11 ms·

It's totally bonkers that the Japanese leadership didn't surrender after this raid. Or at least after the next ones that showed that the US could do it basicall

It's totally bonkers that the Japanese leadership didn't surrender after this raid. Or at least after the next ones that showed that the US could do it basically at will anywhere in Japan. I just will never understand how they could sit around and watch their citizens burn and continue to fight. Think of how many Japanese lives they could have saved if they'd surrendered in June instead of August.

chrisseaton 5y ago
Did they think at the time that their people would suffer more under occupation than they would trying to continue to fight? (Actual question, not rhetorical.)
- newaccount2021 5y ago
- dairylee 5y ago
  The Japanese Government didn't want an unconditional surrender as it would have meant the Emperor (Who was seen as quasi-divine) would have potentially been tried for war crimes and executed. They didn't care about their citizens, just the Emperor. Fantastic video which explains everything: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCRTgtpC-Go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCRTgtpC-Go
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Happiness utilitarianism is so pervasive today that people forget alternatives even exist, but there are a wide array of value systems. For at least some, the suffering was irrelevant. Many held that it would be better for every Japanese person to die than loose the war.
CPLX 5y ago
If the Japanese had done it to New York City would you have surrendered?
- mc32 5y ago
  I think you're kind of pointing to the London V-II raids. If Germany had had the production, London would have had to surrender. Luckily their initial V-1 bombs were not very accurate and their V-IIs were slow to ramp up, so that bought lots of time. We have more land, so I think we could have dispersed the population to the country to make the bombs or raids less effective. But at some threshold you do have to give up and fight another day.
  - CPLX 5y ago
    I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that England would not have surrendered if every single blade of grass and tree stump on the island had been reduced to smoking ash. Arguable, clearly. But plausible.
    - mc32 5y ago
      If it were up to Churchill, probably but I don't think the military leadership would have followed all the way there. At some point, you have to be pragmatic. Yet, in this case, Germany would be thirsty for revenge (given the name of the V-II rockets), so that makes the calculus more difficult --on the other hand you had a Vichy France, so who knows.
    - BurningFrog 5y ago
      A separate English peace would have made a lot of sense. Hitler had no interest in expanding westward. His plan was a great German empire where the Volga would be what the Mississippi is in the US. If France & Britain had not attacked, Germany would very likely have left them alone. In the east, it was a fight to the death, and both sides knew it. If the Russians surrendered, they faced extinction.
      - pintxo 5y ago
        Yes, Hitler was mainly interested in moving expanding eastward. But he was intelligent enough to see that the (declining but still) empires of France and Britain would not have allowed this to happen. Thus his initial attack westward to neutralize this threat to his eastward expansion plans. It's a tragedy, that Stalin secured this westward move by signing the Hitler-Stalin pact in 1939, basically neutralizing the east while Hitler would sweep the west. We will never know what would have happened if Hitler had adversaries on both fronts from the beginning.
Nabati 5y ago
It's totally bonkers that soldiers are alright with killing hundreds of thousands of people and destroying whole cities without even flinching.
- retrac 5y ago
  You had a 67% chance of being killed on your first tour with British Bomber Command, rising to 85% after two tours. Were the airmen "alright" with that statistic too, when they were forced into a cockpit? There wasn't much of a choice in the matter for the average soldier on the ground (or in the air) on any side in that great conflict. Most of them were conscripts and desertion potentially carried the death penalty even on the Allied side. That loss of individual agency is part of the war's many horrors; whether you were alright with it or not was quite irrelevant. It's worth noting psychiatric casualties for bomber crews, for the Allies at least, were sky-high with about a quarter of those not killed in combat being discharged for mental breakdowns. Whether that rate of breakdown is from the extreme risk, or from sometimes coming back smelling like burning flesh, is up for debate.
  - InTheArena 5y ago
    And then take Japanese soldiers, where that wasn't a 67% change, it was 100% that you would eventually get conscripted into a Banzai charge, or a Kamikazi brigade, or given a bamboo spike, and told to hold the Americans at bay. We really do a disservice when we try to take WWII and put it into a modern relativistic historical analysis. The scope of evil and sacrifice here is completely different from our western conception of War as a video game where kids fly drones and random pixels die.
mc32 5y ago
War can be like a freight train. It's hard to stop on a dime --especially when the population has been completely sucked into the effort through religion (emperor-god) and additional propaganda. Just about all the civilian population was directly or indirectly supporting the war effort. It's hard to over-state how wrapped up in the war effort he whole nation was. It was untenable to just quit. Of course there we some seasoned military figures who knew better, but just like us, when our generals warn against war (Iraq invasion for example) when the wheels are set in motion, there is little stopping it.) Germany as well. The war was over way before Berlin capitulated.
