DBWI: Japan takes longer to surrender?

As we know, the japanese empire had surrendered unconditionally in july of 1945 after the massive american firebombing raid that destroyed most of tokyo and killed prince Akihito, prompting the japanese government to surrender (but a few divisions in overseas territory that refused to do it at first, but dropped their weapons after they realized how their situation was hopeless)

Some historians says that if Japan kept fighting, the american government could use that as a excuse to use the atomic bomb on them, and according to recently discovered documents the american government really planned to do that, even dispatching their B29 to do the mission

So if the japanese kept fighting, would they be nuked? Also could the soviet union have invaded the japanese puppet state on Manchuria, maybe giving any chance for a communist victory on the chinese civil war? :confused:
 
I wonder if Japan would be divided in two like Korea following ww2, if the USSR made so much more of a contribution.
OOC: I'm not sure killing the prince would do much to persuade surrender... It might just backfire.
 
Not sure if a Nationalist victory can be butterflied away at this point. That said, let's assume that a longer Japanese resistance leads to Communist China.

Some good:

I like China and the Chinese people, but the ROC government has a long tradition of revanchism and historical revisionism. OK, understandable that they don't trust Japan, but since 1960s they've been basically building what amounts to a Co-Prosperity Sphere of their own in SE Asia and picking fights with Japan, the Philippines and Indonesia over islands. And with a two-carrier navy, they've been able to make the latter two back down every time. If China had gone Communist, OK it would have been utterly miserable inside China, but they wouldn't have been able to develop the same kind of influence that they have in SE Asia - not with how rabidly anti-Communist most regimes in the region are and were. Which might have given countries like Vietnam and Malaya the chance to get out from under China's shadow.

Some bad:

We have to assume that a hypothetical Communist China would have done what the ROC did - annex Tibet. But the ROC have never been anti-religious the way that Communists were. Tibetan Buddhism has thrived, while materially Tibet's an exceptionally wealthy region - especially with the sheer number of tourists and pilgrims who flood Lhasa every year. Tibet under Communism would have been subject to severe repression, and probably would have been even more impoverished.
 
Maybe we would see the unimaginable: unfriendly us and china, together with friendly russia and China. Yes, I'm looking at you, Haishenwei.:p
 
Given all the present-day moral outrage over the nuking of Pyongyang in the Korean War, I bet nuking Japan would be even more widely condemned.
 

Insider

Banned
Communist China could be beneficial for the world. With all ROC corruption and mismanagement swept away, the humanity as a whole would be better off. That would be milions of people that would be spared from hunger, given proper education (or any education at all), and have oportunities to live better lives. Especially after the war, such period of communism was necessary. Too much of the infrastructure was destroyed to allow simple market mechanisms to take over.

Even places like Tibet are well of now... but how about ten, or twenty years ago?
 
Communist China could be beneficial for the world. With all ROC corruption and mismanagement swept away, the humanity as a whole would be better off. That would be milions of people that would be spared from hunger, given proper education (or any education at all), and have oportunities to live better lives. Especially after the war, such period of communism was necessary. Too much of the infrastructure was destroyed to allow simple market mechanisms to take over.

Even places like Tibet are well of now... but how about ten, or twenty years ago?
While communist China would without a doubt be much less corrupt than the KMT at first, I honestly doubt if the same would go for the rest of the 20th century. It is also doubtful if the Communists would allow swift economic and social development like the KMT had (I admit, begrudgingly) allowed.
 
Communist China could be beneficial for the world. With all ROC corruption and mismanagement swept away, the humanity as a whole would be better off. That would be milions of people that would be spared from hunger, given proper education (or any education at all), and have oportunities to live better lives.

You're fucking joking right? Have you seen what the Communist Party of China has done to Manchuria? They can't even properly feed or educate the people they already rule, so what makes you think they'd do better running all of China?
 

Insider

Banned
You're fucking joking right? Have you seen what the Communist Party of China has done to Manchuria? They can't even properly feed or educate the people they already rule, so what makes you think they'd do better running all of China?

