Stupid Question regarding alternatives to the Bombing of Japan

This is not a time period I am very good with, and I apologize if my question has an obvious answer. I come to learn. ;)
Could the Allies have just blockaded Japan until they surrendered? Just sink any ships they have left... eventually they will run out of critical resources due to the lack of said key resources on the Japanese islands.

This came from a debate against a friend really into WWII... and this idea occured to me.
(I am sorry to say that my fool of a friend thinks unmentionable seamammal would have worked...)
 
The invasion is a must go since yalta, the plans was two parts, one they would strave japan and the SU would later on invade Manchuria and Korea and phase two were olympics, coronet and soviets would invade hokkaido, is a must go just because the congress will not be pacience as japan was the true enemy all along remember that.
 
Probably, but it would have taken a long time.
Before then the Soviets would have started taken Hokkaido and demanding an occupation zone.
 
Probably, but it would have taken a long time.
Before then the Soviets would have started taken Hokkaido and demanding an occupation zone.
That was part of the plans post yalta(not set in stone but a general guideline how to deal the coup d grace to japan) if soviets can open a front got for it, when truman internally might not happy, soviets are still allies and open a second front is vital for the war effort, heck the home front will be happy the ruskies are figthing the japs more directly
 
Could the Allies have just blockaded Japan until they surrendered?

Yeah, but not inconsequential numbers of Chinese and US POWs were dying every week.

Time costs lives.

Besides, even with no Atomic bombing, LeMay was going to burn cities til Japan ran out of intact wooden buildings standing next to one another.
 
From memory, from "Downfall" by Richard Frank the Japan was on its last legs in the last summer of the war. Most of its merchant marine was sunk, the economy was stuttering to a stop due to the lack of raw materials. The American bombing campaign having taken out almost all the urban industrial infrastructure was beginning to re-orient itself to target the railroad system, the only way Japan had to distribute food with maritime transport at a haul.

It seems to me America with token assistance from other Allies could have kept their blockage foot on Japans throat indefinitely with little outlay in naval resources. I think it is fair to say the Japanese leadership at the time expected famine, general economic collapse and widespread civilian death but still expected to be able to force America into a peace agreement on terms favorable to Japan by making any American invasion too bloody to be accepted by the war weary American people. By avoiding the invasion but fully enforcing an effective blockade Japan would have been quickly forced to its knees---------- but might have well died as a nation rather than surrender.

If I remember correctly, even with post-atomic surrender, a hugely lethal famine was avoided only by massive shipments of American grain to Japan.

In my opinion the two atomic bombings where a blessing to the people of Japan, any other scenario, even or maybe especially non-invasion scenarios would have been far far worst.


Of course the reaction of Soviet Russian and the early American foreboding of a cold war with Russia and an implied wish to defeat Japan quickly to keep Russia out, has a powerful yet difficult to define effect.
 
One of the three 'Uncomfortable Facts' facing the Japanese leaders in august 1945 was the failure of the rice harvest. That had been known for about three weeks, from late July. A significant part of this rice shortage was the bombing, which disrupted the manufactor/distribution of fertilizer, reduced the fuel available for rice cultivation & harvest, & destroyed a portion of the remaining stocks. Absent the bombing the rice & other harvests are a little better which may lead to the Cabinet avoiding recognition of reality and dithering over the question of resistance weeks or months longer.
 
Last edited:
In the immortal (hah) words of Korechika Anami: "The Japanese people must continue their fight, even if we have to eat grass, wallow in the birth, and sleep in the fields". And speaking of Anami, you should read Decisive Darkness, where he joins in with the Kyujo plotters and mass famine ensues as the most extreme elements of Imperial Japan fights to the bitter end.
 

Geon

Donor
An interesting thought occurs to me.

In OTL modern historians debate the wisdom of dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They point out the horrendous loss of life because of doing so.

But consider, how many people would have died if we had simply starved Japan into submission? We're talking millions versus thousands (for the bombings). Would those same historians in an ATL where we resorted to bombing Japan and it was known we had the bombs at that time be asking why we didn't use these weapons to bring a more "humane" end to the war more quickly?
 
2. The realization the air offensive was going to become far worse than they could imagine, that is the A bombs.

3. The Suprise Soviet DoW. Japanese strategy in the first half of 1945 had revolved around the USSR as the Allies new enemy & therefore Japans future ally. Despite a complete lack of sucess in getting a favorable response from the USSR the most hardline of the leaders refused to let go of the idea the USSR could be used as a counter weight to the US and Britain. The DoW showed how bankrupt their stratigic thinking was & how much worse Japans position was than they had argued.

Its impossible to say which of these three triggered the surrender decision. In three weeks the leaders were hit with the triple blow of: mass famine; incrediblly destructive air bombardment; complete collapse of their stratigic position. Most nations would have given up years earlier. Certainly with the loss of the Marianas and the fall of the Tojo government in 1944. That Tojo was still a key cabinet minister in 1945 says a lot about the problem in Japans leadership.
 
An interesting thought occurs to me.

In OTL modern historians debate the wisdom of dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They point out the horrendous loss of life because of doing so.

But consider, how many people would have died if we had simply starved Japan into submission? We're talking millions versus thousands (for the bombings). Would those same historians in an ATL where we resorted to bombing Japan and it was known we had the bombs at that time be asking why we didn't use these weapons to bring a more "humane" end to the war more quickly?

Its estimated China was losing 250,000 per month from Japans depradations. Even a quarter of that adds up to a nasty butchers bill.
 
Top