5 ms·

> It wasn't to get Japan to surrender, since they were already near defeat anyway I'm not a historian but I've always read that the Japanese government famousl

by Pooge 1y ago

> It wasn't to get Japan to surrender, since they were already near defeat anyway I'm not a historian but I've always read that the Japanese government famously did not intend to surrender despite being cornered. They had some operations scheduled for October 1945—they surrendered 1 month before due to the bombs.

FirmwareBurner 1y ago
I'm also no historian, but find it difficult to believe this when the firebombings on Japan did more damage than the atomic bombs. The US and Soviet Union would have leveled Japan without atomic bombs anyway. So the US history stories puts the success of the end of the war on the atom bombs, but Japan were defeated anyway, atom bombs or not.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- b112 1y ago
  I agree the outcome was clear. And this was a feudal system with an Emperor, and a culture of extreme adherence to culture. As in, Kamikazis because ordered, honour in death, or killing yourself with your own sword. Not really a culture of capitulation. Most of their cities were already firebombed, as you elude to, some more than once, yet there was still no surrender. Without surrender, a country isn't really done. Leave it be, and they'll arm and rebuild, still at war with you. Invade, and your troops die, for a standing army still existed. Japan also had colonies, islands, resources. And of course without surrender, even if you occupy, now you have insurgents. It's hard to view the world through the eyes of even 80 years ago. War weary, endless soldiers lost already, an unsurrendering Japan, and a way to put an end to it...
  - dotancohen 1y ago
    > Without surrender, a country isn't really done. Leave it be, and they'll arm and rebuild, still at war with you. This is pertinent to understanding today's conflicts as well.
    - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
      Of course, after surrender, a country can still arm and rebuild, and again be at war with you...
      - dotancohen 1y ago
        Are you referring to 1920's Germany in particular?
  - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
    And even with the atomic bomb, and Russia's declaration of war, they still had an attempted coup to keep the emperor from surrendering.
- jandrewrogers 1y ago
  Massive scale strategic bombing and nuclear weapons are not substitutable from a military strategy standpoint and everyone would have understood the implications of that. Any similarity is superficial. The massive bombing of Japan was a grinding war of attrition that has well-understood limitations and challenges. Military leaders in Japan were perfectly capable of understanding what those campaigns couldn't do, so it came down to a willingness to accept the losses to maintain strategic optionality, which they clearly were. Most of the limitations of strategic bombing campaigns do not apply to nuclear weapons, which is something the Japanese military leadership also understood, though the scope of capability was uncertain (which also probably helped). If the US switched to nuclear weapons instead of conventional bombing campaigns, which was the risk Japanese military leaders had to consider, it takes most of the strategic optionality off the table at which point there is little to gain by continuing.
- WalterBright 1y ago
  Two history books, "Code-Name Downfall" by Allen and "Downfall" by Frank point out that the Japanese high command was horrified by the effects of the nuclear bombs, cared a great deal about the loss of life, and were highly concerned that the next target would be Tokyo. So they chose to end it. There's a fair amount of detail and references in those books if one wishes to dig into it. (I say they are "history" books as opposed to "activist" books. The latter are not worth reading.) Some material I've seen claimed that the Japanese leadership didn't know it was a nuclear bomb. The Japanese knew immediately it was nuclear bomb, because they had a nuclear bomb development program themselves.
  - themaninthedark 1y ago
    I think the material that claims the Japanese leadership didn't know what atomic bombs were is some revisionist's attempt to paint the actions and decisions of the time in a bad light. Fortunately, the emperor referenced atomic bombs in his surrender speech so it is fairly clear. "Furthermore, the enemy has begun to employ a new and cruel bomb, causing immense and indiscriminate destruction, the extent of which is beyond all estimation." Japan had no idea how many bombs we had and part of the strategy of using them in quick succession was to give the perception that we hod more than we did. It seems like Tokyo was going to be the next target: Truman had ordered a halt to atomic bombings on 10 August, upon receiving news that another bomb would be ready for use against Japan in about a week. He told his cabinet that he could not stand the thought of killing "all those kids". By 14 August, however, Truman remarked "sadly" to the British ambassador that "he now had no alternative but to order an atomic bomb dropped on Tokyo", as some of his military staff had been advocating.
    - WalterBright 1y ago
      > is some revisionist's attempt Yeah, it was in an activist's writings someone was using as a cite to me. Tells for an activist book: 1. hyperbolic language 2. no discussion of alternative explanations 3. mind reading - "surely so-and-so must have understood that..." and "so-and-so's reason must have been (something nefarious)"
- wkat4242 1y ago
