Peace in the Pacific War July 1945

burmafrd

Banned
considering the relatively small numbers of the fighters and bombers in the Phillipines, and considering they did not know how good the japanese planes and pilots were, its reasonable to assume that they would have been ground down in pretty short order.

The real crime was not getting the supplies to Bataan quickly, leaving so much behind, and waisting time trying to stop the invasion that had already succeeded. Had the supplies been there, and the units pulled back quickly enough to dig in and fully entrench, therefore buying more time for other defense lines to be prepared, its very likely that they could have held for another 2-3 months. Which would have complicated Japanese plans significantly, while also costing them time and resources they did not have to spare.
 

Bearcat

Banned
They did have a surprisigly good chance to catch the IJN bombers on the ground. The IJN planes were grounded by the weather long enough for the B-17s to reach them and the Americans even had good info on the location of the Japanese bases while the Japanese had not done much to bring their air defence up to the required level.

All 90 A6M and 117 G4M/G3M were concentrated on just two bases. The other four housed 45 bombers and 72 fighters, 27 of the former were Ki-48 all of the latter obsolescent Ki-27.

A successful air raid could have removed many modern planes from the duty rooster and as CalBear reminds us occasionally the Japanese industry could not even fully replace the planes lost in OTL between Dec. 41 and June 42

IF you can get those bombs over those airfields, and drop them on those planes, it is a major victory.

The bitch is, the same fog that grounded the Japanese, will make bombing very difficult. Even late war, with radar, most heavy bombers had trouble hitting targets in less than very good visibility (if then).

Unless the fog lifts EXACTLY as the B-17s are flying over, you either are bombing blind, or you are dodging Zeroes.

The odds of being that lucky are more than zero, but its not really the way to bet. Unless Skippy the ASB is fixing the roulette wheel.
 

Markus

Banned
Where's that statistic from? I could see Dec 42 to June 43, but one year before that, during the heyday of the IJN? Sounds doubtful. I don't think their losses then even hit the hundred mark.

"Shattered Sword". Kido Butai was short of fighters, dive- and torpedo bombers.

@Bearcat: Yes, but that is not just the best thing you could do with the B-17 but the only. And I don´t think Zeros would have been a major problem, they were grounded too and poor performers above 20,000ft anyway.
 
My general instinct is to wish to alternative timelines that are better for the welfare of humankind.

On the face of it getting a conditional surrender from Japan in the Summer of 1945 comes into that category.

I am not 100% certain it was impossible. If Japan faced the likelyhood not only of US but also of Soviet (maybe Chinese) occupation zones they might have agreed to all the terms that were in practice imposed after the unconditional surrender.

I wonder whether this might have also prevented North Korea ( I am not certain of how significant the Soviet war effort in that week or so was having.)

Now assume the best- Hirohito persuades / insists that Japan not cease to exist, the likely practical outcome of fighting to the end without nukes so Japan withdraws and leaves occupied lands including Korea.

What happens later. In OTL Germany had a strong 'stab in the back' myth whihc resulted in a rather undesirable government taking power in 1933.

If Japan had simply surrendered without nukes what might have happened?

I am not 100% certain of the exact state of play in the earlier summer of 1945 but I think they occupied all of Korea, a large part of China, as well as Indo China and I suspect much of Malaya- maybe even parts of Burma.


A Japanese proto Hitler could have claimed that Japanese armed forces had not really been defeated.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
You will see this Grimm:D

Grimm,

You probably won't see this unless someone quotes it, but regardless of the reasons, Germany is still viewed as more evil than Japan.

Dilvish was insinuating that the Japanese were viewed as collectively guilty because they weren't white and the Germans got a pass because they were.

How many books have been written with titles like "Tojo's Willing Executioners"?
 