- nradov 5y ago
  The civilian population had no control and their religious beliefs were irrelevant to policy. The emperor and the top military leaders could have just quit at any time. I understand why they didn't want to quit, but they always had that option.
  - mc32 5y ago
    With decades under their belt trouncing and prancing around the East and having their way, marauding, pillaging, raping, burning, invading, etc., it was unthinkable for most in their military leadership (as well as civilians) that they could be defeated on their "home islands". (You know, previous war doctrines and all). It was unfathomable. I do think their religious beliefs were relevant to policy. The US was very cognizant of this when they demanded the unconditional surrender of Japan.
    - livueta 5y ago
      > I do think their religious beliefs were relevant to policy. The US was very cognizant of this when they demanded the unconditional surrender of Japan. That's certainly the Chrysanthemum and the Sword take on it. I'd agree that American conceptions of Japanese religious beliefs influenced American policy. The extent to which emperor-worship was truly inculcated in the population at large is still subject to scholarly debate, but the trend is toward understanding that Japanese internal religious propaganda doesn't necessarily reflect deeply-held cultural beliefs. It's unquestionable that タケヤリで (with bamboo spears) was a thing to an extent and that an invasion of the mainland would have been a clusterfuck, but I personally see it (as described up-thread) as more ascribable to the comprehensive failure of the nation's autocratic elites at holding non-idiotic worldviews, rather than them (or the population at large) being hyper-fanatic State Shintoists.
petermcneeley 5y ago
If I know the history correct Japan actually did get conditional surrender. The USA wanted unconditional surrender which the never got despite dropping 2 atom bombs on cities which were not really military targets.
- trothamel 5y ago
  "We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese armed forces and all armed forces under the Japanese control wherever situated." That's a quote from the Japanese Instrument of Surrender.
  - petermcneeley 5y ago
    Japan wanted to keep the emperor of japan this is why they wouldnt unconditionally surrender. I was under the impression that they got to keep the emperor thus it was not an unconditional surrender.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      They agreed to unconditional surrender and then got to keep the Emperor. Which makes one wonder if the US had actually offered surrender terms that included keeping the Emperor maybe Japan would have surrendered. Instead they just demanded unconditional surrender.
      - ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
        As with almost everything there are countless reasons why Japan didn't surrender earlier. [1] By June of 1945 Japan's leaders did want out of the war, but were still hoping for a surrender that allowed them to keep much of their holdings (I think people often forget how much of East Asia Japan had solidly controlled for almost 10 years at this point). And they were being strung along by the Soviet union who was supposed to mediate peace, yet had their own motives to prolong the war until they could join. And even after dropping 2 nukes, and believing the US had 100 more, it took days more, and some additional attacks, to convince Japan to surrender. And even after all this, there was a serious attempted coup. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#:~:text=The%20surrender%20of%20Imperial%20Japan,War%20II%20to%20a%20close https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#:~:text=T....
InTheArena 5y ago
The Japanese leadership believed (not without reason) that they could make the cost of invading Japan so incredibly catastrophic in American blood that the decadent, racially and culturally inferior United States would not pay it. People forget but the bloodiest days of WW2 where not in the insanely large battles where the Hitler regime was defeated, but rather in the last months when obvious defeat was years earlier for the Nazis - and where where Eastern Europe was devastated between the Germans the Soviets. The flow of blood was unimaginable. I personally would hope that would have been the case that the USA not invade, as the intelligence started to show that the two-stage Americans invasion plans for the Japanese home islands badly underestimated the Japanese. Washington was already concerned about the cost, but we know now that these estimates where off by almost 50%. They still had options, even without the Atomic bombs. That alternative would have been a starvation blockade. Given the complete collapse of the Japanese economy, the complete inability to import food, that blockade would have made what occurred in WWI with Britain blockading Germany, or the earlier famines in Bangladesh, or even the systematic starvation program that the Bolsheviks unleashed in the Ukraine (The Holodomor) look like Child's play. Edit - honestly curious why people are downvoting this?
- vkou 5y ago
  > The Japanese leadership believed (not without reason) that they could make the cost of invading Japan so incredibly catastrophic in American blood that the decadent, racially and culturally inferior United States would not pay it. They also forgot that right on the other side of a small channel was the world's largest army that was willing to pay it. The US has a total of 160,000 dead in the entirety of the Pacific war. That was a week of active fighting on the Eastern front. To their credit, they didn't actually forget, they were simply hoping that the USSR would keep it's word and not break their non-aggression pact. It didn't, though, and overran Japan's continental holdings in a matter of days. Losing Manchuria was huge in bringing Japan to the negotiating table.
