Atom Bombs, were they needed at the end of WWII?

Discussion in 'The Thinking Cap' started by CNiper, Jan 17, 2017.

  1. CNiper

    CNiper Join us on Steam! DiploGuard Administrator

    OFFLINE

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,649
    Likes Received:
    2,469
    Absolutely not, at least not in the context that the American people have been led to believe. The bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki were meant to ensure that the United States could dictate global policy, and to that effect it succeeded.

    The United States since 1942 had been carrying out air raids on over 100 Japanese cities, taking an estimated 241,000 to 900,000 lives. Viewed from this paradigm, the dropping of the Atom bomb was a logical next step in an all out attack on Japanese war morale.

    As the date grew closer where the bomb would be available for use, 155 members of the atomic research team, including all 3 lead scientists, signed a petition addressed to Harry Truman that cautioned use of the bomb, as even they were distraught with its destructive potential, and saw a future where bigger bombs would be developed in competition with the Soviet Union should this one be used. However, Truman never saw this petition before the bombs launch, instead staunch public anti-communist James Byrnes who was secretary of state, rerouted the delegation to South Carolina, formally acknowledged the petition, and according to lead scientist Leo Szilard:

    "Mr.Byrnes knew at the time, as the rest of the government knew, that Japan was essentially defeated. He was much more concerned about the spread of Russian influence in Europe, and by possessing and demonstrating the bomb, would make Russia more manageable."

    Leslie Groves, Brigadier General in charge of the Manhattan Project, noted:

    "I was never from about two weeks into charge of this project, any illusion on my part that Russia was the enemy, and the project was conducted on that basis."

    The delegation's petition also noted, that since there was no inherent secret to nuclear fission, the Soviet Union, spending similar to the United States, would have their own bomb in less than a decade.

    After acknowledging the petition, Byrnes banned its circulation, and tasked Leslie Groves with keeping an eye on Szilard for signs of 'communist agitation'. Groves then banned the team on threat of charge from seeking out elected members of office to discuss any matters regarding nuclear fission. Groves also formally labeled Szilard an 'enemy alien' and requested that he be detained for the remainder of the war. This request was denied, but it shows a glimpse into the communist fear that perpetuated into some of the military leaders of the time.

    However, not everyone had this deep routed communist fear. After all, the United States had coordinated and was on friendly terms at the time with Stalin and the Soviet Union. Chief of Staff George Marshall, supported Oppenheimer's plan to share the results of a nuclear test with the Soviet Union, as well as details of development with soviet scientists. Again, secretary of state Byrnes rejected this proposal.

    In 1945, Truman went to Potsdam to insure that the Soviets kept their promise of entering Manchuria and engaging the remaining 1 million Japanese forces there. American Intelligence had informed Truman on July 6th that:

    "An entry of the Soviet Union into the war would finally convince the Japanese of the inevitability of their defeat"

    Many were already convinced of this however - Japan's air force had been decimated, its navy completely destroyed, its rail system rendered useless, its food supply inadequate, and its public morale plummeting.
    Japanese Prime Minister Kanoe wrote to the Emperor:

    "I regret to say that Japan's defeat is inevitable"

    In May, Japan's supreme war council had elected to seek out the Soviets for peace terms, wanting to keep the USSR out of their war, and also to see if the Soviets could get better peace terms for Japan. However, the Americans had been intercepting Japanese cables since the beginning of the war. In a July 18th cable to the Japanese embassy in Moscow, Japan noted clearly that the only obstacle to peace was unconditional surrender. Truman himself remarks in his personal diary this intercepted cable as:

    "The communication from the Jap Emperor asking for peace".

    Byrnes diary:

    "Japanese peace feelers".

    Secretary of War Henry Stimson's diary:

    "Japan is maneuvering with the soviets for Peace"

    They all knew Japan was finished, and that the end was near. Several close advisors to Truman suggested that he edit the surrender conditions of Japan from unconditional surrender, to signal that they could keep their Emperor, thus speeding up the end of the war.

