[WWII Discussion] What would happen if Japan never bombed Pearl Harbor?

[KieronGames]

Hey'll,
What dis? Another What if? :O
Anyways, to the point.
August 6 & 9 Of August 1945, Two atomic bombs known as 'Little Boy' and 'Fat Man'(Those names make me laugh) were dropped onto Hiroshima and Nagasaki(I hope I'm correct about this xD)/December 7 1941, Japan surprise attacked Pear Harbor in order to prevent America from attacking, 4 years later causing the above statement.
But what if 1 or both of these didn't happen?
I personally think:
If both didn't happen:
WW2 would of continued for another year or two and Germany (slightly) could of won.
If 1 didn't happen(Nuke):
Above statement.
If 1 didn't happen(Pearl Harbor):
Basically the same :/

So what do the people of Pokecommunity think?

 

[Zeffy]

I think if it didn't happen, our country might still be under the control of either USA or Japan right now. >_>

 

[Rich Boy Rob]

I'm not well versed on the events of Pearl Harbour, as it's not something we're taught about in history, but as for Hiroshima/Nagasaki, I don't think it would have affected the war with Germany too much and I suspect it would follow basically the same course. However, I think it would be likely that the war may have continued for 1-2 more years in Japan.
It's likely that we would still have won, as the UK and other allied countries would have committed more troops to Japan (unlike in our world where it was a largely American affair).

 

[Ivysaur]

This is more of a political discussion, so I'll drop it here.

 

[Esper]

Japan was bombed because the U.S.A. wanted an unconditional surrender. Japan had offered to surrender shortly before, but they wanted to keep their emperor as the head of the government and so we bombed Hiroshima then Nagasaki.

For this not to have happened it would probably have meant that the U.S. accepted Japan's conditional surrender. Japan would probably have not changed too much insomuch as its political structure is concerned since the whole loosing-the-war-thing probably dashed a lot of perceptions about their having a god-emperor although there would probably be more disgruntled nationalists around than there are today who still believe in a divine emperor. We wouldn't have learned how horrible it was to use nuclear weapons so I'd also assume that someone else somewhere would have used a nuclear weapon and hopefully it would be the last one, but who knows. Japan might not have developed into the peaceful country it is now without having suffered such a horrible catastrophe.

I don't think the U.S. would be all that changed by deciding not to drop the bomb except in how it interacted with a different Japan after the war.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Probably only short term relations between the two countries would have probably resulted. Honestly, how Japan actually dealt with it is quite admirable, and the fact that the US has a friendly relationship with the country proves that, at least politically, things have been made up.

 

[Jack O'Neill]

I think if it didn't happen, our country might still be under the control of either USA or Japan right now. >_>

Judging by that statement, I assume you're a Filipino. Japan had largely been driven out of the Philippines by April 1945, and the United States had no reason to deny independence to the Philippines. Apparently, you weren't paying much attention when they were teaching about the Commonwealth era and the Japanese occupation.

I'm not well versed on the events of Pearl Harbour, as it's not something we're taught about in history, but as for Hiroshima/Nagasaki, I don't think it would have affected the war with Germany too much and I suspect it would follow basically the same course. However, I think it would be likely that the war may have continued for 1-2 more years in Japan.
It's likely that we would still have won, as the UK and other allied countries would have committed more troops to Japan (unlike in our world where it was a largely American affair).

You have your chronology mixed up. The war in Europe was long over by the time Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked; Germany surrendered in May, while Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked in August. Thus, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have precisely zero effect on the prosecution of the war in Europe.

Do they teach about the Destroyers for Bases Agreement or Lend-Lease in British schools, by any chance?

Japan was bombed because the U.S.A. wanted an unconditional surrender. Japan had offered to surrender shortly before, but they wanted to keep their emperor as the head of the government and so we bombed Hiroshima then Nagasaki.

For this not to have happened it would probably have meant that the U.S. accepted Japan's conditional surrender. Japan would probably have not changed too much insomuch as its political structure is concerned since the whole loosing-the-war-thing probably dashed a lot of perceptions about their having a god-emperor although there would probably be more disgruntled nationalists around than there are today who still believe in a divine emperor. We wouldn't have learned how horrible it was to use nuclear weapons so I'd also assume that someone else somewhere would have used a nuclear weapon and hopefully it would be the last one, but who knows. Japan might not have developed into the peaceful country it is now without having suffered such a horrible catastrophe.

I don't think the U.S. would be all that changed by deciding not to drop the bomb except in how it interacted with a different Japan after the war.

The Potsdam Declaration plainly stated that Japan's only options were unconditional surrender or "prompt and utter destruction" at the hands of the Allies; neither the United States, the United Kingdom, or the Soviet Union would have accepted a conditional surrender from Japan. Japan never even had any intention to surrender prior to the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria either, as they chose to ignore the Potsdam Declaration when it was first issued.