  I think there was also the shock effect of this one tiny bomb with that much power. And the Japanese didn't know that America only had those two available. They could have had thousands for all they knew. And this is also something that could strike their leadership. You can build bunkers against conventional bombs but for nuclear that's a different ball game
  - dboreham 1y ago
    They had three and the capacity to make about three per month.
roughly 1y ago
My understanding is that Japan had agreed to surrender under the conditions that they got to keep their emperor, but the US had rejected that looking for an unconditional surrender*. A lot of the research around that time indicates the drivers for dropping the nukes included both sending a message to the Soviets and the overall cost of the Manhattan project (and an unwillingness to let the war end without “recouping” some of that cost). Whether the Japanese surrendered when they did or surrendered a couple months later, though, Japanese surrender was largely expected at that point. One can argue about the increased cost in terms of lives if the bombs weren’t used, but my understanding is that by that time, we’re talking about shortening the war by maybe months, but certainly not years. (*Worth noting that in the final terms, the Japanese did keep their emperor, but the US was demanding an unconditional surrender as a matter of principle.)
- ThrowawayR2 1y ago
  > "Whether the Japanese surrendered when they did or surrendered a couple months later, though, Japanese surrender was largely expected at that point." By whom? In actuality, both the US and Japan were planning for a long campaign on the Japanese home islands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall. The Japanese intended to prolong fighting as much as possible to force the US to abandon the invasion because of mounting costs and casualties. Even the night before the surrender, some among the Japanese military attempted a coup to prevent it and continue the war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident
- InTheArena 1y ago
  Your understanding is incorrect. Even with the atomic bombs and the Soviet entered to the war, the cabinet still split about surrendering. Before that The Japanese had started to talk about a cease-fire, but that cease-fire was expected to include ongoing control of China, Korea, and some of the islands they had taken in the war. In other words it wasn’t a surrender, but rather a let us keep these last little bit bits and maybe we won’t kill you. It was delusional to the extreme. The debate in Washington at this point not if Japan would be invaded or not or would surrender. Operations downfall and Olympus were planned. They were projecting anywhere from hundreds of thousands to 1 million casualties on the US side. No one bothered to do the calculation on the Japanese side, but the Japanese leadership believed that their path of victory was to make it prohibitively expensive in American lives to take the islands and they didn’t care how many Japanese died. You can take a look at the ratios of Japanese dead to American dead on Iwo Jima, the Philippines to get an idea of the bloodbath that that would’ve been. Of course, some Americans were seeing that the Japanese were far stronger on the islands and they anticipated. And we’re pushing for a total naval blockade instead. Japan’s economy and agricultural harvest had already collapsed. A total net naval blockade would’ve killed millions.
Aeolun 1y ago
The Japanese government didn’t have any intent to surrender until the emperor at the time asked/told them to. I’m fairly certain that happened after the bombs. Then they suggested they’d surrender if the poition of the emperor was untouched.
- shakow 1y ago
  Even _after_ the emperor asked to, it was not smooth sailing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident
sbmthakur 1y ago
Didn't the Soviet invasion of Manchuria also boxed them in? Some Historians(Paul Hamn for once) have said that was the primary reason for the surrender.
- bell-cot 1y ago
  Oh, yes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria From the Japanese PoV, imagining that they could hold off the US/UK suddenly ceased to matter. Obviously Japanese armies could not stand against Soviet armies. So - "OMG, who could have imagined the Americans inventing a super-super-duper bomb! I guess we'll have to surrender to them" was a face-saving way to avoid a quick & brutal Soviet conquest & occupation.
  - UncleSlacky 1y ago
    Also, Japan had been hoping that the Soviets would act as a go-between for surrender negotiations with the US, but the Soviet declaration of war on Japan put an end to that possibility.
  - opo 1y ago
    The Soviets could never have done a large invasion of Japan. They had a few ships that the USA had given them as part of Project Hula, but that is nothing compared to what would be needed for a full scale invasion of Japan. They did have plans to possibly attack Hokkaido, but as the wikipedia entry says "Historians have generally considered it unlikely that an invasion of Hokkaido would have succeeded." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Soviet_invasion_of_Hokkaido https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Soviet_invasion_of_Ho... In comparison, the proposed allied invasion was planned to have 42 aircraft carriers, 24 battleships, and 400 destroyers and destroyer escorts. Even that wasn't considered enough: >...Ken Nichols, the District Engineer of the Manhattan Engineer District, wrote that at the beginning of August 1945, "[p]lanning for the invasion of the main Japanese home islands had reached its final stages, and if the landings actually took place, we might supply about fifteen atomic bombs to support the troops." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