    To the Japanese, the Emperor was a sacred figure, and the central figure in the Shinto religion. So see him hung like Mussolini in Italy was compared to by 5 star General Douglas MacArthur as:

    "The hanging of the Emperor to them would be like the crucifixion of Christ to us, all would fight to die like ants"

    However, Byrnes was convinced that the Truman administration would be crucified politically, should they let the Japanese Imperial system be retained. In addition to this, with the atomic bomb Truman thought he had a weapon that could force Japanese surrender on American terms, therefore not needing the Soviet's aid in ending the war, and therefore not needing to concede Manchuria and Hokkaido, which Roosevelt had promised Stalin would become Russia's sphere of influence without American interference should they participate in an attack against Manchuria.

    So confident that this weapon would end the war on American terms, Truman delayed Potsdam for two weeks to give the time needed to the scientists to test the atomic bomb. Upon its success, arriving at Potsdam Truman told Stalin that the Americans had come upon a weapon with unusual destructive potential, and proposed to use this weapon to end the war with Japan. Unknown to Truman, a British scientist had snuck soviet handlers technical readouts of the bomb test in a bothan like fashion (without all the dying bothans). Stalin already knew about the test, and remarked to his foreign secretary in Washington:

    "The Americans will use this nuclear monopoly to try to dictate terms in Europe, but we will not give in to this blackmail."

    He then ordered Soviet military forces to speed their entry into Manchuria, under the leaning notion that American attitude at Potsdam enforced the idea that the United States would go back on its promise of giving Manchuria and Hokkaido to the Soviets. Indeed, the American proposal to the Japanese at Potsdam still explicitly stated that the Emperor would be hung for war crimes committed, and as the Soviets and Americans knew, the Japanese rejected this offer, thus giving the Americans time to drop the atomic bombs.

    Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote to Truman and Byrnes many times, asking them to assure the safety of the Emperor so that the war would end, and American lives would be spared. Truman told Stimson "If you don't like the use of this bomb, you can pack your bags and go home."

    Stimson wasn't alone in his views about using the bomb to end the war, six out of seven of 5 star generals who earned their 5th star during World War 2 described the bomb as morally reprehensible, militarily unnecessary, or both. These were Generals Douglas MacArthur, Dwight Eisenhower, Henry Arnold, and Admirals William Leahy, Earnest King, and Chester Nimitz. Eisenhower later said:

    "Stimson told me they were going to drop it on the Japanese, I didn't volunteer anything because after all my war was over in Europe, but I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I didn't want our country to be the first one to use that thing"


    General MacArthur, supreme commander of allied forces in the Pacific considered the bomb completely useless from a military point of view, saying the Japanese would have surrendered back in May had the US told them they could keep their Emperor. General Lemay, in charge of American firebombing, had said the Japanese would have surrendered in two weeks, and that the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war.

    Hiroshima was selected, it hadn't yet been hit by Lemay's firebomb because it had 45,000 Korean, and 23 American prisoners of war. This meant the city was unscathed, and the true destructive test of the bomb would be well observed. By the end of the war, the bomb at Hiroshima had killed over 200,000 people. On August 6th the day of the bombing, the United States admitted only 3,500 enemy combatants were killed.

    Despite this, Japan did still not surrender. Stalin, seeing this, ordered the assault on Manchuria to commence on August 9th on 3 fronts. This was no small series of battles, the Soviets had 1.5 million men, and losses to the Japanese military are estimated around 750,000. Stalin also ordered troops into Korea, and onto the northern pacific islands of Japan. This event seems to be almost wholly forgotten to any American I've talked to because also on this day, the 2nd Atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. 40,000 died immediately, of them, 250 soldiers.