Had the United States not chosen to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki right away (or if the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had failed to produce an unconditional surrender, or if the Japanese militarists had actually succeeded in overthrowing Hirohito before the surrender announcement could be made), the most likely outcome would have been the United States and the United Kingdom going ahead with their planned invasion of the Japanese home islands, which would have resulted in millions of American and British casualties and the practical extinction of the Japanese race; nukes still would have been deployed anyway to clear out defending forces.

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

I'm not sure...Japan might still have had it's empire in Asia right now...oh and the Korean war wouldn't have happened either...Vietnam might have been taken over...China might no longer have existed and we wouldn't be in massive debt to them...though the Japanese themselves own a great deal of the US's debt itself...

 

[Captain Hobo.]

Then not all the people would have died and that war would have never happened.

 

[Jack O'Neill]

I'm not sure...Japan might still have had it's empire in Asia right now...oh and the Korean war wouldn't have happened either...Vietnam might have been taken over...China might no longer have existed and we wouldn't be in massive debt to them...though the Japanese themselves own a great deal of the US's debt itself...

Between the utter collapse of Japanese industry and the fact that Japanese forces remaining in Korea, China, the Philippines, French Indochina, Burma, the Netherlands East Indies, and the South Pacific were completely cut off from any support, Japan was in no shape to continue prosecuting wars throughout East and Southeast Asia by 1945. It was a war of attrition that the Japanese simply could not win; they were consistently unable to produce as much war materiel or contribute as much personnel as the Americans or the British. Also, never underestimate the power of guerrilla warfare; had the Americans and British wanted to at that stage of the war, they could have just propped up existing resistance movements in Japanese-occupied territories and let the guerrillas clean house.

Also, the Korean War would have still proceeded on schedule, as the United States and the Soviet Union had already agreed to divide Korea along the 38th parallel; the Americans were also motivated by their desire not to let all of Korea fall under Soviet influence.

 

[Rich Boy Rob]

You have your chronology mixed up. The war in Europe was long over by the time Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked; Germany surrendered in May, while Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked in August. Thus, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have precisely zero effect on the prosecution of the war in Europe.

Do they teach about the Destroyers for Bases Agreement or Lend-Lease in British schools, by any chance?

That was just an oversight on my part, my main point was that the war may have lasted slightly longer with more European support.
As for Destroyers for Bases Agreement and Lend-Lease, I have no idea what they are, so I'm gonna go for no. Of course, I never took History GCSE/A-Level, so they may be covered there.
I think as a general rule, we only really learn about the war in Europe (D-Day, The Battle of Britain etc), though we did touch on the nuclear bomb droppings, just not in as great detail.

 

[Jack O'Neill]

As for Destroyers for Bases Agreement and Lend-Lease, I have no idea what they are, so I'm gonna go for no. Of course, I never took History GCSE/A-Level, so they may be covered there.
I think as a general rule, we only really learn about the war in Europe (D-Day, The Battle of Britain etc), though we did touch on the nuclear bomb droppings, just not in as great detail.

The Destroyers for Bases Agreement was exactly as it says: The United States gave surplus destroyers to the Royal Navy to protect against German U-boats, and the British government allowed the United States to establish military bases in Newfoundland and the Caribbean.

As for Lend-Lease, the short version of it was that the United States gave war materiel and other supplies to the United Kingdom, France, the Soviet Union, and China for free. Lend-Lease was actually a significant contributor to Allied success in the European theater, as British and Soviet industry could focus almost exclusively on producing combat equipment while the Americans provided them with raw materials, logistical supplies, and additional combat equipment.

 

[Griffinbane]

I thought the US was standing neutral during the war and didn't want to invade anywhere unless given a reason to (Pearl Harbor). Heard something about the higher ups in the government was looking for a good excuse to go in shooting. Had Pearl Harbor not happen, the war probably would have lasted longer because we would have sat neutral longer while the guv'ment was looking for another reason to go in. With the Great Depression weighing heavily on the country at the time, I doubt the general population wanted to go to war. But hey, it turned out to be a real boon to the country. Pfft.

 

[KieronGames]

though we did touch on the nuclear bomb .droppings, just not in as great detail.

Exactly, teachers just go something like this:
"An atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945"

 

[Livewire]

Well, had Japan not bombed Pearl Harbor, The United States would have still entered the war at a later date I'm sure. By December of '41 Europe was mostly over run by the Nazis, with only England left standing, and the invasion of the Soviet Union was still in its early stages. I would like to think that the US would not let all of western civilization to fall to Hitler and the Axis.

Now, had the US not used the nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then England and the US would be forced to commence the invasion of Japan, at a great cost of life.

