What do you think would happen if the U.S. had decided to drop an atom bomb on the Japanese capital city of Tokyo instead of Hiroshima/Nagasaki?
WI: Atomic Bombing of Tokyo
- Thread starter GriffinFTW
- Start date
I know the "the Japanese are going to fight to literal extinction for avenging their beloved god-emperor, as the yellow peril lemmings which they obviously are" comments are already inbound, but before that I am gonna say the result the difference to OTL is going to be small, and even that only if the Emperor ends up dying. The japanese still surrender in the same general timeframe,and the occupation is not different no matter the name of the Emperor the Americans (more like, MacArthur) stupidly retain.
If Tokio was still firebombed as in OTL, you might see plenty of Americans bemoan the waste of a nuke, especially given its one of the only times you could study its effects against an intact city.
If Tokio was still firebombed as in OTL, you might see plenty of Americans bemoan the waste of a nuke, especially given its one of the only times you could study its effects against an intact city.
Tokyo was pretty much burned out by the time the atomic bomb was ready, so in order for Tokyo to be a Target you would have to butterfly away the fire bombing raids
Um, no, and that's rather unnecessarily nasty towards the rest of us, isn't it?
Well, the Emperor was retained precisely because the Americans felt to remove him would be a massive culture shock that could be a major problem for getting Japan's civil service ad society to cooperate with the occupation. Considering everything before that, especially the battle for Okinawa being the bloodbath it was, I'd say that was fairly wise.
Tokyo would be a very unlikely target. Yokohama was seriously considered though as it was felt that it would be a powerful demonstration of the weapon's power, the city being close to the capital.
Although worded too strongly to my tastes, I must admit that I occasionally feel that WW2 Japan is one topic where orientalist tropes seem to pop up from time to time. There are lots of arguments which really wouldn't fly in the discussion about any other country. By comparison, discussions regarding Nazi Germany usually are rather nuanced about economics, ideological developments, internal politics and such when describing the rise of Hitler and what led to the war and all attrocities the country committed. In the case of Japan OTOH, there seems to be much more handwaving in regards to actions the country took and no really as much need to make in-depth arguments in the same way.
It should be also noted that MacArthur wasn't the person who came up with the idea of retaining the Emperor, it seems to have developed more or less in the consensus among Americans even before the occupation started. The issue was also that Americans put lots of emphasis on the idea that a new democratic Japan should give its citizens as much say as possible in the nation's affairs. This however also meant there was some unwillingess to take too drastic steps in regards to Japan's monarchy if there wasn't popular support behind such a move. The occupation's policy guidelines essentially advised that Japanese should be allowed to choose their form of government freely and American troops should keep the peace but they shouldn't intervene if there rose a movement to challenge the monarchy. I would say though that by 1946 the occupation already started to take such a stern look towards civil disturbances that they probably wouldn't have allowed a movement like that to take the streets anymore. There were also other options which were considered beside the OTL model and some sort of republican one, namely that the emperor abdicates, is tried as a war criminal but the Emperor system continues with a new emperor.
Although worded too strongly to my tastes, I must admit that I occasionally feel that WW2 Japan is one topic where orientalist tropes seem to pop up from time to time. There are lots of arguments which really wouldn't fly in the discussion about any other country. By comparison, discussions regarding Nazi Germany usually are rather nuanced about economics, ideological developments, internal politics and such when describing the rise of Hitler and what led to the war and all attrocities the country committed. In the case of Japan OTOH, there seems to be much more handwaving in regards to actions the country took and no really as much need to make in-depth arguments in the same way.
It should be also noted that MacArthur wasn't the person who came up with the idea of retaining the Emperor, it seems to have developed more or less in the consensus among Americans even before the occupation started. The issue was also that Americans put lots of emphasis on the idea that a new democratic Japan should give its citizens as much say as possible in the nation's affairs. This however also meant there was some unwillingess to take too drastic steps in regards to Japan's monarchy if there wasn't popular support behind such a move. The occupation's policy guidelines essentially advised that Japanese should be allowed to choose their form of government freely and American troops should keep the peace but they shouldn't intervene if there rose a movement to challenge the monarchy. I would say though that by 1946 the occupation already started to take such a stern look towards civil disturbances that they probably wouldn't have allowed a movement like that to take the streets anymore. There were also other options which were considered beside the OTL model and some sort of republican one, namely that the emperor abdicates, is tried as a war criminal but the Emperor system continues with a new emperor.
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
At Nanking, the Local Nazi Party head saved thousands from execution from rampaging IJA Troops.
The only time I'm aware that the Swastika were used to save vast numbers of people.
When your actions sicken Nazis, you know thats going to hurt your reputation around the Globe.
There was a Chinese, Red Cross-inspired, Red Swastika Society founded in 1922...
Apparenty still is, but it seems they're not associated with the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.
That's true. It could become a problem though when it is assumed there is something more deeply-rooted and inherent in Japanese culture/people which lead to actions like the Nanjing Massacre, instead of issues stemming from institutional, political and other such factors.
This is just an assumption, but considering the American policy of quickly rebuilding the Japanese government following the atomic bombings and subsequent surrender, would using either 'Fat Man' or 'Little Boy' on Tokyo not run counter to establishing a stable democratic government following the end of the War in the Pacific?