    Even after the soviet invasion, and the dropping of two bombs, and the foreign secretary's lie that the United States had 100 more atomic bombs to drop, Tokyo was no closer to surrender. After all, while a magnificent display of power to the west, Japanese cities had been being completely destroyed for 3 years, two more cities was a drop in the bucket compared to everything else the Japanese had lost. It didn't matter if it was 200 planes dropping 100,000 firebombs or 2 planes dropping 2 atomic bombs, in the end the loss to the Japanese was still the same. General Kuwabe, the Japanese Army Chief of Staff said:

    "It was only through a gradual manner that the horrible wreckage that had been made of Hiroshima had been known. In comparison the Soviet entry into the war was a greater shock because we had been in constant fear of it, with the vivid imagination that the vast Red Army forces in Europe were now being turned towards us"

    Prime Minister of Japan said:

    "Japan must surrender immediately, or the Soviet Union will not only take Manchuria, Karafuto and Korea, but Hokkaido as well. This would destroy the foundation of Japan. We must end the war when we can deal with the US."

    Not only would the Soviets have no problem dismantling their empire, but they would have no problem killing the emperor himself. After all, they murdered their own Emperor in 1918. On August 15th, still sustaining heavy losses to Russia, the Japanese Emperor forced surrender of his people over the radio. And soon surrendered to the United States under the pretext that the Emperor would not be forced to abdicate. Alarmingly this clause is one of the reasons Japan stayed unified as it sought to rebuild and transfer power to a more democratic means.

    Truman's estimation of the cost to American lives had the United States had to invade the Japanese mainland had they not included the Emperor clause in the peace deal climbed as the years went by.

    In August 1945 it was "thousands of lives", December 1945 "A quarter million of the flower of our manhood was worth a couple Japanese cities", November 1949 "500,000 casualties could be expected", January 1953 "Up to a million Japanese and American casualties" April 1959 "The bomb stopped the war and prevented millions of casualties".
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • What What x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  2. AxelTheGreatest

    AxelTheGreatest Heda

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2013
    Messages:
    600
    Likes Received:
    165
    Well, yeah.
    The 2 nukes were mostly used to scare the shit out of Stalin, as far as I know.
    Interesting read, though.
     
  3. RorzNZ

    RorzNZ Custom Kebab Creator

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2016
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    36
    Yeah this is quite a debatable issue. Mostly in favour of using the atomic bomb was that it is not in Japanese culture to surrender. Even in the 1960's and 70's there were a few holdouts in the pacific who just refused to surrender. It is my view that bomb were necessary to save lives, and prevent a land invasion of Japan; which would have cost lives of both Japanese and American.

    As far as the Cold War goes, that was pretty inevitable. The US however did lose the nuclear arms race, with the USSR building a much more powerful bomb than the US ever did.
     
    • What What x 2
  4. The_Phalanx

    The_Phalanx Man with the Pointy Sticks DiploGuard Map Maker Site Advisor

    OFFLINE

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Messages:
    5,977
    Likes Received:
    577
    Some nitpicking, MacArthur wasn't Supreme Allied Commander in the Pacific; Nimitz was. The Army was given supreme command of the European theatre through Eisenhower, thus the Navy was given supreme command of the Pacific through Nimitz; not MacArthur. MacArthur did have control of a part of the Pacific, namely the Southwest portion, IE Australia and the Philippines.

    With that said, did the Atomic bombs need to be dropped on Japan? Honestly, yes. A shock and awe weapon was needed to convince the Japanese to end this war, their culture at the time would simply not accept surrender. The results of the invasion of Okinawa makes this blatantly obvious. Out of the ~100,000 soldiers stationed on Okinawa, only about ~10,000 survived. Over half of the civilian population of Okinawa was killed, due to a combination of military impressment, US military actions against civilians, and mass suicides. Therefore, of the ~450,000 Japanese military and civilians on Okinawa, only ~100,000 survived the battle. The US Military had every reason to believe that invading the Japanese homeland would inflict casualties upon the Japanese proportional to that of Okinawa. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this was altruistic of the American Military either; American casualties suffered in Okinawa were the highest ever. It was the bloodiest in the Pacific, and I'm pretty sure it was the bloodiest of the whole war for the US but I'm having trouble finding a source for that.