  - GartzenDeHaes 5y ago
    Not to mention that the USSR had already taken several of Japan's northern islands, which are still held by Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands_dispute
duxup 5y ago
It seemed to me there was a sort of victory or death kind of dynamic. If you think of defeat like death, then surrendering means you die sooner. Military leadership and civilian suicides in the face of defeat were not uncommon. In the meantime I don't think Japan allowed for many different points of view on the topic and even expressing it might be risky / the same result.
user-the-name 5y ago
- mc32 5y ago
  When you're in the middle of a hard fought war you do not have the certainty afforded by history. Everything is at stake. You may think you're ahead but then you suffer unthinkable losses (the battle of the bulge, for example --for both sides and the Korean war). With large scale wars where both sides both have a chance at winning, it's not over till it's over. You have no idea what will happen you cannot afford to say, "I think we'll win, let's pull back". Your fleet can be sunk, your ally can fall unpredictably (leadership death), etc. You also have to remember, the Axis Japanese were extremely brutal in war. The allies could not afford to think, "maybe they'll turn nice".
- DiffEq 5y ago
  This is a good questions and deserves an answer. The decision to murder one hundred thousand human beings was made not by the leadership of the United States but by the Japanese Imperial command when they decided to start and continue the war. So the blood of these people is on the hands of the Japanese Imperial Command and none else. This is also the case when a murderer is put to death for their crime. The murderer is responsible for the person he killed and his own death; the state who put him to death is not responsible for his murder.
  - user-the-name 5y ago
    Absolutely not. Every person involved made a choice, of their own free will. You do not get to absolve the ones you like of responsibility and instead put it all on those who you do not. Choices were made. They had consequences.
    - DiffEq 5y ago
      Are you saying that U.S. leadership is responsible for the murders of those that were killed in the strategic bombing of Japan? If you are - then you are wrong.
eschulz 5y ago
You're right since this not only killed many thousands but demonstrated that the US was completely capable in destroying any Japanese city at their whim. Sure rearming and maintaining aircraft can take days, but at this point the Japanese military played no part in defending their cities, and it was just all up to US decision making whether to continue to quick destruction of Japanese municipalities. I think the saga of the Japanese leadership considering surrender is fascinating. Obviously everything will be destroyed pretty soon without capitulation, but it's clear that the leadership had a difficult time admitting that their decades of confidence in the Japanese military's destiny were wrong.
1270018080 5y ago
A quote from Mitsuo Fuchida, a Pearl Harbor attack pilot: "You did the right thing. You know the Japanese attitude at that time, how fanatic they were, they'd die for the Emperor ... Every man, woman, and child would have resisted that invasion with sticks and stones if necessary ... Can you imagine what a slaughter it would be to invade Japan? It would have been terrible. The Japanese people know more about that than the American public will ever know."
- fatbird 5y ago
  At the time the bombs were dropped in August 1945, there were also 900,000 veteran Japanese soldiers on the Home Islands. Even if the civilians didn't pick up sticks and stones, the Japanese death toll would almost certainly include that number.
fatbird 5y ago
Japan was run by the Emperor and a six person cabinet; the military held half the cabinet seats. The Emperor didn't rule the cabinet, and thus the country; the group governed by internal consensus. Even after the atomic bombs were dropped, the military half of the cabinet would not accept unconditional surrender; the Emperor and civilian half would have accepted surrender much earlier, but feared the military would simply seize control, as had happened many times before in Japanese history. And even after the Emperor forced the decision in cabinet to accept surrender, there was an attempted coup by parts of the military. Japanese obstinacy was driven mainly by a kind of hybrid fascist/bushido doctrine that dominated the Japanese military starting in the 20s.
bonsoir 5y ago
The US was asking for surrendering without conditions. That was the part that was debated by Japanese internaly, it’s all documented. Remember, their Emperor was considered to be a God. Put yourself in their shoe, what would be consequences for the population to have the US potentially trial and give death penalty to their Emperor ? Would it still be Japan? (keep in mind, people were brainwashed). In the end, even the US decided that keeping the Emperor in place was for the best, however the Japanese had no way to know beforehand, because the US wouldn’t give guarentee.
- throwthere 5y ago
  Are you sure? I thought the US repeatedly called for unconditional surrender of the military, not total surrender?
maxk42 5y ago
What's worse is they didn't surrender after Hiroshima was destroyed. They reasoned that the US military probably only had a few of these weapons, and therefore losing a few cities was considered acceptable losses. The leadership of Japan during this time was truly reprehensible: Willing to sacrifice millions of their own citizens to continue their failing war of aggression.

