3 ms·

Different countries certainly have different biases, but that does not mean that rational analysis of the problem is not possible. Would Japan surrender on Augu

Different countries certainly have different biases, but that does not mean that rational analysis of the problem is not possible. Would Japan surrender on August 15 if the bombs were not dropped? Could the US drop the first bomb on the Tokyo Bay instead? etc. PS: I am European.

throwanem 5y ago
> Could the US drop the first bomb on the Tokyo Bay instead? Sure, but then the discussion would be around the morality of demolishing the capital of Japan with a manmade tsunami, so I guess I'm not sure I see what that would help?
the_af 5y ago
Those are valid questions. I think Japan was on the verge of surrender anyway, just some careful wording and additional pressure from the Soviet Union's military might would have done it. If this was truly about saving lives, like the traditional American narrative goes, then surely some concessions that allowed their emperor to save face would have been warranted. If, on the contrary, testing the bomb on civilian populations and infrastructure was the priority, it stands to reason imposing harder conditions on surrender would be the course of action.
- xeromal 5y ago
  Do you think the Soviet Union would've just stopped at pressure or do you think they would've steamrolled through Japan just like they did in Germany?
  - the_af 5y ago
    I honestly don't know. Maybe they would have stopped, maybe they would have steamrolled it. It's an alternative to nuking Japan, though, and that's my point.
    - xeromal 5y ago
      Oh for sure, I just don't think it's as certain as some people make it out to be. It was a calculated risk just like dropping the bombs.
  - InTheArena 5y ago
    No - they would not have. In fact, the Soviet Union demanded a piece of the action with a "Soviet Zone" in Japan, just as it had with Berlin and Germany. Truman said no.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  > I think Japan was on the verge of surrender anyway What's your evidence for this. From what we can tell from the knowledge of the people that actually matter in Japan, they were not that close to surrender. Even if you had gone away from Unconditional surrender they were not close to a majority. Even after 2 nuclear bombs, the peace party didn't have a majority, it required the emperor taking a direct political role against the war party to manage getting negotiations. Soviets were just mopping up in Northern Asia, they were no thread to a Homeland of Japan. At best Soviets was a hope held up by some in the War Party, that if somehow they would flip against the US with them. > If this was truly about saving lives, like the traditional American narrative goes It was about saving AMERICAN lives back then. And it did.
  - the_af 5y ago
    > It was about saving AMERICAN lives back then. And it did. Some, in this very comments section, have argued it saved Japanese lives. I certainly have heard this argued elsewhere, too. If it was just about American lives, ok, maybe. Sounds better than an invasion of mainland Japan, sure. Maybe there were even better alternatives. An hypothetical weapon which could simply evaporate all of Japan with all the people inside would also have saved American lives, but it doesn't seem so good, does it? The measure of "saving American lives" is a tricky one, and not every option is justified.
    - panick21_ 5y ago
      I agree that people in the comments make that argument. And I think its likely correct. But it certainty was not a justification made back then. I don't think anybody argued people back then were considering that. > Maybe there were even better alternatives. If you disagree with the strategy followed, your argument would be more powerful if you had an alternative strategy that would have been more human. I am very open to alternative strategies. I have fought about it a lot, but I don't really see it. > An hypothetical weapon which could simply evaporate all of Japan with all the people inside would also have saved American lives, but it doesn't seem so good, does it? Japan had 77 million people around there. If such a weapon existed. How many million Americans would you sacrifice in order not to use that weapon? Would you for example kill everybody in New York even if 10-20 million would die anyway? What is the calculation you would actually make if you were in the position. How many American 20 something would you sacrifice per Japanese civilian. And how do you measure Japanese victims in China, Korea and other places that were suffering many causalities with every additional day of the war.
- ThrowawayR2 5y ago
  > "that allowed their emperor to save face would have been warranted It would have infuriated the Chinese and other Asian allies of the Allied powers. Granted, they might not have immediately been able to do anything about it but, as later wars and economic growth in the region showed, they were far from impotent and the Allies had to look toward the post-war future.
  - the_af 5y ago
    I doubt the emperor himself would have infuriated the Chinese, but regardless, we are no longer discussing saving lives, are we? So it wasn't about saving lives, is that what we are saying?
- InTheArena 5y ago
  The narrative that Japan was about to surrender is a nice story, but has no factual basis. The entire Japanese political structure was where the Japanese political structure had been since 1935. A all powerful military junta ruled, with lip service given to a emperor. The emperor sent out feelers for peace, but the military junta (which could and would dissolve the government if anything they did not approve of was adopted) would not stand for it. There's been some effort to recast the official Japanese response to the Potsdam declaring (黙殺) as ignoring instead of "be silent with contempt" - but the modern historical view was that Japan had used 黙殺 in the context that it was intended, and intended to ignore any further calls for surrender. In terms of unconditional surrender - the Allies had agreed on that standard because of the end of World War 1. The conditional nature of the end of that war led to the "stabbed in the back" myth that Hitler rode to power
  - ejb999 5y ago
    >>The narrative that Japan was about to surrender is a nice story, but has no factual basis. I agree, if they were 'about to surrender' they would have surrendered after the first atomic bomb, but they didn't, and I believe they only surrendered after the second, because they assumed there would be a 3rd and 4th etc Look at how many people that were killed on Okinawa - which wasn't even the Japanese homeland - does anyone really believe that the Japanese wouldn't have rallied every man, woman and child to defend their homeland once Americans started a ground invasion? I believe lives were saved.
- nekcihc 5y ago
  >>I think Japan was on the verge of surrender anyway, just some careful wording and additional pressure from the Soviet Union's military might would have done it. It can not be perceived as a sane argument, after Allies had to deal with Germans in Europe.