    Furthermore, a lot of people get too caught up about the fact that the bombings were "atomic." What I mean by this is the notion that since these were atomic bombs, they were far more devastating than normal bombing runs. But that's not the case; the firebombing of Dresden was far more devastating than the atomic bomb drops, killing anywhere between an estimated 200,000 to 500,000. The atomic bombs are not the super weapons that the American and Russian arsenal currently possess, but they were far more flashy, so to speak, than a firebombing, and therefore more effective at signaling that the war was over.

    I find the argument that the whole point was to keep the Soviets in check to be flimsy at best. The reason being that it did nothing to keep the Soviets in check. Stalin turned his back on Yalta and simply turned all of Eastern Europe into Soviet client states. It could probably be argued that Stalin knew that the US only had 2 or that he simply didn't care about the threat of the Atomic bombs, but either way, there were no serious Allied attempts at getting the Soviets to abide by the terms agreed upon at the Yalta conference.

    I'm really curious about how the article states that the US was pushing for the hanging of Hirohito and I'd like to see the sources for that. It's the first I've heard of it, and I find it odd that if the hanging of Hirohito was such a big ticket item that it wouldn't be removed from the surrender conditions pre-A-bombing to hasten Japan's surrender that he was left alone post-A-bombing. Such as it is, Hirohito wasn't even forced to abdicate; he was Emperor until 1986.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2017
    • This This x 1
  5. CNiper

    CNiper Join us on Steam! DiploGuard Administrator

    OFFLINE

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,649
    Likes Received:
    2,469
    I don't think you read my post, or if you did you didn't refute what evidence I brought. I provide many examples stating the Japanese were ready to surrender had their Emperor been allowed to survive. Those holdouts in the pacific show just how fanatically devout the Japanese were to the Emperor, which supports my point that mainland Japan wouldn't have surrendered until the Emperor was guaranteed safety.

    Again someone is writing something without refuting the points I've brought to the table. You can read what I wrote to Rorz above, as well as I'll state again as I did in the OP that the Japanese weren't even aware an atom bomb was dropped until the United States told them, they were much more shocked by the invasion of the Soviets. To them Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just two more cities destroyed. Whether it was 200 planes with 100,000 bombs or 2 planes with 2 bombs, it didn't matter to the Japanese and it didn't move them any closer to surrender without the promise of the Emperor's safety. Paraphrasing myself from the OP but hopefully you'll read this one.


    That isn't the point of my evidence, I point out that Lemay's firebombing runs were far more devastating and wiped out an insane amount of Japanese cities prior to the dropping of the atom bomb. My ultimate point as stated in my first paragraph is that the Atom bomb was dropped to dictate global policy after World War 2.

    Not that it matters really, but this isn't an article. This is me paraphrasing videos, wiki, and WW2 Database.

    I address this in the OP. Truman and Byrnes had a tough on Japan approach and had social licence to remove the Emperor from power the same way they removed Mussolini. Byrnes repeatedly cautioned Truman, according to Truman's own journal, that if the United States let the Emperor lead Japan post war it would be politically suicide to the tough on Japan approach. In any case, this eventually worked into the favour of the Truman administration because, again this is the ultimate point I'm making, the bomb was dropped as a message to the Soviets, and to some extent the British Empire, on who would be dictating policy after the World War.

    Exactly my point, the Japanese were ready to surrender far before the atom bomb was dropped had the Truman administration let the Emperor lead the nation into the post war era. Dropping the atom bombs had no effect on this resolution, and killed innocent civilians (albeit radicalized and militarized, but also many POW, and unnecessary deaths).

    Again, I know its a large post guys, but you haven't refuted any of the points I've brought up, and are saying your own thoughts while not addressing the things I look at that contradict those thoughts. Read the whole post.
     
