5 ms·

Regardless of the number, there was no need to invade Japan. It was already defeated, and offering to surrender, before the USSR joined the fight. Totally sur

Regardless of the number, there was no need to invade Japan. It was already defeated, and offering to surrender, before the USSR joined the fight. Totally surrounded/blockaded, no allies left in the world, bombed at will, what else could it do but accept defeat?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
manfredo 6y ago
Offering to surrender conditionally. Specifically, on the condition that it keep Korea and Taiwan (and maybe Manchuria, too), and that it's military government remain largely unchanged. This is was not a surrender that was acceptable to the Allies. This thread is being rate limited, reply in edit: Denying Korea and Taiwan is easier said than done. Remember that Japan essentially won the continental war against China. It's best equipped and most experienced troops are there. Japan is also in an optimal position to control ocean access to Korea. Any boats have to travel through the East China Sea, or sea of Japan to reach Korea. Both of which are in range of the thousands of kamikaze planes built for the purpose of destroying vessels that sail close to Japan. At this point, you're talking about conducting an invasion of a landmass even larger than the Japanese home islands, against better troops, and with more difficult naval access. It would undoubtedly incur substantially more losses than the 100 to 200 thousand inflicted by the atomic bombings. And to what end? A hostile military government would still be in power back in Japan.
- goatlover 6y ago
  Even so, doesn't mean you have to do a land invasion or drop atomic bombs. You can just deny Korea and Taiwan and leave Japanese mainland be.
- valuearb 6y ago
  Not invading or dropping nukes would mean the deaths of millions. The Japanese would still fight, Japanese and Allied planes would still get shot down and warships sunk. Japanese Civilians would still be dying at a high rate, from bombings, starvation, lack of medical supplies, etc. Before these bombs were dropped, tens of thousands were dying on days with no large military operations.
dreamcompiler 6y ago
> [Japan was] offering to surrender, before the USSR joined the fight. This is blatantly false. Even after two atomic bombs had fallen on Japan, their military leaders -- and indeed most of their population -- remained committed to fight on until the nation of Japan ceased to exist. It was only the intervention of the emperor himself (who never gets involved in matters of war) that convinced the military and the people to surrender after the bombs were dropped.
- pmachinery 6y ago
  > This is blatantly false. No, it's a blatant historical fact, known to absolutely everybody with even the remotest interest and knowledge of this subject. Edit: mindlessly downvoting posts about well-known established facts is pretty fucking stupid, as well as bizarre.
refurb 6y ago
what else could it do but accept defeat? The counter argument for that is it took two atomic bombs for Japan to concede. And after the 2nd one it was 3 days before they gave up. Could a blockade have worked? Maybe. But how long would it have taken? Would we all just sat and watched while hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians starved to death over a few years?
- KMag 6y ago
  Not only did it take two atomic bombs, but there was still an attempted coup to continue the war after the second bomb was drooped. [0] On top of that, the tendency for Japanese troops to feign surrender as cover for suicide attacks, and the particulars of the attack on Pearl Harbour, plus some racism all added to a combination of justified and unjustified mistrust of the Japanese military and the chances they would adhere to terms of surrender without having an occupation force in the home islands. I hope I wouldn't have dropped the bomb on a populated city if I were in Truman's shoes, but without the benefit of hindsight, I'm not positive I would have decided differently. On a side note, Japan is a wonderful country, particularly the countryside. My wife lived there for 13 months while we were dating, and I have many fond memories of trips around Japan with her. Lost wallets more common than not are returned to the police with money still inside. One of my colleagues once saw a man in a business suit sleeping on a park bench one morning, obviously drunk, and someone had placed the man's dropped phone and wallet on his chest. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

manfredo 6y ago

Offering to surrender conditionally. Specifically, on the condition that it keep Korea and Taiwan (and maybe Manchuria, too), and that it's military government remain largely unchanged. This is was not a surrender that was acceptable to the Allies. This thread is being rate limited, reply in edit: Denying Korea and Taiwan is easier said than done. Remember that Japan essentially won the continental war against China. It's best equipped and most experienced troops are there. Japan is also in an optimal position to control ocean access to Korea. Any boats have to travel through the East China Sea, or sea of Japan to reach Korea. Both of which are in range of the thousands of kamikaze planes built for the purpose of destroying vessels that sail close to Japan. At this point, you're talking about conducting an invasion of a landmass even larger than the Japanese home islands, against better troops, and with more difficult naval access. It would undoubtedly incur substantially more losses than the 100 to 200 thousand inflicted by the atomic bombings. And to what end? A hostile military government would still be in power back in Japan.

goatlover 6y ago
Even so, doesn't mean you have to do a land invasion or drop atomic bombs. You can just deny Korea and Taiwan and leave Japanese mainland be.
valuearb 6y ago
Not invading or dropping nukes would mean the deaths of millions. The Japanese would still fight, Japanese and Allied planes would still get shot down and warships sunk. Japanese Civilians would still be dying at a high rate, from bombings, starvation, lack of medical supplies, etc. Before these bombs were dropped, tens of thousands were dying on days with no large military operations.

dreamcompiler 6y ago

> [Japan was] offering to surrender, before the USSR joined the fight. This is blatantly false. Even after two atomic bombs had fallen on Japan, their military leaders -- and indeed most of their population -- remained committed to fight on until the nation of Japan ceased to exist. It was only the intervention of the emperor himself (who never gets involved in matters of war) that convinced the military and the people to surrender after the bombs were dropped.

pmachinery 6y ago
> This is blatantly false. No, it's a blatant historical fact, known to absolutely everybody with even the remotest interest and knowledge of this subject. Edit: mindlessly downvoting posts about well-known established facts is pretty fucking stupid, as well as bizarre.

refurb 6y ago

what else could it do but accept defeat? The counter argument for that is it took two atomic bombs for Japan to concede. And after the 2nd one it was 3 days before they gave up. Could a blockade have worked? Maybe. But how long would it have taken? Would we all just sat and watched while hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians starved to death over a few years?

KMag 6y ago
Not only did it take two atomic bombs, but there was still an attempted coup to continue the war after the second bomb was drooped. [0] On top of that, the tendency for Japanese troops to feign surrender as cover for suicide attacks, and the particulars of the attack on Pearl Harbour, plus some racism all added to a combination of justified and unjustified mistrust of the Japanese military and the chances they would adhere to terms of surrender without having an occupation force in the home islands. I hope I wouldn't have dropped the bomb on a populated city if I were in Truman's shoes, but without the benefit of hindsight, I'm not positive I would have decided differently. On a side note, Japan is a wonderful country, particularly the countryside. My wife lived there for 13 months while we were dating, and I have many fond memories of trips around Japan with her. Lost wallets more common than not are returned to the police with money still inside. One of my colleagues once saw a man in a business suit sleeping on a park bench one morning, obviously drunk, and someone had placed the man's dropped phone and wallet on his chest. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident