If the United States had not used the A-bombs on the two japanese cities, do you think the allied forces still would have won?

Most definately. We were totally mobilized for war well before that time, and we had the weapons tho conventional, and would have still defeated Japan. A bad thing is that the war would have continued-gosh only knows how much longer and at what additional costs.

I'll agree with you there Evans, I do think if we had not used the bomb, the war would have dragged on for much longer only causing more death and destruction. That is why I agree with The United States decision to use the A-bomb.

o) (o (: (;

The US had a lot of success with firebombing Tokyo. I think that the US would have carpet bombed the Japenese into submission. 24 hour bombing with incendiary bombs would do the job.

------------------
Carthage must be destroyed!

Wouldn't the 24 hour bombing of Japan until they surrendured be the same as using the A-bomb? I think so, so yea I guess that would be a good substitute.

japan was getting firebombed and still rejected surrender...in my mind i doubt the Japanese would have surrendered because of the firebombing. They knew that the invasion was coming...and it was...in only 3 or 4 months (from august when we dropped the bombs...but in this case didn't) The Japanese knew that they would be able to hold out until the invasion. And then the invasion would have taken place just as the military planned.
BUT
luckily there WAS a bomb...i doubt we would have just bombed and bombed them when the military already had a plan ready to go and approved.

who knows how long the war would have gone on for if we didn't drop the bomb. A year or two more? That we will never know.

Yes I agree with both Ron and JoCon. But the question is WHAT IF THERE WASN"T THE BOMB? Anyone have any other ideas of how the allied forces would have handled the situation differently?

That wasn't meant to be offensive to either of you (Ron and JoCon). Only to keep the question going.

haha i know you meant nothing...i guess if there was no A-bomb Japan would have been invaded i believe

Would such a massive invasion work? That would be like another D-day happening which could have a questionable outcome.

Well the invasion would have suceeded...most defonitly. BUT...what is up in the air is the cost of the whole thing. By this point in the war...like at Okinawa and Iwo Jima...the Japanese...were fighting a battle more to create casualties...than repel the invasion. In the beginning of the war the japanese would open up like the germans did on the beaches...but by 1945...the japanese knew they couldn't stop the capture of the island...but they could cause as many losses as possible...so thus they would actually let the forces create a beachhead...and hide deep in their bunkers...(the pre-bombardments never worked very well) and when the forces were all jumbled up on the beachhead the japanese would open up creating massive loss of life and total confusion.(thus why Okinawa and Iwo Jima were so costly i think i read somewhere...that on iwo jima...counting ALL losses in the battle...meaning japanese too...it came to like 3 people killed every square foot of the island...for Iwo Jima...was about the same size as Central park in new york!) they knew they'd eventually loose the battle...but i believe they hoped to make them pyric victories.
So no doubt the invasion would have worked...but the question would be at what cost would it have been?

[This message has been edited by Ron (edited 02 April 2001).]

Areed Ron, the casualties would have been very heavy. Some generals estimated as many as 500,000 US casualties alone!

I would choose the A-bomb over that many casualties anyday. I mean on one hand you have one side losing hundreds of thousands, and on the other you have both sides losing millions of lives altogether.

Anyone know who would lead the invasion of Japan? Or just any ideas if you have any. I think America would lead the Invasion because we did so well with D-day maybe our credibilty would be higher than usual.

Definately the USA would have led the invasion of Nippon, with Napoleon (MacArthur) in charge.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

i agree 100% The US was the predominant force in the pacific during the whole war. The British would prob have played minor roles...but the US forces were the only forces that had an invasion plan on the books. And thus would have led the attack with US troops and material...
and just for a side note...the largest invasion ever? D-day/ NOPE it was Okinawa!...That invasion actually had a larger fleet!

I also agree that the US was the dominant force on the Pacific, so they would have lead the invasion. Who else would have been involved with it, like what other countries?

Some other players for the invasion would have been England, Australia, New Zealand, India, possibly some Canadian units and I say possibly because I do not recall ever hearing of Canadian units in the C.B.I. Theatre? Or am I sadly mistaken? Also possibly even the Russians but I really doubt they could have gone in at where we were going to do so.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

No, you're correct in that the Canadians were not mentioned in the C.B.I. Theatre. But I think the Russians would have had to recoup all their forces before entering in something so large as the invasion of Japan. They were pretty devestated after the Germans invaded them and got all the way to Stalingrad.

Your also correct. I think the Russians would have made this a2 front war here also and attacked where they actually did.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

No A-bomb = Operation Olympic = massive bloodshed and significantly more casualties on both sides.

'Nuff said.

Hi everybody,

Actually the Soviets did attack the Japanese in Manchuria '45. They used almost 4 million troops in this operation, and virtually erased the largest standing Japanese formation, the Kwantung Army (sp?). They also conducted minor amphibious assaults on the island of Sakhalin and captured the Kurile islands, a small chain of islands north of Hokkaido, all this within a few days, capturing an area the size of the states of Illinois and Indiana combined. This swift annihilation of Japan's forces in Northeast-Asia may have contributed to the final surrender. However, I doubt that the Soviets could have staged a large scale invasion of any of Japans big islands on their own, they simply had not enough experience in large-scale amphib ops. They may have been useful as follow-up formations supporting an American-led landing, and certainly their heavy tank forces would have played havoc with the Japanese' plans of holding out along fixed lines, just like the Germans did to the same Soviet tactic in 1941.
Another less known fact is, that the Red Army had the largest airborne formations in the world (several Corps strong) and that they had actually "invented" large-scale airborne assaults during the 1920's. This would certainly have come in handy, had they decided to invade Japan alongside the US.

Still, I think with the American expertise at amphibious operations and their gigantic logistical advantage in the Far East, they would have carried the brunt of any invasion of Japan, and probably would have suffered terrible losses in such an operation. The British, Aussies, NZ and Canada, as well as the USSR would have probably been given the task of clearing the occupied regions of East Asia, while the US troops would have cleared the Japanese home islands of any armed resistance.



[ 01 May 2001: Message edited by: Miro ]

Miro, very well said and welcome aboard. [img]smile.gif[/img]

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.