    • What What x 1
  6. CNiper

    CNiper Join us on Steam! DiploGuard Administrator

    OFFLINE

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,649
    Likes Received:
    2,469
    And you're right on this point, I think I was confused while reading sources. MacArthur was given the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers in Japan post-war, I must have miss read. In any case the excerpt where I'm quoting MacArthur still gives legitimacy to the overall thesis as MacArthur was still boots on the ground and had an overall hand in the final terms of surrender and eventual rule of Japan.
     
  7. Feanor

    Feanor Member Liaison Officer Site Staff

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    28,385
    Likes Received:
    2,509
    I'm a little confused. What exactly is the question you seek to answer?
     
  8. Ordo

    Ordo Lore Judge

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,758
    Likes Received:
    2,139
    I would say yes for a couple of reasons:

    1) Bombs were gonna be used in some way anyways. Looking back it is better they were used against Japan, rather than in Korea or Vietnam.
    2) As Cniper himself said, the "normal" bombing of Japan was casualty-wise comparable to usage of atomic bombs, so it was in no way some unspeakable horror like some people said.
    3) It was a message to Soviet Union, a show of strength. WW2 was nearing its end, and it was clear the world was heading into a bipolar world with USA and USSR being the leading superpowers.
    4) Bombs were prefferable to full-scale invasion that would cause massive casualties not only on American side but the amount of dead Japanese civillians could reach into millions. Yes the Soviet offensive was a decisive factor, but US needed to end the war swiftly before Soviets had time to capture even more territory.
     
  9. ABDeL

    ABDeL DiploGuard Our Creator Site Advisor

    OFFLINE

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    9,490
    Likes Received:
    1,902
    As The_Phalanx mentioned, the Japanese were absolute batshit crazy when it came to defending their Empire and they would've been even crazier at defending their homeland. The Japanese were ready to mobilize millions of civilians in defense of the homeland and here is a rundown of the actual estimated casualties the US thought it would suffer:

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
    • This This x 1
  10. Ser_Fergus

    Ser_Fergus Professional Shark Hater DiploMVP

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    4,703
    Likes Received:
    1,370
    On my phone but the Americans were VERY clear that the emperors would be allowed to survive. Wanting to hang the emperor was a very small fraction of USN personnel and certainly was never dictated in any offers to Japan.

    The bombs as a plan to dictate policy post WW2 was unlikely at best given that the Americans were fairly sure the soviets knew how few of the weapons there were.
     
    • What What x 1
  11. Ser_Fergus

    Ser_Fergus Professional Shark Hater DiploMVP

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    4,703
    Likes Received:
    1,370
    And we are as a group responding that your source is incorrect. The militarists were willing to fight with or without the emperor. While the devastation from the firebombing had certainly been intense, they had never reached the high percentiles of city destruction that the atomic bombs achieved. Japanese plans for peace had collapsed, and that is what ultimately caused the surrender. The Japanese had planned to use the threat of losses against the democratic governments to maintain some amount of territory.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyūjō_incident

    Like seriously, in his own surrender declaration the Japanese Emperor referred to the total and utter destruction like that of nagasaki that awaited Japan.
     
  12. The_Phalanx

    The_Phalanx Man with the Pointy Sticks DiploGuard Map Maker Site Advisor

    OFFLINE

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Messages:
    5,977
    Likes Received:
    577
    I thought you had found some article that you wanted to bring up it for discussion. I apologize for not realizing it was your own work, its quite good. Though I do think the premise is flawed. I guess what you're getting at, since I think the question is getting lost in the length of your post, is what was the purpose the droppings of the atomic bombs; were they a show of strength to dictate global policy, or were they to force the Japanese to surrender. I'd also say that you're missing post-war information supporting that the US used the droppings to force other nations to follow their lead, which isn't helping with that specific part of the question getting lost.

