Many historians accept this theory, especially the advocates of submarine warfare!.
Www@QuestionHome@Com
| Question Home |
Position:Home>History> Would a complete naval blockade of Japan, if instituted in 1942 or 1943, have enQuestion: Would a complete naval blockade of Japan, if instituted in 1942 or 1943, have ended the Pacific war sooner!? !? Many historians accept this theory, especially the advocates of submarine warfare!.
Www@QuestionHome@Com Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: I was just going to say that I spent 6 years as a submariner, and we think that we DID blockade Japan's coast and her new "Possessions!." There are 50 submarines in the Pacific that are listed as "still on patrol," because they never returned!. God rest those kids; their average age was only ~20!. The Pacific is so vast, though, that even with our fleet of 200 GATO- and PORPOISE- Class submarines, we still could not be everywhere, and do everything!. We did what we could do, though, and eventually closed the sea lanes to and from Japan!.Www@QuestionHome@Com No, the Japanese were using Kamikaze pilots and suicide "frogmen" to sink American ships, there wasn't much a defense against this sort of warfare if you're just sitting there trying to keep out other ships!. Another problem is that it isn't as if it was possible to get close to Japan without them putting up a fight so the blockade would have to have been out further in the Pacific and needed to be too big to be practical!. It was war and it ended the way it did because the Japanese were not interested in surrender, they would have accepted starvation over surrender!.Www@QuestionHome@Com I have to agree with most of the previous answers!. In order to have a complete naval blockage of Japan, it was determined that a ground invasion would be necessary!. The main objective of the United States was an unconditional surrender!. In order to obtain that objective, it was determined as quote: "invading and seizing objectives in the heart of Japan," after "establishing [a] sea and air blockade, conducting intensive air bombardment, and destroying Japanese air and naval strength!." unquote!. Military leaders did not consider an either/or situation between invasion and a naval blockade!. What could be debated, is which method would have been more humane!. If we would have invaded, and used blockades as well as strategic bombing, more Americans would have died!. According to intelligence, the Japanese were expecting an invasion and were preparing to defend accordingly!. There was much study (see my source) as to the estimated numbers of casualties on both sides!. You state "many historians accept this theory" but do not quote your sources!. I did not find that in my research!.Www@QuestionHome@Com Who have you been reading!? In 1942 and 1943 the US was not capable of an type of naval blockade of Japan!.!.!.have you never heard of Pearl Harbor!? The US DID institute a submarine 'blockade' of Japan, and sank the majority of its cargo shipping!. The US did not have additional naval forces to do more! US strategy was to end the war as fast as possible- even taking additonal causualties to do so, in the belief that the faster it was over, the fewer people on both sides that would die!.Www@QuestionHome@Com So starving them to death would have ended the war quicker than the few days the atom bombs ended it!? I doubt it!. Truman delivered the knockout punch -- a siege would have taken months!. The Japanese were prepared to make any sacrifice to keep fighting!. The US feared block-to-block, hand-combat on Japan's turf!. Thousands of American soldiers would have inevitably died!. Www@QuestionHome@Com With what!? They had naval superiority in 1942!. Our battleships were knocked out at Pearl Harbor!. The Japanese carrier forces were supreme until Midway and we did not begin to get the fast carriers to sea until 1943!. In 1942 we were hanging on by a thread!. Our submarines were inefficient that early largely from torpedo problems!. Like most theories it is beautiful in concept but ignores realities of the time and place!.!.!.!.My father lived through this time and in 1942 his first ship went down off Gudalcanal in a vicious night action with the IJN!. They were very good at the time!. Particularly their Destroyer forces!. Tough little ships manned by tough little sailors!. By the way Kamikaze's and suicide torpedoes did not exist until 1944 as a formal tactic!. And yes it was suicide torpedoes, not frogmen!. Indvidual Japanese airmen in badly damaged aircraft could and did make suicide attacks though!. The first was at Pearl Harbor!.Www@QuestionHome@Com No one will ever know!. But in 1942 and 1943 we did not have the number of subs needed for that type of task!. Japan's fleet was still a very powerful force!. But the main reason that it would most likely have not worked was the resolve of the people!. You must also recal that at this same time, Germany was trying to do the same thing to England, without success!. So my response to your question is NO!.Www@QuestionHome@Com Highly doubtful, we did have an embargo on trade with them which hurt them, but ultimately didn't finish them off!. The Japanese are a proud people and only the sheer power of our 2 nuclear bombs was enough to force them to surrender!. or so some people sayWww@QuestionHome@Com |