WI: Truman Invades Japan Instead of Using the Atomic Bomb

Not really. That the Japanese had written off Manchuria by August 1945 was evident in their defense strategy for that country: they planned to retreat to the Korean border anyway. The events in Manchuria had little to nothing to do with the Japanese surrender, the primary effects of the Soviet declaration of war were political, on top of the strategic shock of the A-bombs.

Manchuria is the size of Germany, Italy, and France combined. A static defense was impossible. The sheer speed of the Soviet advance meant all hope of delaying the Soviets in stages was lost.
 
I think Japan would have surrendered before November 1945.

Why do you believe that? I have not found anything that would make me believe that without the shock of the Atomic weapons or a massive invasion the Japanese would have surrendered. I am very interested in any sources that would support that theory.
 
The totality of events:

6 August - Big Bomb #1 is dropped, Japanese Diet votes 4-2 to continue the war.

8 August - Soviets declare war.

9 August - Big Bomb #2 is dropped, Japanese Diet votes 3-3 to continue to the war.

Emperor steps in a breaks the deadlock saying enough is enough. On 14 August some officers still attempt a coup.

People argue back and forth about the atomic bombings or the Soviet DoW. I don't think you can separate the three events.

When you put in that light. I have to agree.
 
The following is premised on:
the invasion still takes place at all (Nimitz and King's opposition doesn't kill it), Olympic goes ahead more or less as planned if it does (target isn't changed to Shikoku or elsewhere),
Soviet plans get carried out

The invasion would be a minor disaster. The Nimitz and King vs MacArthur split in command over the invasion doesn't bode well. (Not saying that any of them would intentionally tank it, just that ordering a commander to carry out an invasion they don't fully believe in usually has less than optimal results.) The US casualty rates won't be as high as many if the ridiculous estimations, but will be higher than otherwise. Japanese casualties will be catastrophic - quite easily 20% or more of the entire population (factoring in famine and concurrent diseases) of the total population. I'd say

Kyushu will be a Iwo and Okinawan meat grinder. Instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, every American would know the city of Kagoshima as the Japanese city devastated at the end of the war, more a Manila writ large - almost (but not quite) a Stalingrad.

The rather optimistic (time frame wise) plans for Coronet would be drastically changed. Hard to say exactly how the rest of the invasion would go down, but sometime in the early spring, Japan functionally ceases to exist due to a combination of a failed rice crop, bombing, blockade, and devastated infrastructure.

Occupation - such as it is - will be totally different. The emperor may very well be tried as a class A. (If so, conviction is unlikely.) It won't be nice like SCAP. I hope the US sends food relief, but I expect it'll be a variation of Morgenthau.

The shape of post-war Asia will likewise be different. The Soviets will get all of Korea and probably Hokkaido. Mao and the PLA will get a big boost.

People argue back and forth about the atomic bombings or the Soviet DoW. I don't think you can separate the three events.

Indeed.
 
Manchuria is the size of Germany, Italy, and France combined. A static defense was impossible. The sheer speed of the Soviet advance meant all hope of delaying the Soviets in stages was lost.

They didn't plan on a static defense, they planned to retreat to a prepared fortified area called the "Tunghua Redoubt." In doing so they would abandon their advance positions to the advancing Soviets while maintaining a compact grouping so as to preserve the ability to continue future resistance. Based on what happened in the first 10 days of the OTL campaign, this strategy had a good chance of success.
 
People argue back and forth about the atomic bombings or the Soviet DoW. I don't think you can separate the three events.

All in all it can be argued either way, though most historians believe the bombs make the stronger case. Separating the impact of the events and definitively weighing them against each other is impossible: their rapid, consecutive occurrences all contributed to the stampeding of the Japanese leadership into an early surrender. It's like sticking your hand into a buzz saw and trying to figure out which tooth cut you.
 

jahenders

Banned
All in all it can be argued either way, though most historians believe the bombs make the stronger case. Separating the impact of the events and definitively weighing them against each other is impossible: their rapid, consecutive occurrences all contributed to the stampeding of the Japanese leadership into an early surrender. It's like sticking your hand into a buzz saw and trying to figure out which tooth cut you.

Exactly. Nor can you exclude that:
- Morale is affected by the dozens of losses over the last couple years
- They're running low on many warfighting materials
- The supply of food is low
- Every city of consequence has been bombed
- Conventional bombing continues and they can do NOTHING about it
- Most industry is slowing to a crawl
- Virtually no ship bigger than a canoe dares to leave home waters

Other than total delusion, they've got NOTHING but negatives to look at.
 
Why do you believe that? I have not found anything that would make me believe that without the shock of the Atomic weapons or a massive invasion the Japanese would have surrendered. I am very interested in any sources that would support that theory.

Because of the massive destruction of the bombing and the blockade. By August 1945, there were many urban refugees living in the Japanese countryside competing for scarce food supplies with rural residents. There were reasonable fears of a revolt.
 
Because of the massive destruction of the bombing and the blockade. By August 1945, there were many urban refugees living in the Japanese countryside competing for scarce food supplies with rural residents. There were reasonable fears of a revolt.

I think given the historical fanaticism of the Japanese such a thing was unlikely. Universal starvation was not the problem Japan faced so much as "spot-famines:" food deprivation in urban areas while rural farmers continued to sustain themselves to a comparatively reasonable degree. Plus whenever someone invades your country it tends to unite the populace behind the established leadership. Had we actually gone in there would have been years of fighting before the last resistance was snuffed out.
 
More dead Americans.

Almost certainly more dead Japanese.

Quite possibly a Soviet occupation zone in Japan.

Truman might not get blamed for it too much though, as atomic bombs might not then be seen as miracle war winning weapons.

Which could make them more likely to be used in the future . . .

Japan would proably be worse off but would fold like they did in OTL.

Soviet occupation zone in Japan. I would think maybe a 25% it happens.

When the truth regarding the A-bomb hits the public, and it it is reveled that we didn't every person that lost someone in the time frame will blame Truman and do serious damage to the Democratic party. Truman IMHO would have a lot being defended and he at best could he could hopeful would be impeachment.
 
Japan would proably be worse off but would fold like they did in OTL.

I don't think they would have given up without millions of corpses on all sides. Once an invasion was actually underway surrendering while the capacity to offer meaningful resistance still remained would have been unthinkable.

Soviet occupation zone in Japan. I would think maybe a 25% it happens.

Doubt the odds would have been that high. MacArthur and several other key American figures were too opposed to it.

When the truth regarding the A-bomb hits the public, and it it is reveled that we didn't every person that lost someone in the time frame will blame Truman and do serious damage to the Democratic party. Truman IMHO would have a lot being defended and he at best could he could hopeful would be impeachment.

Agreed totally. Such a decision would have been indefensible in the aftermath of a bloodbath on the mainland.
 
Top