Actually the death of the Emperor would have been an utter disaster. Even after the remarkable triple combination of Hiroshima, Soviet DoW/invasion of Manchuria, Nagasaki, the military, and more than one of the civilian members of the Cabinet were ready and willing to fight to the last man. Had Hirohito not, against all recent precedents, spoken out and made a proclamation, the whole ugly progression of Olympic, and probably Coronet, possibly even a Soviet landing on Hokkaido, would have happened. The number of Japanese casualties would have made OTL look tiny, and American KIA would have easily topped 50K, probably several times that.
As was there was a very serious effort to prevent the Imperial broadcast from being aired, and for "loyal" IJA units to take the the Emperor under their "protection" from his evil advisors.
manav95
Banned
I wouldn't say the Japanese were lemmings and there was considerable opposition to both the war and the nationalist junta that took over in the 1930s. Japan had been an aristocratic republic on the lines of pre-Representation of the People Act Britain and Germany, and there had been a competitive party system up until the Great Depression. The same people that had been silenced by the junta were still around and they understood by the time Okinawa fell that Japan was screwed.
Even if the Emperor wound up dead in an assault on Tokyo, this wouldn't mean that suddenly Japan is prepared for a whole horiffic final stand against the Allies. Korechika Anami taking power is not guaranteed and the sane folks in charge could always launch a counter coup to take power. The Soviet threat would also caused many people to prefer a dishonorable surrender to the Americans and relatively chill American occupation than a Communist takeover and total transformation of the hierarchical Japanese society. So the scenario leading to Operation Coronet is still unlikely in this scenario.
BlackDragon98
Banned
I believe there were explicit orders to avoid bombing the Imperial Palace precisely because the US feared that the Emperor's death would make him a martyr for the Japanese people.
The firebombing of Tokyo in March probably killed more than either atomic bomb. Tokyo after the bombing
I have to agree with CalBear on the Japanese fighting an invasion. In the summer of 1945, all the schools were closed. Children were being taught to fight with sharpened sticks. It's only going to take a couple of those kinds of attacks killing American soldiers and everyone is going to be a target.
I have long been of the opinion that the atomic bombs saved lives on both sides, but especially the Japanese.
My thoughts,
I have to agree with CalBear on the Japanese fighting an invasion. In the summer of 1945, all the schools were closed. Children were being taught to fight with sharpened sticks. It's only going to take a couple of those kinds of attacks killing American soldiers and everyone is going to be a target.
I have long been of the opinion that the atomic bombs saved lives on both sides, but especially the Japanese.
My thoughts,
BlackDragon98
Banned
Let's say the USAAF nuke Tokyo and the Emperor is killed.
The Japanese High Command swear to fight till the last man, woman, and child.
But they can't deny the fact that the USN and RN have established a complete seaborne economic blockade around Japan and have complete air superiority.
The US know that they will incur heavy casualties if they invade the Home Islands. Saipan already showed them what would happen.
Thus, I believe the Allies will turn their attention to other places, such as the Japanese bases that were bypassed during the island hopping campaign, or retake Southeast Asia, or send more troops to China in order to prevent the Soviets from taking Manchuria. Meanwhile, they would continue their seaborne economic blockade around Japan and aerial bombing with B-29s.
The question here is, how long can the Japanese feasibly hold out for and do they have to willpower to do so?
The Japanese High Command swear to fight till the last man, woman, and child.
But they can't deny the fact that the USN and RN have established a complete seaborne economic blockade around Japan and have complete air superiority.
The US know that they will incur heavy casualties if they invade the Home Islands. Saipan already showed them what would happen.
Thus, I believe the Allies will turn their attention to other places, such as the Japanese bases that were bypassed during the island hopping campaign, or retake Southeast Asia, or send more troops to China in order to prevent the Soviets from taking Manchuria. Meanwhile, they would continue their seaborne economic blockade around Japan and aerial bombing with B-29s.
The question here is, how long can the Japanese feasibly hold out for and do they have to willpower to do so?
Obviously I disagree. The IJA field grade officer corps had long since demonstrated its utterwillingness to cut the motors on anyone who questioned the rightness of the war (Yamamoto was made commander of the Combined Fleet as much to keep him from getting whacked by some random IJA major as any other outstanding qualification). Simply the effort by a group of field grade officers, led by a Major, to launch a coup, stopped by chamberlain Yoshihiro Tokugawa bluff, General Shizuichi Tanaka stature, and blind luck in missing their assassination attempt on the PM and other civilian officials illustrates that.
The Japanese even had an accurate estimation from one of their scientists on how many special weapons the U.S. might possess in total "three, perhaps four" which was dead on the mark.
Kyūjō incident - Wikipedia
BlackDragon98
Banned
What are the chances that the US will repeatedly nuke Japan until it surrenders?
Or is it too expensive?
Or is it too expensive?
That Villa in the center and its garden seem almost untouched.The firebombing of Tokyo in March probably killed more than either atomic bomb. Tokyo after the bombing
I have to agree with CalBear on the Japanese fighting an invasion. In the summer of 1945, all the schools were closed. Children were being taught to fight with sharpened sticks. It's only going to take a couple of those kinds of attacks killing American soldiers and everyone is going to be a target.
I have long been of the opinion that the atomic bombs saved lives on both sides, but especially the Japanese.
My thoughts,
marathag
Banned
That's how the US spent two Billion dollars on Atomics, to mass produce then, with the 'mass' being several a month, with the rate increasing each month.
US spent $3B on the B-29.
Money wasn't a problem.
Lack of targets in Japan soon would be.