceptor screen. Conditions for their employment at Kyushu would have made them even more dangerous.

Michael

"Ready to fight till the last man and last bullet" is not quite accurate I believe. Even the utmost hawks understood that the war was lost - they were hawks but not morons. So they wanted to negotiate an honorable end to the war. So to create a need to negotiate they gambled that Allies wouldn't land on the islands because of the high losses due to the the Japanese will to fight.

But the US proved by action that there's another option not foreseen by the Japanese commanders and that was total obliteration of not the Japanese military might but Japanese nation itself. So Japan surrendered.

For me 750'000 civilian lives lost is too high a price for the words "unconditional surrender". Whatever war and whatever nation.

[IMHO]

The Japanese military leaders were prepared to allow the entire population to starve rather than face the humiliation of surrender. A blockade if pressed would have killed more than all the bombings put together. Plus the thousands of Chinese and other non-Japanese that were starving every month that the war continued. There were urgent and compelling reasons, some of them humanitarian, to conclude the war as quickly as possible.

Yes, the bombing was shocking and brutal, but it was the decision by its leaders to engage in a war of conquest that brought all that upon the Japanese people. Let's not lose sight of that fact.

Michael

1. Thank you for your post. You're right that this boils down to a perfectly discussable question of whether the Japan would have surrendered and if yes how many months it would have taken. From what I read they would have done that. Months - I don't know, I haven't gone that far. So to make a more detailed and specific argument for this I need to go back to the reading desk.

2. Blockade could have been Cuba-like - foodstuff and medicines might have gone in.

3. The start of the war in the Pacific is also quite an interesting topic to discuss. I mean oil embargo. I don't think it would be such a flare - remembering what Japanese did to the conquered nations. Definitely interesting to pick your brain on the start of the war as well. May be after we finish the surrender

[Michael Emrys]

So to make a more detailed and specific argument for this I need to go back to the reading desk.

If you haven't already read it, I strongly recommend Downfall by Richard B. Frank. He goes over all of this in some detail. To tell the truth, I was surprised by some of the information he was able to glean by looking at primary Japanese documents. They were more prepared to fight, and fight effectively, than I had previously believed.

Michael

[IMHO]

If you haven't already read it, I strongly recommend Downfall by Richard B. Frank. He goes over all of this in some detail. To tell the truth, I was surprised by some of the information he was able to glean by looking at primary Japanese documents. They were more prepared to fight, and fight effectively, than I had previously believed.

Michael

Thanks a lot for the recommendations. I haven't read Downfall. I have never gone through the War in the Pacific in proper detail

And I'm going through the Tooze now He does seem to have some strong ideas about Germany

PS I tried to send you a message the other day. But the system said you've got your forum inbox full

[Michael Emrys]

PS I tried to send you a message the other day. But the system said you've got your forum inbox full

Yes, I received an e-mail to that effect. So I cleared out the in-box a bit and was a little surprised you didn't try again later.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that the limit on number of PMs one is allowed to have is tiny.

Michael

[sburke]

"Ready to fight till the last man and last bullet" is not quite accurate I believe. Even the utmost hawks understood that the war was lost - they were hawks but not morons. So they wanted to negotiate an honorable end to the war. So to create a need to negotiate they gambled that Allies wouldn't land on the islands because of the high losses due to the the Japanese will to fight.

But the US proved by action that there's another option not foreseen by the Japanese commanders and that was total obliteration of not the Japanese military might but Japanese nation itself. So Japan surrendered.

For me 750'000 civilian lives lost is too high a price for the words "unconditional surrender". Whatever war and whatever nation.

Actually there was an attempted coup when Hirohito was planning the surrender announcement. The hawks were not interested in surrender even if the Emperor himself was prepared to do so. Amazingly they planned to arrest the Emperor. (see references to the Kyujo incident). The Japanese miltary had a history of being led places leadership hadn't planned to go by lower ranking Field officers within the army. It is pretty interesting reading to see how disfunctional the Japanese Army had become.

All else aside I would agree, the insistence on unconditional surrender was a pretty bad move. It effectively removed the ability of the allies to force cracks in the enemy camp. However considering the mistrust particularly between Stalin and Churchhill, it made a better framework for the allied command to work within.

As to the original issue of going to war there is some fascinating stuff being published these days. For example The Imperial Cruise by James Bradley - illegal enouragement by the White House for Japanese expansion during the Sino Russian wars and Japanese perception of US betrayal of agreements at that time that laid a lot of the socio-political ground work for a deteriorating relationship between Japan and the US. There is also a distinct lag in Japanese perception about changes in the international scene that had them trailing the curve in the global change from blatant imperialistic occupation of other countries to a more "gentle" economic imperialism. A position from which they would feel "deprived" by the Western powers.

[Magpie_Oz]

"Ready to fight till the last man and last bullet" is not quite accurate I believe. Even the utmost hawks understood that the war was lost - they were hawks but not morons. So they wanted to negotiate an honorable end to the war. So to create a need to negotiate they gambled that Allies wouldn't land on the islands because of the high losses due to the the Japanese will to fight.

But the US proved by action that there's another option not foreseen by the Japanese commanders and that was total obliteration of not the Japanese military might but Japanese nation itself. So Japan surrendered.

For me 750'000 civilian lives lost is too high a price for the words "unconditional surrender". Whatever war and whatever nation.

Let us not forget that the Japanese forces slaughtered in the order of 30 million civilians and WW2 pretty much determined that in war civilians are just as much a target as anything else. Takes a lot longer to replace a factory worker than a factory. Someone working in a munitions plant, or someone producing food for someone who works in a munitions plant or the children of someone who works in a munitions plant, attacking any of them is an attack on the war making apparatus.

Had the Allies landed on Japan the civilian losses would have been far greater than 750k, Okinawa alone killed 150k odd.