Wasn't there like... a war going on? Between KMT and Communists and Japanese. For nine years? You can hardly wonder that they didn't spend much time bothering about food and education for everyone when they were surrounded by enemies. Oh... and one "ally" that prefered to keep the war long and destructive. :rolleyes:
 
Wasn't there like... a war going on? Between KMT and Communists and Japanese. For nine years? You can hardly wonder that they didn't spend much time bothering about food and education for everyone when they were surrounded by enemies. Oh... and one "ally" that prefered to keep the war long and destructive. :rolleyes:

The war has been over for seven decades. At this point, it's only the CCP's combination of brutality and incompetence that keeps Manchuria in the hellish state it's currently in. The fact that they still have defenders in the West is nothing short of baffling. Get your head out of Mao Yuanxin's ass and face reality.
 

jahenders

Banned
It's hard to imagine the Japanese waiting to surrender. Their leaders weren't crazy and any analysis would clearly demonstrate that it's all over. Their fleet was in ruins, likewise any effective AF, they'd lost most external bases, and US bombers were already hitting various points on the Japanese mainland. There's no way the Japanese leadership would conclude, "Let's fight on even though all it's going to do is get our people killed and our nation further destroyed."

Anyway, if they HAD gone crazy and still refused to surrender, things would only get worse. The Russians were poised to declare war, seize everything they could, and help the Chinese communists.

The Americans would continue tightening the noose on Japan, continue bombing any target of value, and prepare for an invasion. Further, they DID have some atomic bombs ready and seemed ready to use them.

So, if the Japanese were crazy enough to fight on, it would come down to which calamaties happen first. They could well face Russian attacks at the same time as US atom bombs. If all of THAT didn't somehow bring them to their senses, it'd end with a VERY bloody invasion.
 
Communist China could be beneficial for the world. With all ROC corruption and mismanagement swept away, the humanity as a whole would be better off. That would be milions of people that would be spared from hunger, given proper education (or any education at all), and have oportunities to live better lives. Especially after the war, such period of communism was necessary. Too much of the infrastructure was destroyed to allow simple market mechanisms to take over.

Even places like Tibet are well of now... but how about ten, or twenty years ago?

Wasn't there like... a war going on? Between KMT and Communists and Japanese. For nine years? You can hardly wonder that they didn't spend much time bothering about food and education for everyone when they were surrounded by enemies. Oh... and one "ally" that prefered to keep the war long and destructive. :rolleyes:

WTF??!!!:eek::rolleyes::confused:

Your two statements and history contradicts your own....personal views.:rolleyes:

First you say there is widespread hunger and poor education across the ROC when the war was finished, and stated that the PRC would have done a better job of it, then when faced with accusations of the same problems in the hellhole that is North China (or Manchuria) you said that they were faced with wars and the exact same problems that the ROC faced during its beginning! So it's safe to say that. Its safe to say that both governments faced the same problems during its beginning, except that the PRC screwed up big time while the ROC is catching up to the U.S. in almost every aspect with pretty much compete control over Asia.....so if the Commies can't even handle a small, industrialized area with huge aid from the soviets what makes you think they will do better with the entirety of China?!:rolleyes:

And if what we have seen from their released documents their so called "Great leap forward" pretty much sent them back into the dark ages....so whatever the hell you were so smoking can I please have some?:rolleyes::confused::rolleyes:
 
OOC: America wouldn't use nukes in the Korean War, if it even happens in this TL.

In fact, I don't think there would be a divided Korea in this TL because Nationalist China.
 
OOC: America wouldn't use nukes in the Korean War, if it even happens in this TL.

In fact, I don't think there would be a divided Korea in this TL because Nationalist China.


Divided Korea? since the soviets didn't had time to invade the japanese vassals the entire peninsula of Korea because the Republic of Korea
 
OOC: America wouldn't use nukes in the Korean War, if it even happens in this TL.

In fact, I don't think there would be a divided Korea in this TL because Nationalist China.

If the US was going to have to surrender the in Pusan Pocket nukes would be used. Mac proably get his wish to bomb China. What are the butter flies of the most powerful Republic is beaten by a Korean sized Communist. Truman was President nuking might save him but he is a liability to the Democratic party. You would see more seats flip then a Circus olay performer on crack.
 
Top