    I'd say the two questions as yes and no, respectively. I've already stated why the droppings were necessary to avoid bloodshed. But looking back on your post, I'll change my answer to fit your question better. The Japanese were unwilling to accept unconditional surrender from the Americans. They needed a shock, a clear blow that would show them the war was over. I've always believed it to be the atomic bombings because, sure the Lemay's campaign was overall much more destructive, but to effectively bomb a city in that manner requires hundreds of planes dropping hundreds of bombs over a decent period of time. With the atomic bomb, the US bluffing that it had 100 of them, it could in the course of a single night with only 100 bombers, obliterate all of Japan. Two cities might be a drop in the bucket, as you say, but another 100 cities would mean there simply wasn't a Japan left. It's important not to forget about the magnitude of scale difference between the atomic bombs and conventional bombing and the implications there of.

    I would also argue that the atomic bombings indirectly brought the end of the war by forcing the hand of Stalin to move on Manchuria. As stated by yourself, the Allies had solicited Russian help in dealing with the Japanese to avoid further American loses. The Japanese thought that as long as their Russian-Japanese Neutrality Pact held, which it was scheduled to be renewed in 1946, they would only have to deal with the Americans and British. The Russians first signaled that they would not renew the pact, and broke it several months early. The Russians obliterated the Manchurian front, but your stated casualty reports are far to high; both the Soviets and Japanese suffered around ~40,000 casualties. The Soviets captured another ~600,000 POWs, but that number includes soldiers who surrendered after the cessation of hostiles. The Japanese gave as good as they got, but were under strength, under equipped, and outnumbered almost 2:1.

    Looking back at the surrender of the Japan, it took the intervention of the Emperor to make his War Council finally agree to the Potsdam Declaration. In this emergency meeting of council, he made remarks about the unpreparedness of the Japanese fortifications, the lack of new Japanese defense divisions, and specific remarks about the destructive power of the atomic bombs.

    But let's talk about dictating post-war global policy. America was largely unscathed by the war; instead America found itself in a much better place at the end of the war than where it was when it started. This can not be said of any other country. Europe was in shambles, Soviet economy and transportation infrastructure was on the verge of collapse after 5 years of maximum usage, and China was more than happy to plunge right back into its Civil War. Who exactly was in a position to challenge the America for hegemony? At the end of the day, the Americans were not interested in pushing for global hegemony. There's a 5 year span in which the US held exclusive control of Atomic weapons, a period of time in which no real effort was made to force Stalin's hand to abide by the Declaration of Liberated Europe agreed upon at Yalta. The US took the reigns of the free world not through military might, but diplomatic influence by cultivating the UN and NATO, neither of which the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan had any bearing on.

    As an aside, I find this line to be disingenuous. Okinawa was one of the bloodiest battles in WW2 fought by the US, if not the bloodiest of WW2. Of the population in Okinawa, both military and civilian, only 1/3 survived. To say that two months after the battle, an estimate that a mainland invasion of Japan would only cost "thousands of lives" is just plain wrong and stupid. American casualties from Okinawa are listed as ~20,000 dead and ~55,000 wounded. To say that the invasion of mainland Japan would only cost "thousands of lives" implies that it would be somehow less costly than Okinawa, where, if anything, it would be far more devastating. Japan had a population of ~71 million in 1939. If the percentage of causalities of Okinawa was extrapolated to all of mainland Japan, which I see no reason not to expect, you would absolutely be looking at tens of millions of dead. From whomever that line came from clearly had no idea of the sense of scale of deaths from Okinawa.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2017
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • This This x 1
  13. FrozenGrip

    FrozenGrip "The Mob"

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    Messages:
    1,544
    Likes Received:
    553
    Just to add, Operation Meetinghouse was pretty deadly, arguably more deadlier than the 2 nukes but like everyone said it was too send a message.
     
  14. nodle

    nodle Budtender

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,804
    Likes Received:
    1,182
    All this talk of bombs made me curious, here's a documentary on the Allied Fear Bombing on Germany.