Regardless of the situation a negotiated peace was never on the cards for the Allies, if the Japanese hoped for that they shared the illusion with Hitler.

[IMHO]

As to the original issue of going to war there is some fascinating stuff being published these days. For example The Imperial Cruise by James Bradley - illegal enouragement by the White House for Japanese expansion during the Sino Russian wars and Japanese perception of US betrayal of agreements at that time that laid a lot of the socio-political ground work for a deteriorating relationship between Japan and the US. There is also a distinct lag in Japanese perception about changes in the international scene that had them trailing the curve in the global change from blatant imperialistic occupation of other countries to a more "gentle" economic imperialism. A position from which they would feel "deprived" by the Western powers.

Thanks for the recommendations. I finish Tooze and go to the War in the Pacific books

[C'Rogers]

I feel like the 'war could have been ended without nukes' side is making the same error that started this thread of 'could Germany have won the war'.

Yes, if they had perfect knowledge. But they didn't. It's easy for us to say 'the Japanese would have surrendered', but that doesn't mean the US knew they would. Even if the US was 90% certain that Japan was going to surrender, is that worth taking the risk that will be posed to US soldiers in a full scale land invasion?

On the ethical question of comparing Osama Bin Laden to war time actions:

To a degree, you're right. I've always been disturbed by the line 'the Japanese language shall be spoken only in hell' even if it was just meant to be rabble rousing. However, I think direct comparison between the two issues is invalid.

I think society has gotten away from the notion of 'total war' for which we should consider ourselves very blessed. However, in a war the scale of WWII, or a war that Osama Bin Laden probably imagined he was bringing about, attacks on civilians are inevitable. To say that civilians and a military machine can be separated is not true (to reiterate, I'm talking only about something on the scale of WWII).

That the means of war are ethically questionable and horrifying should be obvious. Thus whether the ends are justified should be the primary (but certainly not only) issue. I mean, we consider attacks like the bombing against Cole a heinous act, even though that is a clear military target.

I'll end there, because I'm probably horribly off topic.

[ASL Veteran]

The thing I wonder about is whether France could have won the war in 1939. If France had launched a major offensive into Germany in September of 1939 maybe a lot of subsequent misery could have been avoided.

[LemuelG]

Yeah, every minute the Japanese held-on was yet more enslavement, death, torture, disease, and famine for the millions of innocents still subject to their, frankly, sick and detestable cultural crusade. Talk about Nemesis, and in the same breath you deliver the best possible deterrent to Stalin's mischief.

When your enemies lose it is a good thing, do I endorse the killing of civilians? No, and that is why the enemy needed to be mercilessly destroyed. It's a shame so much violence was necessary to achieve our goals, but when you face a life-or-death conflict it is pure folly not to respond with every possible tool at your disposal. Too bad for them that happened to be the greatest destructive power ever unleashed by man, someone picked the wrong fight.

Submarine-blockades will not do when your kinsmen and allies need succour immediately. F* Imperial Japan.

[LemuelG]

The thing I wonder about is whether France could have won the war in 1939. If France had launched a major offensive into Germany in September of 1939 maybe a lot of subsequent misery could have been avoided.

Yeah, the opportunity was there while Poland was still in play. But with war against Stalinist Russia still on the cards I'm not sure prudence was as foolish as it looks after the fact.

The red fear plays into a lot of decision-making at this stage of events; end-result is that Poland gets thrown to the wolves.

[IMHO]

Let us not forget that the Japanese forces slaughtered in the order of 30 million civilians and WW2 pretty much determined that in war civilians are just as much a target as anything else. Takes a lot longer to replace a factory worker than a factory. Someone working in a munitions plant, or someone producing food for someone who works in a munitions plant or the children of someone who works in a munitions plant, attacking any of them is an attack on the war making apparatus.

1. I do not condone what Japanese did.

2. Well... Then one can apply this logic to 9/11.

Regardless of the situation a negotiated peace was never on the cards for the Allies, if the Japanese hoped for that they shared the illusion with Hitler.

Well... I believe it's true that Allied leaders were very much similar to Hitler et al. Bombing Hamburg, Dresden, Pforzheim the way that was done is not very different from the Hitler's mass killings of Jews. It's just Hitler lost and Allies won. So German concentration camps are war crimes but the proposal to exterminate 100'000 Wehrmacht officers is not in every school textbook on history. Truly Allies probably did not care much about how many Japanese civilians they should kill to get an "unconditional surrender".

[Magpie_Oz]

1. I do not condone what Japanese did.

Didn't suggest you did

2. Well... Then one can apply this logic to 9/11.

Can and do, the West sees it as a scurrilous act the perpetrators see it as a strategic attack on the enemy.

Well... I believe it's true that Allied leaders were very much similar to Hitler et al. Bombing Hamburg, Dresden, Pforzheim the way that was done is not very different from the Hitler's mass killings of Jews. It's just Hitler lost and Allies won. So German concentration camps are war crimes but the proposal to exterminate 100'000 Wehrmacht officers is not in every school textbook on history. Truly Allies probably did not care much about how many Japanese civilians they should kill to get an "unconditional surrender".

Quite different there. Hitler's killing of the Jews and the Japanese killings of the Chinese, Nanking for example, were deliberate and stated as intentional, acts of Genocide. The heavy bomber campaign had no such intention but attacking the German people was part of it for sure.

I don't know what the proposal to exterminate the German officer corps is a reference to and would like to know more, but I do point out that a proposal and an actual act are two very different things.

True enough the Allies didn't really care who many Japanese died to end the war they were more concerned about their own casualties BUT it was a certainty that more Japanese civilians would have died in the event of an Allied invasion of the Japanese home islands that were killed by the atomic bombs.