chrisseaton 5y ago

Did they think at the time that their people would suffer more under occupation than they would trying to continue to fight? (Actual question, not rhetorical.)

newaccount2021 5y ago
dairylee 5y ago
The Japanese Government didn't want an unconditional surrender as it would have meant the Emperor (Who was seen as quasi-divine) would have potentially been tried for war crimes and executed. They didn't care about their citizens, just the Emperor. Fantastic video which explains everything: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCRTgtpC-Go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCRTgtpC-Go
s1artibartfast 5y ago
Happiness utilitarianism is so pervasive today that people forget alternatives even exist, but there are a wide array of value systems. For at least some, the suffering was irrelevant. Many held that it would be better for every Japanese person to die than loose the war.

CPLX 5y ago

If the Japanese had done it to New York City would you have surrendered?

mc32 5y ago
I think you're kind of pointing to the London V-II raids. If Germany had had the production, London would have had to surrender. Luckily their initial V-1 bombs were not very accurate and their V-IIs were slow to ramp up, so that bought lots of time. We have more land, so I think we could have dispersed the population to the country to make the bombs or raids less effective. But at some threshold you do have to give up and fight another day.
- CPLX 5y ago
  I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that England would not have surrendered if every single blade of grass and tree stump on the island had been reduced to smoking ash. Arguable, clearly. But plausible.
  - mc32 5y ago
    If it were up to Churchill, probably but I don't think the military leadership would have followed all the way there. At some point, you have to be pragmatic. Yet, in this case, Germany would be thirsty for revenge (given the name of the V-II rockets), so that makes the calculus more difficult --on the other hand you had a Vichy France, so who knows.
  - BurningFrog 5y ago
    A separate English peace would have made a lot of sense. Hitler had no interest in expanding westward. His plan was a great German empire where the Volga would be what the Mississippi is in the US. If France & Britain had not attacked, Germany would very likely have left them alone. In the east, it was a fight to the death, and both sides knew it. If the Russians surrendered, they faced extinction.
    - pintxo 5y ago
      Yes, Hitler was mainly interested in moving expanding eastward. But he was intelligent enough to see that the (declining but still) empires of France and Britain would not have allowed this to happen. Thus his initial attack westward to neutralize this threat to his eastward expansion plans. It's a tragedy, that Stalin secured this westward move by signing the Hitler-Stalin pact in 1939, basically neutralizing the east while Hitler would sweep the west. We will never know what would have happened if Hitler had adversaries on both fronts from the beginning.

