WI: Blockade of Japan but no nukes
- Thread starter Ming777
- Start date
The Soviet advance goes further on the mainland, and possibly results in Red flags flying over some part of the home islands. Quite apart from the effect on Soviet gains, however, is the vast increase in civilian casualties if the war is extended. Including Japanese-held territories in China, the increase might well end up in the millions (millions more than the millions who had already died)
With only a blockade, I'm honestly not sure how long they would last. I would say probably until the Japanese populace has enough of slowly starving to death, and forces the government's hand. I'm going to also assume that conventional bombing is still ongoing during the course of this blockade.
The other factor is how the Japanese leadership reacts to the invasion of Manchuria (August Storm). If, for whatever reasons the Soviets don't get involved (probably ASB) I could see Japan lasting until mid-1946.
The other factor is how the Japanese leadership reacts to the invasion of Manchuria (August Storm). If, for whatever reasons the Soviets don't get involved (probably ASB) I could see Japan lasting until mid-1946.
Here's my biggest question, I know the Russians could and would continue their advance. But what kind of casualties would they face? Could the Japanese have put up any kind of resistance in such a scenario?
A massive famine starts by the end of 1945. Probably around 30% of the population will eventually starve to death. The Soviets gain a much stronger grip on Northern China and Korea - possibly all of the penninsula. There's a good possibility they get Hokkaido as well.
The Japanese government will be couped by the military but eventually there will be a surrender by mid 1946. SCAP will occupy a shell of a country.
The Japanese government will be couped by the military but eventually there will be a surrender by mid 1946. SCAP will occupy a shell of a country.
They tried; they failed. The Japanese Kwantung army was essentially an infantry army of WW1; their doctrine was outdated and the armor they had was woefully inadequate to face Soviet tanks. They were clobbered.
The military were the ones that refused to surrender. I'm pretty sure the government would like to have some people left to govern at the end.
The civilian government was looking for a way out before the atomic bombs and the military still nearly couped them. Without the bombs, those events would be delayed. I expect the military will succeed, but by 46 things will have fallen apart they won't be able to do anything else.
Probably not. The army was beaten to such an extent where they were surrendering by whole companies somewhat regularly by the end of August Storm.
Ming777
Monthly Donor
And for clarification, yes, the US Navy, along with any available Royal Navy, RAN, RCN, RNZN, and other warships would in the scenario be blockading around all of the home islands.
How different will culture be in this Japan? How will the blockade affect the other nations involved?
How different will culture be in this Japan? How will the blockade affect the other nations involved?
In Calbear's "Anglo-American Nazi War Timeline" the US blockaded and firebombed Japan instead of nuking it in order to keep the weapon a secret from the victorious Nazis.
I forget exactly how long the blockade lasted I haven't read it in a long time (I think it was at least two years) but when the US troops went in the country had essentially COMPLETELY collapsed (what I gathered is that the country had been reduced to a medeivel level of development and population).
When the war with the Nazi's started up again in the late 50's it was briefly mentioned that Japan had just developed to the point where it could "mostly' feed itself. Off course in all ATL not everything can be 100% accurate but Calbear usually knows what he's talking about.
Needless to say it wouldn't have ended well for Japan
I forget exactly how long the blockade lasted I haven't read it in a long time (I think it was at least two years) but when the US troops went in the country had essentially COMPLETELY collapsed (what I gathered is that the country had been reduced to a medeivel level of development and population).
When the war with the Nazi's started up again in the late 50's it was briefly mentioned that Japan had just developed to the point where it could "mostly' feed itself. Off course in all ATL not everything can be 100% accurate but Calbear usually knows what he's talking about.
Needless to say it wouldn't have ended well for Japan
IIRC the official American estimate was that if the blockade had remained until the end of 1946 Japan's population would have been reduced to its level in 1700. The suffering would have been terrible and Japan today would be much poorer than it is.
One of the most frequent topics on TTL's equivalent of AH.com would be "Why didn't Truman use the bomb?" because as awful as it sounds the A-Bomb was the least worst option available to the Allies.
One of the most frequent topics on TTL's equivalent of AH.com would be "Why didn't Truman use the bomb?" because as awful as it sounds the A-Bomb was the least worst option available to the Allies.
Would North Korea or possibly even worse be a realistic comparison? From what I remember with their rail network destroyed and coastal shipping shipping either sunk or inoperable, taking out their two main modes of transport, they're going to be unable to get what little food they can actually grow from the countryside to the cities.