by Pooge 1y ago

FirmwareBurner 1y ago

I'm also no historian, but find it difficult to believe this when the firebombings on Japan did more damage than the atomic bombs. The US and Soviet Union would have leveled Japan without atomic bombs anyway. So the US history stories puts the success of the end of the war on the atom bombs, but Japan were defeated anyway, atom bombs or not.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
b112 1y ago
I agree the outcome was clear. And this was a feudal system with an Emperor, and a culture of extreme adherence to culture. As in, Kamikazis because ordered, honour in death, or killing yourself with your own sword. Not really a culture of capitulation. Most of their cities were already firebombed, as you elude to, some more than once, yet there was still no surrender. Without surrender, a country isn't really done. Leave it be, and they'll arm and rebuild, still at war with you. Invade, and your troops die, for a standing army still existed. Japan also had colonies, islands, resources. And of course without surrender, even if you occupy, now you have insurgents. It's hard to view the world through the eyes of even 80 years ago. War weary, endless soldiers lost already, an unsurrendering Japan, and a way to put an end to it...
- dotancohen 1y ago
  > Without surrender, a country isn't really done. Leave it be, and they'll arm and rebuild, still at war with you. This is pertinent to understanding today's conflicts as well.
  - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
    Of course, after surrender, a country can still arm and rebuild, and again be at war with you...
    - dotancohen 1y ago
      Are you referring to 1920's Germany in particular?
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  And even with the atomic bomb, and Russia's declaration of war, they still had an attempted coup to keep the emperor from surrendering.
jandrewrogers 1y ago
Massive scale strategic bombing and nuclear weapons are not substitutable from a military strategy standpoint and everyone would have understood the implications of that. Any similarity is superficial. The massive bombing of Japan was a grinding war of attrition that has well-understood limitations and challenges. Military leaders in Japan were perfectly capable of understanding what those campaigns couldn't do, so it came down to a willingness to accept the losses to maintain strategic optionality, which they clearly were. Most of the limitations of strategic bombing campaigns do not apply to nuclear weapons, which is something the Japanese military leadership also understood, though the scope of capability was uncertain (which also probably helped). If the US switched to nuclear weapons instead of conventional bombing campaigns, which was the risk Japanese military leaders had to consider, it takes most of the strategic optionality off the table at which point there is little to gain by continuing.
WalterBright 1y ago
Two history books, "Code-Name Downfall" by Allen and "Downfall" by Frank point out that the Japanese high command was horrified by the effects of the nuclear bombs, cared a great deal about the loss of life, and were highly concerned that the next target would be Tokyo. So they chose to end it. There's a fair amount of detail and references in those books if one wishes to dig into it. (I say they are "history" books as opposed to "activist" books. The latter are not worth reading.) Some material I've seen claimed that the Japanese leadership didn't know it was a nuclear bomb. The Japanese knew immediately it was nuclear bomb, because they had a nuclear bomb development program themselves.
- themaninthedark 1y ago
  I think the material that claims the Japanese leadership didn't know what atomic bombs were is some revisionist's attempt to paint the actions and decisions of the time in a bad light. Fortunately, the emperor referenced atomic bombs in his surrender speech so it is fairly clear. "Furthermore, the enemy has begun to employ a new and cruel bomb, causing immense and indiscriminate destruction, the extent of which is beyond all estimation." Japan had no idea how many bombs we had and part of the strategy of using them in quick succession was to give the perception that we hod more than we did. It seems like Tokyo was going to be the next target: Truman had ordered a halt to atomic bombings on 10 August, upon receiving news that another bomb would be ready for use against Japan in about a week. He told his cabinet that he could not stand the thought of killing "all those kids". By 14 August, however, Truman remarked "sadly" to the British ambassador that "he now had no alternative but to order an atomic bomb dropped on Tokyo", as some of his military staff had been advocating.
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    > is some revisionist's attempt Yeah, it was in an activist's writings someone was using as a cite to me. Tells for an activist book: 1. hyperbolic language 2. no discussion of alternative explanations 3. mind reading - "surely so-and-so must have understood that..." and "so-and-so's reason must have been (something nefarious)"
wkat4242 1y ago
I think there was also the shock effect of this one tiny bomb with that much power. And the Japanese didn't know that America only had those two available. They could have had thousands for all they knew. And this is also something that could strike their leadership. You can build bunkers against conventional bombs but for nuclear that's a different ball game
- dboreham 1y ago
  They had three and the capacity to make about three per month.

