What if, Roosevelt/Truman decides that a full scale invasion of Japan is more humane then just nuking them, stoping the Manhatten Project, so he teams up with the Soviets, British and Chinese to invade the Japanesse Empire, and the POD for the invasion can be between 43 and 45, the Soviets and Americans going for Tokyo, and the Chinese and British going for China and Mainland Asia, how does this change the course of the war?
WI: America doesen't nuke Hiroshima
- Thread starter Unholy Mistress
- Start date
Evilprodigy
Donor
Abby how on earth is a fullscale invasion of Japan more humane then nuking them?
The Americans foresaw over a million casualties to their own soldiers and up to tens of millions of Japanese, civilian and military, AND the infrastructural damage that would have occurred across the whole Island chain throwing it into full on poverty AND the most likely guerrilla warfare in the very mountainous terrain that is all over Japan considering the Population is so fanatically loyal to the Emperor and in many cases preferred to take their own lives by jumping off cliffs then be under American occupation.
The Americans foresaw over a million casualties to their own soldiers and up to tens of millions of Japanese, civilian and military, AND the infrastructural damage that would have occurred across the whole Island chain throwing it into full on poverty AND the most likely guerrilla warfare in the very mountainous terrain that is all over Japan considering the Population is so fanatically loyal to the Emperor and in many cases preferred to take their own lives by jumping off cliffs then be under American occupation.
More humane?
Look, there are reasons that nukes might not have been used on Japan, but 'humane' simply isn't on the list. Any serious analysis of the casualties involved in any of the alternatives (invasion - least likely alternative, by the way, blockade/bombing, etc.) shows far, far, FAR higher death tolls (especially for the Japanese) than even a reasonably large (5-6) use of nuclear weapons. This does not even take into account the non-fatalities (but horrible suffering nonetheless) associated with the alternatives such as wounds/maiming, disease, general destruction, overall impoverishment of the target country as well as the invaders, etc.
While a non-nuclear solution is possible (though very doubtful, as long as the bomb is actually built), not building the bombs on a 'humanitarian' basis is ASB or worse.
Look, there are reasons that nukes might not have been used on Japan, but 'humane' simply isn't on the list. Any serious analysis of the casualties involved in any of the alternatives (invasion - least likely alternative, by the way, blockade/bombing, etc.) shows far, far, FAR higher death tolls (especially for the Japanese) than even a reasonably large (5-6) use of nuclear weapons. This does not even take into account the non-fatalities (but horrible suffering nonetheless) associated with the alternatives such as wounds/maiming, disease, general destruction, overall impoverishment of the target country as well as the invaders, etc.
While a non-nuclear solution is possible (though very doubtful, as long as the bomb is actually built), not building the bombs on a 'humanitarian' basis is ASB or worse.
I never said I thought the full scale invasion was more humane then the nuking, I said what if Roosevelt or Truman decided agaist it, not wanting to kill innocent Japanesse civillians in the nukings, and chose a invasion plan instead. rationalizing it to be more humane
Evilprodigy
Donor
Abby the Americans knew that the Atom Bomb would save more Japanese civilians then an invasion.
Laurentia
Banned
Even in 1945, everyone knew that, despite all civilian deaths being horrible, 500,000 was better then 15 million.
I know that, and I know the bomb was more humane in the long run, but this is a Alternate History scenario, im not taking that into account, a A-H scenario in which what if FDR or Truman decided agaist the bomb and went for the invasion idea like with Germany,
Thats my POD here. FDR manages to hang on to life for a few more years, and continues to insist on being part of war strategy planning, unfortunately for everyone involved, he isnt exactly the same in the head as he was before.
Its a bit of a stretch, but it makes about as much sense as Abby's POD.
In anycase, EP already answered the question here.
Yeah, it's a little hard to pull this idea of in 45, what if we push the POD for the invasion back to 42 or 43, (through that would negate Soviet and British involvment, seeing as they were focused on the Germans)
j
More nonsense...
Look, no serious analysis of invading Japan (or any other alternative) suggested that the costs (both to the Allies as well as the Japanese...moreso in the case of the Japanese) would be less than using the bomb. NONE....FDR was not the sharpest tool in the box, but even he understood this, and Truman had no doubts whatsoever, and wrote about it at the time. More to the point, there isn't a shred of evidence that either man truly cared all that much about Japanese lives, certainly not when balanced against American lives and overall strategic interests.
Pretending that such a calculation was even possible isn't alternate history, it is simply nonsense.
Look, no serious analysis of invading Japan (or any other alternative) suggested that the costs (both to the Allies as well as the Japanese...moreso in the case of the Japanese) would be less than using the bomb. NONE....FDR was not the sharpest tool in the box, but even he understood this, and Truman had no doubts whatsoever, and wrote about it at the time. More to the point, there isn't a shred of evidence that either man truly cared all that much about Japanese lives, certainly not when balanced against American lives and overall strategic interests.
Pretending that such a calculation was even possible isn't alternate history, it is simply nonsense.
I definatly got that, the Americans focus fully on Japan, it's a whole diffrent ball game in Europe, and that's a whole nother story
HeavyWeaponsGuy
Banned
FDR wasn't affected by the serious onset of old age, he was affected by his polio, the chain-smoking and stressful lifestyle also assisted in that endeavor.
I was under the impression he suffered a stroke when he died, which could certainly change or impair someone's mental functions if they recover. Its possible i might be overestimating his age though.
Laurentia,
I was arguing that this whole discussion, while not ASB is certainly utterly implausible on the face of it.
Kome,
The stroke incapacitated FDR....no opportunity for him to do something that he had overwhelmingly opposed anyway. Nor is it likely that his cabinet would have gone along with it anyway.
I was arguing that this whole discussion, while not ASB is certainly utterly implausible on the face of it.
Kome,
The stroke incapacitated FDR....no opportunity for him to do something that he had overwhelmingly opposed anyway. Nor is it likely that his cabinet would have gone along with it anyway.
HeavyWeaponsGuy
Banned
His stroke was the one that killed him though, and yes, a stroke does severely impair mental function. Problem was the US government has actually gone through this before and it's much more likely that instead of the weird situation that happened with Woodrow Wilson when he suffered a stroke that Truman will instead take on the responsibilities of the president... poor FDR, it'd be so sad to see him go that way.
God, Everybody is only talking about how ASB the Idea is, and not talking about what would happen if this happend, please start doing that, please