Would a bloody invasion of Japan cause a peace movement

Would a bloodier than expected invasion of Japan cause a peace movement to withdraw the troops? Was US public support for the war already falling by the spring of 1945? I recall a line from flags of our fathers about how the war bond drives were faltering, was this a sign for weakening political support at home to continue the Pacific War due to war casualties?
 
What is bloodier than expected? Japan was going to have to surrender unconditionally, i don't think the US public would have minded an invasion of Japan, if it was needed. But the events that would take place then with reporters sending home images of unspeakable combat and death, it would really depend on the Japanese and their ability to defend the islands, their visciousness and that of the US soldier. Eventually the public can feel its taking too long, takes too much lives, but then again what must be done must be done. Its not like Vietnam.
 
In a weird way it could make people MORE militaristic. "Damn civilians who messed up the invasion and got our boys killed, not like the generals who would have done it in two weeks!"

Something like a stab-in-the-back myth, but for victors.
 
An invasion of Japan would most likely be seen as wholly justified by the majority of the US public, regardless of the cost. Pearl Harbour would still be raw in public memory, and most would remember that the Japanese were the aggressors in this war: they brought it on themselves, the Americans aren't simply enforcing their sphere of influence but are taking on an actively expansionist imperial power that has committed unspeakable war crimes. Vietnam was a different kettle of fish altogether, if you want a late 40s peace movement you'd need Unthinkable or something like that to go down, and have another massive war start in Europe for (what at least appears to be) no good reason against recent allies. In that case you might even have full mutinies in the US and allied armies, but when fighting Japan pretty much everyone knows where they stand.
 
In the minds of the public a direct invasion is the way to make the war end as soon as possible. If they were concerned about casualties they'd favor the blockade, bomb and starve into submission approach which would significantly reduce casualties but take longer.

I don't know exactly how American propaganda was going to portray the invasion. Certainly the planners expected a bloodbath based on the assumption that the Japanese civilian population would fanatically resist. In which case all it will take is news reports of 12 year old Japanese schoolgirls stabbing Marines in the belly with an awl to convince the American people that the US is fighting pure evil and must destroy it at all costs.
 
If an invasion is seen as the only option, it’s not going to turn America into a bunch of peaceniks. To them, it’s unpleasant but necessary - whatever it takes to make the fuckers who bombed Pearl Harbor kneel before Uncle Sam.

If there’s another option that could involve a lot fewer Americans dying and maybe, just maybe, will get the Japanese to come to the table, the American public may feel like it should be tried first - after all, they’re still pissed off at Japan but ending the war with two nukes over Japanese cities would have to be at least worth saying, “What the hell; let’s try it” before putting Allied boots on the ground and getting all tangled up with that opportunistic asshole Stalin.
 

Geon

Donor
I don't think later generation understand just how bloody ticked off the American public was with Japan for Pearl Harbor. The closest to the emotion caused by that event would be what happened on 9/11 and I'm not sure that even accurately expresses how angry the American people were.

Now, assuming no atomic bomb, the invasion would go ahead with the blessing of most Americans. Unfortunately as pointed out in other threads here it would have been very bloody for both sides. After the unconditional surrender was signed, and after the casualties were counted then it is likely people would probably be asking the same question about the invasion that we asked in OTL about the atomic bomb-was it necessary? And like the atomic bomb I suspect the answer will remain yes.
 
Last edited:
Top