roughly 1y ago

My understanding is that Japan had agreed to surrender under the conditions that they got to keep their emperor, but the US had rejected that looking for an unconditional surrender*. A lot of the research around that time indicates the drivers for dropping the nukes included both sending a message to the Soviets and the overall cost of the Manhattan project (and an unwillingness to let the war end without “recouping” some of that cost). Whether the Japanese surrendered when they did or surrendered a couple months later, though, Japanese surrender was largely expected at that point. One can argue about the increased cost in terms of lives if the bombs weren’t used, but my understanding is that by that time, we’re talking about shortening the war by maybe months, but certainly not years. (*Worth noting that in the final terms, the Japanese did keep their emperor, but the US was demanding an unconditional surrender as a matter of principle.)

ThrowawayR2 1y ago
> "Whether the Japanese surrendered when they did or surrendered a couple months later, though, Japanese surrender was largely expected at that point." By whom? In actuality, both the US and Japan were planning for a long campaign on the Japanese home islands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall. The Japanese intended to prolong fighting as much as possible to force the US to abandon the invasion because of mounting costs and casualties. Even the night before the surrender, some among the Japanese military attempted a coup to prevent it and continue the war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident
InTheArena 1y ago
Your understanding is incorrect. Even with the atomic bombs and the Soviet entered to the war, the cabinet still split about surrendering. Before that The Japanese had started to talk about a cease-fire, but that cease-fire was expected to include ongoing control of China, Korea, and some of the islands they had taken in the war. In other words it wasn’t a surrender, but rather a let us keep these last little bit bits and maybe we won’t kill you. It was delusional to the extreme. The debate in Washington at this point not if Japan would be invaded or not or would surrender. Operations downfall and Olympus were planned. They were projecting anywhere from hundreds of thousands to 1 million casualties on the US side. No one bothered to do the calculation on the Japanese side, but the Japanese leadership believed that their path of victory was to make it prohibitively expensive in American lives to take the islands and they didn’t care how many Japanese died. You can take a look at the ratios of Japanese dead to American dead on Iwo Jima, the Philippines to get an idea of the bloodbath that that would’ve been. Of course, some Americans were seeing that the Japanese were far stronger on the islands and they anticipated. And we’re pushing for a total naval blockade instead. Japan’s economy and agricultural harvest had already collapsed. A total net naval blockade would’ve killed millions.

Aeolun 1y ago

The Japanese government didn’t have any intent to surrender until the emperor at the time asked/told them to. I’m fairly certain that happened after the bombs. Then they suggested they’d surrender if the poition of the emperor was untouched.

shakow 1y ago
Even _after_ the emperor asked to, it was not smooth sailing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident

sbmthakur 1y ago

Didn't the Soviet invasion of Manchuria also boxed them in? Some Historians(Paul Hamn for once) have said that was the primary reason for the surrender.

bell-cot 1y ago
Oh, yes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria From the Japanese PoV, imagining that they could hold off the US/UK suddenly ceased to matter. Obviously Japanese armies could not stand against Soviet armies. So - "OMG, who could have imagined the Americans inventing a super-super-duper bomb! I guess we'll have to surrender to them" was a face-saving way to avoid a quick & brutal Soviet conquest & occupation.
- UncleSlacky 1y ago
  Also, Japan had been hoping that the Soviets would act as a go-between for surrender negotiations with the US, but the Soviet declaration of war on Japan put an end to that possibility.
- opo 1y ago
  The Soviets could never have done a large invasion of Japan. They had a few ships that the USA had given them as part of Project Hula, but that is nothing compared to what would be needed for a full scale invasion of Japan. They did have plans to possibly attack Hokkaido, but as the wikipedia entry says "Historians have generally considered it unlikely that an invasion of Hokkaido would have succeeded." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Soviet_invasion_of_Hokkaido https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Soviet_invasion_of_Ho... In comparison, the proposed allied invasion was planned to have 42 aircraft carriers, 24 battleships, and 400 destroyers and destroyer escorts. Even that wasn't considered enough: >...Ken Nichols, the District Engineer of the Manhattan Engineer District, wrote that at the beginning of August 1945, "[p]lanning for the invasion of the main Japanese home islands had reached its final stages, and if the landings actually took place, we might supply about fifteen atomic bombs to support the troops." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]