US Pacific Stragy with No Manhatten Project

Would Truman have tried to do a conditional surrender deal with Japan had he not known of nukes?

I am assuming he did NOT want bigger soviet influence, a likely outcome if USSR played a bigger part in the Pacific war
 
Last edited:

Sandman396

Banned
IMHO there is no way that Truman could politically survive an attempt at a negotiated peace so early in his administration.

It would be seen as snatching defeat from the jaws of victory after 4 years of hard fighting to suddenly stop especially after the total defeat of Germany.
 

mowque

Banned
Unconditional surrender would not be altered. We had overwhelming military force and the will to use it.
 
I am assuming he did NOT want bigger soviet influence, a likely outcome if USSR played a bigger part in the Pacific war

He did in OTL, so it's safe to assume he'd be happy to welcome the Soviets into the war here and allow "terrible shock" of the Soviet invasion to bring the Japanese to the table.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Unconditional surrender would not be altered. We had overwhelming military force and the will to use it.

Agreed. This leads to the question of whether Operation Downfall would have been really necessary. Instead of invading, why not simply maintain the naval blockade and bombing campaigns until Japan surrendered or until the government of Japan simply evaporated and occupation could proceed without organized resistance? Surely this would not cost as many lives as an actual invasion would have cost, would it?

Of course, there would be the Soviets to think about...
 
Agreed. This leads to the question of whether Operation Downfall would have been really necessary. Instead of invading, why not simply maintain the naval blockade and bombing campaigns until Japan surrendered or until the government of Japan simply evaporated and occupation could proceed without organized resistance? Surely this would not cost as many lives as an actual invasion would have cost, would it?

This might actually cost more lives. Halsey once said that the only place Japanese would be spoken is in hell. Those words might be very prophetic in this scenario.
 

Sandman396

Banned
Agreed. This leads to the question of whether Operation Downfall would have been really necessary. Instead of invading, why not simply maintain the naval blockade and bombing campaigns until Japan surrendered or until the government of Japan simply evaporated and occupation could proceed without organized resistance? Surely this would not cost as many lives as an actual invasion would have cost, would it?

Of course, there would be the Soviets to think about...

Naval Blockade of the Home Islands with invasion of Manchuria to defeat Japanese Army there AND put the fear of God into Stalin!! :D:D
 
"with invasion of Manchuria to defeat Japanese Army there AND put the fear of God into Stalin!!"

But how do you stop the Soviets getting there first? It's a lot easier for the Red Army to roll through Manchuria overland a la August Storm than it is for the Marines to sail past Korea, invade the Manchurian coastline somewhere and push inland. The logistics required to support a mechanised invasion over several thousand miles of sealanes is far from trivial.
 
Agreed. This leads to the question of whether Operation Downfall would have been really necessary. Instead of invading, why not simply maintain the naval blockade and bombing campaigns until Japan surrendered or until the government of Japan simply evaporated and occupation could proceed without organized resistance? Surely this would not cost as many lives as an actual invasion would have cost, would it?

Of course, there would be the Soviets to think about...

One of the arguments against the blockade strategy was the assumption the Japanese armies elsewhere would continue to fight on. There were substantial Japanese forces in the Phillipines, Netherlands East Indies, Maylasia, Indo china, China, ect... While blockading the home islands does starve the Japanese civilian population, and cause the thousands of PoW to be massacred, it does not much affect the Japanese armies scattered across Asia & Pacifica. In China the substantial Japanese armies were still capable of offensive action, and had not ceased their depredations on the civilian population. Tens of thousands of civilians would be dying each month or even week while the siege of the home islands drags on.
 

Sandman396

Banned
"with invasion of Manchuria to defeat Japanese Army there AND put the fear of God into Stalin!!"

But how do you stop the Soviets getting there first? It's a lot easier for the Red Army to roll through Manchuria overland a la August Storm than it is for the Marines to sail past Korea, invade the Manchurian coastline somewhere and push inland. The logistics required to support a mechanised invasion over several thousand miles of sealanes is far from trivial.


I thought the Bazinga was obvious
 
My 2 cents

I would be for blockade and continued air and naval bombardment. As someone else mentoned the POW/slave laborers would be in grave peril.
 
Agreed. This leads to the question of whether Operation Downfall would have been really necessary. Instead of invading, why not simply maintain the naval blockade and bombing campaigns until Japan surrendered or until the government of Japan simply evaporated and occupation could proceed without organized resistance? Surely this would not cost as many lives as an actual invasion would have cost, would it?


RAdm Dan Gallery, then a captain, was at that time serving in Washington as a deputy to an Admiral who was on the joint logistics committee of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Gallery was an alternate on the committee, sitting when his boss was busy.

One day the invasion of Japan came up, and Gallery asked "Why do we have to invade Japan? Why not just blockade Japan and wait for it to collapse?" In his own words...

"I should have stood in bed. The Army and Air Corps members looked at me as though I had puked on the table."

Which is to say, the necessity of invading Japan was assumed by just about everybody.
 
The Manhattan Project was not believed to be the magic bullet for winning the war that it turned out to be. As massive and deadly that atomic bombs are, they're still just bombs, and the Americans had already been bombing Japan. A bigger bomb, they thought, wouldn't change the Emperor's mind any more than a thousand smaller ones would; that would require a full-on invasion of Japan.

So basically, if the A-bomb hadn't been developed, the plan would have gone ahead more or less the same. American troops would have invaded the Japanese home islands, both sides would have taken horrific casualties, and the Soviets would use the theater to further their own agenda.
 
Tsochar said:
American troops would have invaded the Japanese home islands
Don't bet on it.

The U.S. could readily have continued bombing & blockade for some while, giving Japan's leadership a chance to come to their senses & for Truman & Byrne to agree the Throne could be maintained, even if Hirohito had to go (which was the only demand Japan insisted on). As soon as it's clear in Japan that was agreeable, you'd get surrender.

That might not be before blockade produces widespread famine...:eek:

Either way, IMO, invasion was needless, & so was the Bomb.
 
Agreed. This leads to the question of whether Operation Downfall would have been really necessary. Instead of invading, why not simply maintain the naval blockade and bombing campaigns until Japan surrendered or until the government of Japan simply evaporated and occupation could proceed without organized resistance? Surely this would not cost as many lives as an actual invasion would have cost, would it?

Of course, there would be the Soviets to think about...
It's possible that after bloody fighting on Kyushu, the emperor moves for surrender.
 
Top