 

[G-Man]

I thought the US was standing neutral during the war and didn't want to invade anywhere unless given a reason to (Pearl Harbor). Heard something about the higher ups in the government was looking for a good excuse to go in shooting. Had Pearl Harbor not happen, the war probably would have lasted longer because we would have sat neutral longer while the guv'ment was looking for another reason to go in. With the Great Depression weighing heavily on the country at the time, I doubt the general population wanted to go to war. But hey, it turned out to be a real boon to the country. Pfft.

The U.S. was just originally going after Japan. Of Course, Germany and Italy didn't take too kindly to the fact that the U.S. Had declared war on a member of the Axis, so they promptly declared war of the U.S., and vice-versa. Splitting the U.S. forces in half, with the Army in Europe and the Marines taking the Pacific.

The way it all was, If it wasn't for the Bombings, an invasion on Japan would have been extremely costly. The U.S. suffered great losses in Iwo Jima and Okinawa, so you can only imagine the cassualties that could have mounted on both sides if the invasion had been initiated, both military and civilian.

 

[King Gumball]

Where's all the love for Australia :( The Northern Territory was bombed up to three times more heavily than the Pearl Harbour was by the Japanese.

The USA was helping Britain against the Nazi's and western Europe, Australia and USA were doing that because of their strong alliance with Britain. Japan then took over China and that impacted on the USA and Australia and they both came to realize what was happening in Asia. After Pearl Harbour and the Northern Territory was bombed they went to war against Japan and the Aus/NZ/USA troops left Europe and went to help defend Papua New Guinea, all that was left before they would attack Australia again. Britain had abandoned war in Asia and left Australia to fend for them selves after Singapore was conquered and so it is thanks to the USA that Australia is still.... Australia XD

that was just a short summery of my extensive Aus History research on that topic from history classes.

If Pearl Harbour was not bombed, I don't think that would have made a difference. USA would have still come to help Australia after the NT was bombed. or after they realized China was defeated. If Japan was not bombed then I think that the war would have gone on a little longer, as that was one of the major reasons why Japan surrendered (as well as the fact Aus/USA got the vital airstrip in new guinea to drop supplies. the Japanese retreated due to lack of supplies from new guinea).

 

[Jack O'Neill]

The USA was helping Britain against the Nazi's and western Europe, Australia and USA were doing that because of their strong alliance with Britain. Japan then took over China and that impacted on the USA and Australia and they both came to realize what was happening in Asia. After Pearl Harbour and the Northern Territory was bombed they went to war against Japan and the Aus/NZ/USA troops left Europe and went to help defend Papua New Guinea, all that was left before they would attack Australia again. Britain had abandoned war in Asia and left Australia to fend for them selves after Singapore was conquered and so it is thanks to the USA that Australia is still.... Australia XD

that was just a short summery of my extensive Aus History research on that topic from history classes.

If Pearl Harbour was not bombed, I don't think that would have made a difference. USA would have still come to help Australia after the NT was bombed. or after they realized China was defeated. If Japan was not bombed then I think that the war would have gone on a little longer, as that was one of the major reasons why Japan surrendered (as well as the fact Aus/USA got the vital airstrip in new guinea to drop supplies. the Japanese retreated due to lack of supplies from new guinea).

Close, but you only get part of a cigar.

Japan had been at war with China since 1937, and Japan was never quite able to completely conquer China. The United States had been aware of Japan's actions in China for some time; the United States eventually placed a trade embargo on Japan and began providing covert aid to the Chinese military. Most importantly, the war in China proved to be a significant drain on Japan's war machine, which was exacerbated by the trade embargoes imposed on it by the Americans, British, and Dutch; this was a significant part of why Japan chose to go to war with those countries, so it could seize resource-rich territories such as the Philippines, Malaya, and the Netherlands East Indies and secure the raw materials there for its own use.

Also, there were no American troops in the Europe/North Africa theatre proper until Operation Torch in November 1942. American forces had already been fighting in the South Pacific alongside their Australian and New Zealand comrades for months prior to that.

In addition, why would you assume that in the absence of the Pearl Harbor attack, an American military response in the Pacific would have to wait until the Japanese started bombing Darwin in February 1942? The invasion of the Philippines on 8 December 1941 would have provoked an American response far sooner.

 

[BlueShadow V 2.0]

Well... If Japan would never bombed Pearl Harbor, everything would be totally different. I mean, Japan would have never passed that horrible experience. Both countries (US and Japan) would have better relationships than the one that they already have. Other than that.... I don't see any other possible changes (I think). Things already happened and we may never know what would happen if it never would happen

 

[Yuoaman]

The Allies still would have won, sorry. The United States' army certainly helped, but it was really the Russians who steamrolled the Nazis. The war might have only lasted another couple of years due to there being less soldiers available to fight in the Pacific, but things in Europe would have played out similarly.