Keenir

Banned
Yes, but he's part of "Black America" that was affected by slavery in the US and the legacy thereof.

there's a good article in this month's Smithsonian magazine about where the dividing lines are (from the perspectives of those who have claim to "African-American")
 
If Japan was told they would have Chinese occupation zones then it would have taken two DOZEN nukes to make them surrender. It would have been like asking Nazis if they wanted to be hung or imprisoned for life in a Jew-run prison - they'll be fighting for the rope.

Anyways, a clear defeat for Japan is better in the long run, just as a clear defeat of Germany in WW1 would have been better in the long run. "Stab-in-the-back" legend is going to form even faster in Japan then it did in Weimar OTL, which does not bode well for Asia. Of course, given that Japan starting from scratch is far, far worse then Germany starting from scratch (no natural resources), who knows, we may see a DPRK-ized Japan?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
"Shattered Sword". Kido Butai was short of fighters, dive- and torpedo bombers.

@Bearcat: Yes, but that is not just the best thing you could do with the B-17 but the only. And I don´t think Zeros would have been a major problem, they were grounded too and poor performers above 20,000ft anyway.


Right on both counts.

The JNAF suffered terrible losses almost from the onset of the war. While the losses in shot down aircraft at Pearl was low, with only 27 aircraft failing to return, the Kido Butai also had to write off ~50 other aircraft due to battle damage (the exact number differ from source to source, but 50 is a good average) so actual mission loss was near 80, mostly in D3A and B5N wings, ~20 mission killed at Darwin with an additional 35+ aircraft were lost, including mission kills, in the IO raids, over 150. including mission kills, at Coral Sea, and of course, 248 at Midway. That represents nearly 500 IJN front line aircraft, or almost 100 more planes than the Kido Butai brought to Pearl Harbor.

What is considerably worse is the reality that most of the aircraft lost by the USN and Commonwealth (primarily Australian & British) were at the end of their tether in any case. The loss of pilots was tragic for all sides, but the destruction of F2A or TBD in battle meant very little as far as material since these aircraft were already on borrowed time as far as their service life. The Japanese lost aircraft that they continued to use, in slightly improved form, all the way to the end of the war. Japanese losses were front line, leading edge designs while Allied losses were mainly obsolescent. Pilot losses were far lower than platform losses on both sides, but even there the U.S. was able to make up losses with vastly greater effectiveness than the Japanese.

The second fact is that, if MacArthur had allowed his Air Commander to launch against the well known IJN & IJA air bases immediately after the attack on Pearl became known (using a pretty well designed pre-set attack option), the B-17's would have caught the entire Japanese air package on the ground. The fog had lifted, but the attacks did not launch for some time after the skies cleared. The fog, in fact, cleared exactly when the it would have afforded the Americans the maximum advantage. The weather that December 8th was a gift to the U.S. from Mars, but MacArthur spurned the God of War.

That, of course, was only his first, most obvious act of utter stupidity. His force deployments, orders, and logistical decisions were, as noted, even worse (my personal favorite was burning what, in the circumstances that actually occurred on Bataan, would have been around 3 months worth of rice for EVERYONE trapped on the Peninsula because he didn't think to move it).

There are a lot of very controversial theories about why MacArthur did what he did in the early days of the war. His actions were at odds with the strategic sense he displayed later (even if they were in total line with his disregard for the lives of his troops) to a degree that is remarkable. Some of the theories lean into conspiracy land and would, without doubt, start a flame war, if posted here, and even I, who heartily despise the man only half believe them, although the evidence is tending to push to the Hmmm side of the question. Anyone who really wants to find out why I hate 'ol Doug shouldn't have much trouble finding them.
 
On the face of it getting a conditional surrender from Japan in the Summer of 1945 comes into that category.

What about a conditional surrender from Germany in 1944?

What difference is there in the two situations?

The anti-nukage position is much more popular, particularly among non-Americans (if basileus is to be believed) than the pro-Valkyrie position.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
My general instinct is to wish to alternative timelines that are better for the welfare of humankind.