Nabati 5y ago

It's totally bonkers that soldiers are alright with killing hundreds of thousands of people and destroying whole cities without even flinching.

retrac 5y ago
You had a 67% chance of being killed on your first tour with British Bomber Command, rising to 85% after two tours. Were the airmen "alright" with that statistic too, when they were forced into a cockpit? There wasn't much of a choice in the matter for the average soldier on the ground (or in the air) on any side in that great conflict. Most of them were conscripts and desertion potentially carried the death penalty even on the Allied side. That loss of individual agency is part of the war's many horrors; whether you were alright with it or not was quite irrelevant. It's worth noting psychiatric casualties for bomber crews, for the Allies at least, were sky-high with about a quarter of those not killed in combat being discharged for mental breakdowns. Whether that rate of breakdown is from the extreme risk, or from sometimes coming back smelling like burning flesh, is up for debate.
- InTheArena 5y ago
  And then take Japanese soldiers, where that wasn't a 67% change, it was 100% that you would eventually get conscripted into a Banzai charge, or a Kamikazi brigade, or given a bamboo spike, and told to hold the Americans at bay. We really do a disservice when we try to take WWII and put it into a modern relativistic historical analysis. The scope of evil and sacrifice here is completely different from our western conception of War as a video game where kids fly drones and random pixels die.

mc32 5y ago

War can be like a freight train. It's hard to stop on a dime --especially when the population has been completely sucked into the effort through religion (emperor-god) and additional propaganda. Just about all the civilian population was directly or indirectly supporting the war effort. It's hard to over-state how wrapped up in the war effort he whole nation was. It was untenable to just quit. Of course there we some seasoned military figures who knew better, but just like us, when our generals warn against war (Iraq invasion for example) when the wheels are set in motion, there is little stopping it.) Germany as well. The war was over way before Berlin capitulated.

nradov 5y ago
The civilian population had no control and their religious beliefs were irrelevant to policy. The emperor and the top military leaders could have just quit at any time. I understand why they didn't want to quit, but they always had that option.
- mc32 5y ago
  With decades under their belt trouncing and prancing around the East and having their way, marauding, pillaging, raping, burning, invading, etc., it was unthinkable for most in their military leadership (as well as civilians) that they could be defeated on their "home islands". (You know, previous war doctrines and all). It was unfathomable. I do think their religious beliefs were relevant to policy. The US was very cognizant of this when they demanded the unconditional surrender of Japan.
  - livueta 5y ago
    > I do think their religious beliefs were relevant to policy. The US was very cognizant of this when they demanded the unconditional surrender of Japan. That's certainly the Chrysanthemum and the Sword take on it. I'd agree that American conceptions of Japanese religious beliefs influenced American policy. The extent to which emperor-worship was truly inculcated in the population at large is still subject to scholarly debate, but the trend is toward understanding that Japanese internal religious propaganda doesn't necessarily reflect deeply-held cultural beliefs. It's unquestionable that タケヤリで (with bamboo spears) was a thing to an extent and that an invasion of the mainland would have been a clusterfuck, but I personally see it (as described up-thread) as more ascribable to the comprehensive failure of the nation's autocratic elites at holding non-idiotic worldviews, rather than them (or the population at large) being hyper-fanatic State Shintoists.