throwanem 5y ago

> Could the US drop the first bomb on the Tokyo Bay instead? Sure, but then the discussion would be around the morality of demolishing the capital of Japan with a manmade tsunami, so I guess I'm not sure I see what that would help?

the_af 5y ago

Those are valid questions. I think Japan was on the verge of surrender anyway, just some careful wording and additional pressure from the Soviet Union's military might would have done it. If this was truly about saving lives, like the traditional American narrative goes, then surely some concessions that allowed their emperor to save face would have been warranted. If, on the contrary, testing the bomb on civilian populations and infrastructure was the priority, it stands to reason imposing harder conditions on surrender would be the course of action.

xeromal 5y ago
Do you think the Soviet Union would've just stopped at pressure or do you think they would've steamrolled through Japan just like they did in Germany?
- the_af 5y ago
  I honestly don't know. Maybe they would have stopped, maybe they would have steamrolled it. It's an alternative to nuking Japan, though, and that's my point.
  - xeromal 5y ago
    Oh for sure, I just don't think it's as certain as some people make it out to be. It was a calculated risk just like dropping the bombs.
- InTheArena 5y ago
  No - they would not have. In fact, the Soviet Union demanded a piece of the action with a "Soviet Zone" in Japan, just as it had with Berlin and Germany. Truman said no.
panick21_ 5y ago
> I think Japan was on the verge of surrender anyway What's your evidence for this. From what we can tell from the knowledge of the people that actually matter in Japan, they were not that close to surrender. Even if you had gone away from Unconditional surrender they were not close to a majority. Even after 2 nuclear bombs, the peace party didn't have a majority, it required the emperor taking a direct political role against the war party to manage getting negotiations. Soviets were just mopping up in Northern Asia, they were no thread to a Homeland of Japan. At best Soviets was a hope held up by some in the War Party, that if somehow they would flip against the US with them. > If this was truly about saving lives, like the traditional American narrative goes It was about saving AMERICAN lives back then. And it did.
- the_af 5y ago
  > It was about saving AMERICAN lives back then. And it did. Some, in this very comments section, have argued it saved Japanese lives. I certainly have heard this argued elsewhere, too. If it was just about American lives, ok, maybe. Sounds better than an invasion of mainland Japan, sure. Maybe there were even better alternatives. An hypothetical weapon which could simply evaporate all of Japan with all the people inside would also have saved American lives, but it doesn't seem so good, does it? The measure of "saving American lives" is a tricky one, and not every option is justified.
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    I agree that people in the comments make that argument. And I think its likely correct. But it certainty was not a justification made back then. I don't think anybody argued people back then were considering that. > Maybe there were even better alternatives. If you disagree with the strategy followed, your argument would be more powerful if you had an alternative strategy that would have been more human. I am very open to alternative strategies. I have fought about it a lot, but I don't really see it. > An hypothetical weapon which could simply evaporate all of Japan with all the people inside would also have saved American lives, but it doesn't seem so good, does it? Japan had 77 million people around there. If such a weapon existed. How many million Americans would you sacrifice in order not to use that weapon? Would you for example kill everybody in New York even if 10-20 million would die anyway? What is the calculation you would actually make if you were in the position. How many American 20 something would you sacrifice per Japanese civilian. And how do you measure Japanese victims in China, Korea and other places that were suffering many causalities with every additional day of the war.
ThrowawayR2 5y ago
> "that allowed their emperor to save face would have been warranted It would have infuriated the Chinese and other Asian allies of the Allied powers. Granted, they might not have immediately been able to do anything about it but, as later wars and economic growth in the region showed, they were far from impotent and the Allies had to look toward the post-war future.
- the_af 5y ago
  I doubt the emperor himself would have infuriated the Chinese, but regardless, we are no longer discussing saving lives, are we? So it wasn't about saving lives, is that what we are saying?
InTheArena 5y ago
The narrative that Japan was about to surrender is a nice story, but has no factual basis. The entire Japanese political structure was where the Japanese political structure had been since 1935. A all powerful military junta ruled, with lip service given to a emperor. The emperor sent out feelers for peace, but the military junta (which could and would dissolve the government if anything they did not approve of was adopted) would not stand for it. There's been some effort to recast the official Japanese response to the Potsdam declaring (黙殺) as ignoring instead of "be silent with contempt" - but the modern historical view was that Japan had used 黙殺 in the context that it was intended, and intended to ignore any further calls for surrender. In terms of unconditional surrender - the Allies had agreed on that standard because of the end of World War 1. The conditional nature of the end of that war led to the "stabbed in the back" myth that Hitler rode to power
- ejb999 5y ago
  >>The narrative that Japan was about to surrender is a nice story, but has no factual basis. I agree, if they were 'about to surrender' they would have surrendered after the first atomic bomb, but they didn't, and I believe they only surrendered after the second, because they assumed there would be a 3rd and 4th etc Look at how many people that were killed on Okinawa - which wasn't even the Japanese homeland - does anyone really believe that the Japanese wouldn't have rallied every man, woman and child to defend their homeland once Americans started a ground invasion? I believe lives were saved.
nekcihc 5y ago
>>I think Japan was on the verge of surrender anyway, just some careful wording and additional pressure from the Soviet Union's military might would have done it. It can not be perceived as a sane argument, after Allies had to deal with Germans in Europe.