On the face of it getting a conditional surrender from Japan in the Summer of 1945 comes into that category.

I am not 100% certain it was impossible. If Japan faced the likelyhood not only of US but also of Soviet (maybe Chinese) occupation zones they might have agreed to all the terms that were in practice imposed after the unconditional surrender.

I wonder whether this might have also prevented North Korea ( I am not certain of how significant the Soviet war effort in that week or so was having.)

Now assume the best- Hirohito persuades / insists that Japan not cease to exist, the likely practical outcome of fighting to the end without nukes so Japan withdraws and leaves occupied lands including Korea.

What happens later. In OTL Germany had a strong 'stab in the back' myth whihc resulted in a rather undesirable government taking power in 1933.

If Japan had simply surrendered without nukes what might have happened?

I am not 100% certain of the exact state of play in the earlier summer of 1945 but I think they occupied all of Korea, a large part of China, as well as Indo China and I suspect much of Malaya- maybe even parts of Burma.


A Japanese proto Hitler could have claimed that Japanese armed forces had not really been defeated.

Selling that Japan hadn't been defeated by mid-1945 would have required one hell of a sell job to the Japanese people.

The German "stabbed in the back" myth worked because for the most part, Geman troops HADN'T been defeated, not yet. They had been forced back, but every inch of ground that contained German trenches was occuppied soil. Geman Zeppelins and Gothas had bombed London, they had shelled Paris, and had even forced Russia into a humiliating peace. Berlin was untouched, almost all of Germany was untouched. The German HSF was the second most powerful fleet in the world.

Now, as we all know, none of this mattered at all. It was only a matter of weeks before the Entente offensives punched through the German lines across a broad front, before people actually started to die from starvation in German cities, and that if the HSF had shown one hair of its ass in the North Sea the combined RN/USN Grand Fleet would have crushed them like an empty beer can. Still, if you were an ex-soldier, out of work, and out of luck, it was an attractive myth.

The Japanese, however, had left dead bodies and sunken ships across the Pacific, had been driven out of every pit of territory they had captured from the U.S. and virtually every bit taken from the UK, Japanese land (Okinawa) was under American control. American heavy bombers were burning down a a Japanese city 3 times a week, American & British carrier planese were sweeping over the Home Islands, B-29 laid mines and American submarines were sinking anything that sailed on the Inland Sea, and both Kyushu and Honshu had been shelled by cruisers (battleship are bad enough, but 6" gun cruisers?). The Japanese knew damned well that they had been defeated.
 
@Calbear
Weren't the Japanese people dying of hunger by this point as well?

On another note, in some ways, Japan does seem to have its own stabbed in the back" myth. Mainly, the whole war was purely the military leader's fault and Hirohito was just a figurehead.
 
My general instinct is to wish to alternative timelines that are better for the welfare of humankind.

On the face of it getting a conditional surrender from Japan in the Summer of 1945 comes into that category.

I am not 100% certain it was impossible. If Japan faced the likelyhood not only of US but also of Soviet (maybe Chinese) occupation zones they might have agreed to all the terms that were in practice imposed after the unconditional surrender.

I wonder whether this might have also prevented North Korea ( I am not certain of how significant the Soviet war effort in that week or so was having.)

Now assume the best- Hirohito persuades / insists that Japan not cease to exist, the likely practical outcome of fighting to the end without nukes so Japan withdraws and leaves occupied lands including Korea.

What happens later. In OTL Germany had a strong 'stab in the back' myth whihc resulted in a rather undesirable government taking power in 1933.

If Japan had simply surrendered without nukes what might have happened?

I am not 100% certain of the exact state of play in the earlier summer of 1945 but I think they occupied all of Korea, a large part of China, as well as Indo China and I suspect much of Malaya- maybe even parts of Burma.


A Japanese proto Hitler could have claimed that Japanese armed forces had not really been defeated.

If you want to know what the situation was in July 1945 there is a link on the first page.
 
Top