petermcneeley 5y ago

If I know the history correct Japan actually did get conditional surrender. The USA wanted unconditional surrender which the never got despite dropping 2 atom bombs on cities which were not really military targets.

trothamel 5y ago
"We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese armed forces and all armed forces under the Japanese control wherever situated." That's a quote from the Japanese Instrument of Surrender.
- petermcneeley 5y ago
  Japan wanted to keep the emperor of japan this is why they wouldnt unconditionally surrender. I was under the impression that they got to keep the emperor thus it was not an unconditional surrender.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    They agreed to unconditional surrender and then got to keep the Emperor. Which makes one wonder if the US had actually offered surrender terms that included keeping the Emperor maybe Japan would have surrendered. Instead they just demanded unconditional surrender.
    - ApolloFortyNine 5y ago
      As with almost everything there are countless reasons why Japan didn't surrender earlier. [1] By June of 1945 Japan's leaders did want out of the war, but were still hoping for a surrender that allowed them to keep much of their holdings (I think people often forget how much of East Asia Japan had solidly controlled for almost 10 years at this point). And they were being strung along by the Soviet union who was supposed to mediate peace, yet had their own motives to prolong the war until they could join. And even after dropping 2 nukes, and believing the US had 100 more, it took days more, and some additional attacks, to convince Japan to surrender. And even after all this, there was a serious attempted coup. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#:~:text=The%20surrender%20of%20Imperial%20Japan,War%20II%20to%20a%20close https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#:~:text=T....

InTheArena 5y ago

The Japanese leadership believed (not without reason) that they could make the cost of invading Japan so incredibly catastrophic in American blood that the decadent, racially and culturally inferior United States would not pay it. People forget but the bloodiest days of WW2 where not in the insanely large battles where the Hitler regime was defeated, but rather in the last months when obvious defeat was years earlier for the Nazis - and where where Eastern Europe was devastated between the Germans the Soviets. The flow of blood was unimaginable. I personally would hope that would have been the case that the USA not invade, as the intelligence started to show that the two-stage Americans invasion plans for the Japanese home islands badly underestimated the Japanese. Washington was already concerned about the cost, but we know now that these estimates where off by almost 50%. They still had options, even without the Atomic bombs. That alternative would have been a starvation blockade. Given the complete collapse of the Japanese economy, the complete inability to import food, that blockade would have made what occurred in WWI with Britain blockading Germany, or the earlier famines in Bangladesh, or even the systematic starvation program that the Bolsheviks unleashed in the Ukraine (The Holodomor) look like Child's play. Edit - honestly curious why people are downvoting this?

vkou 5y ago
> The Japanese leadership believed (not without reason) that they could make the cost of invading Japan so incredibly catastrophic in American blood that the decadent, racially and culturally inferior United States would not pay it. They also forgot that right on the other side of a small channel was the world's largest army that was willing to pay it. The US has a total of 160,000 dead in the entirety of the Pacific war. That was a week of active fighting on the Eastern front. To their credit, they didn't actually forget, they were simply hoping that the USSR would keep it's word and not break their non-aggression pact. It didn't, though, and overran Japan's continental holdings in a matter of days. Losing Manchuria was huge in bringing Japan to the negotiating table.
- GartzenDeHaes 5y ago
  Not to mention that the USSR had already taken several of Japan's northern islands, which are still held by Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands_dispute

duxup 5y ago

It seemed to me there was a sort of victory or death kind of dynamic. If you think of defeat like death, then surrendering means you die sooner. Military leadership and civilian suicides in the face of defeat were not uncommon. In the meantime I don't think Japan allowed for many different points of view on the topic and even expressing it might be risky / the same result.