     
  15. Ordo

    Ordo Lore Judge

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,758
    Likes Received:
    2,139
    More like "here is nazi apologism linked from a nazi channel and a video filled with nazi comments". Gj Nodle
     
  16. Inferous

    Inferous Favourite Son DiploGuard Administrator

    Online
    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    16,935
    Likes Received:
    1,075
    Just looking at that fucking title "exposing the REAL genocide" get the fuck out of here nodle.
     
    • This This x 1
  17. SteakOnSpear

    SteakOnSpear ᛊᛏᛖᚨᚲ ᛟᚾ ᛊᛖᚨᚱ Map Maker

    OFFLINE

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    Messages:
    9,575
    Likes Received:
    2,976
    Japan was ready to surrender yes, but America wanted a unconditional surrender. It makes sense that the bombs had a lesser impact on the surrender.

    I totally agree that Japan surrendered to the US because, Russia would be guaranteed to remove the emperor. US being christian seems like a much safer option for keeping their Emperor.

    I'm sure most historians agree on this.

    Totally relevant video.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  18. ChocolaTea

    ChocolaTea

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    May 1, 2014
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    44
    The necessity of the atomic bombs depends on the premise you wish to present:

    If the U.S.A required total domination of the Asia Pacific region to prevent the presence of Soviet Communist influence then yes. As many of you have pointed out, the Soviets were rushing their army across Manchuria and Korea. The steamrolling Soviet Bear gobbled up much of the region in a short span of time due to sparse Japanese manpower.
    It is also possible that the intention of dropping the bombs saves American lives, but it also gave the benefit of control over the region as well. Whether or not it was the intention of anyone does not change the fact that both effects occur as a result.

    If instead, you wish for just an end to the war and care not about Soviet influence, then the combined army forces of the U.S and U.S.S.R would slowly but surely defeat the Japanese mainland forces. However, the U.S would lose many men and the U.S.S.R would have a foothold in the negotiation tables on the terms of Japanese surrender as a result.

    Seeing it from the American's perspective at the time, there exists on the other side of the world a Communist Russia and a Communist China. Japan was certainly headed for defeat. The United States policy was to limit the influence of Communism and I suspect is the reason why the U.S directly saw the reconstruction of Japan. Else, a weakened Japan may look towards Communism to rebuild. A lot of effort was put into fighting Communism in Vietnam and Korea as well.

    Thus, it depends if you think the Soviets were really an adversary or not. Could the Communists and Capitalists have coexisted?

    - On the point that Japan preferred surrendering to the United States over the U.S.S.R, it is hasty to make any conclusion. Surrendering to either the U.S.S.R or the U.S.A gave no benefit to either way. The Russians may not have forgotten the humiliating defeat in the Russo-Japanese war, and the Americans lost many lives throughout the Pacific theater. Simply the preservation of the Emperor was not guaranteed through either route, and as such both paths are a gamble.
     
  19. Belisarius

    Belisarius

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    359
    iirc The Japanese were holding out hope for the Soviets to intervene and mediate a negotiated peace between Japan and the USA. Once it became evident this would never happen following the Soviet push into Manchuria the Japanese threw in the towel.

    The Atomic bombs were for the most part, irrelevant.

    I do have to ask, why create a straw man and immediately knock it down in the first post OP? Why not just be straightforward and title it after your claim? Something like "The Atomic bombs weren't key to ending WWII, and here's why." Interesting choice to say the least. It comes across as snarky and just another excuse to dick on ol' uncle sam imo.
     
  20. Feanor

    Feanor Member Liaison Officer Site Staff

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    Messages:
    28,385
    Likes Received:
    2,509
    There was no Communist China. The Chinese civil war didn't end for a few more years.
     
Affiliates
Make Me Host  HiveWorkshop  Brigand's Haven  BlizzMod  Gamer's Isle  Union of Strategists