user-the-name 5y ago

mc32 5y ago
When you're in the middle of a hard fought war you do not have the certainty afforded by history. Everything is at stake. You may think you're ahead but then you suffer unthinkable losses (the battle of the bulge, for example --for both sides and the Korean war). With large scale wars where both sides both have a chance at winning, it's not over till it's over. You have no idea what will happen you cannot afford to say, "I think we'll win, let's pull back". Your fleet can be sunk, your ally can fall unpredictably (leadership death), etc. You also have to remember, the Axis Japanese were extremely brutal in war. The allies could not afford to think, "maybe they'll turn nice".
DiffEq 5y ago
This is a good questions and deserves an answer. The decision to murder one hundred thousand human beings was made not by the leadership of the United States but by the Japanese Imperial command when they decided to start and continue the war. So the blood of these people is on the hands of the Japanese Imperial Command and none else. This is also the case when a murderer is put to death for their crime. The murderer is responsible for the person he killed and his own death; the state who put him to death is not responsible for his murder.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  Absolutely not. Every person involved made a choice, of their own free will. You do not get to absolve the ones you like of responsibility and instead put it all on those who you do not. Choices were made. They had consequences.
  - DiffEq 5y ago
    Are you saying that U.S. leadership is responsible for the murders of those that were killed in the strategic bombing of Japan? If you are - then you are wrong.

eschulz 5y ago

You're right since this not only killed many thousands but demonstrated that the US was completely capable in destroying any Japanese city at their whim. Sure rearming and maintaining aircraft can take days, but at this point the Japanese military played no part in defending their cities, and it was just all up to US decision making whether to continue to quick destruction of Japanese municipalities. I think the saga of the Japanese leadership considering surrender is fascinating. Obviously everything will be destroyed pretty soon without capitulation, but it's clear that the leadership had a difficult time admitting that their decades of confidence in the Japanese military's destiny were wrong.

1270018080 5y ago

A quote from Mitsuo Fuchida, a Pearl Harbor attack pilot: "You did the right thing. You know the Japanese attitude at that time, how fanatic they were, they'd die for the Emperor ... Every man, woman, and child would have resisted that invasion with sticks and stones if necessary ... Can you imagine what a slaughter it would be to invade Japan? It would have been terrible. The Japanese people know more about that than the American public will ever know."

fatbird 5y ago
At the time the bombs were dropped in August 1945, there were also 900,000 veteran Japanese soldiers on the Home Islands. Even if the civilians didn't pick up sticks and stones, the Japanese death toll would almost certainly include that number.

fatbird 5y ago

Japan was run by the Emperor and a six person cabinet; the military held half the cabinet seats. The Emperor didn't rule the cabinet, and thus the country; the group governed by internal consensus. Even after the atomic bombs were dropped, the military half of the cabinet would not accept unconditional surrender; the Emperor and civilian half would have accepted surrender much earlier, but feared the military would simply seize control, as had happened many times before in Japanese history. And even after the Emperor forced the decision in cabinet to accept surrender, there was an attempted coup by parts of the military. Japanese obstinacy was driven mainly by a kind of hybrid fascist/bushido doctrine that dominated the Japanese military starting in the 20s.

bonsoir 5y ago

The US was asking for surrendering without conditions. That was the part that was debated by Japanese internaly, it’s all documented. Remember, their Emperor was considered to be a God. Put yourself in their shoe, what would be consequences for the population to have the US potentially trial and give death penalty to their Emperor ? Would it still be Japan? (keep in mind, people were brainwashed). In the end, even the US decided that keeping the Emperor in place was for the best, however the Japanese had no way to know beforehand, because the US wouldn’t give guarentee.

throwthere 5y ago
Are you sure? I thought the US repeatedly called for unconditional surrender of the military, not total surrender?

maxk42 5y ago

What's worse is they didn't surrender after Hiroshima was destroyed. They reasoned that the US military probably only had a few of these weapons, and therefore losing a few cities was considered acceptable losses. The leadership of Japan during this time was truly reprehensible: Willing to sacrifice millions of their own citizens to continue their failing war of aggression.