9 ms·

>But these things are the province of speculation, not knowledge. Here's the opinion of the leader of the US military at the time. "It is my opinion that the

>But these things are the province of speculation, not knowledge. Here's the opinion of the leader of the US military at the time. "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons." -Fleet Admiral William Daniel Leahy (May 6, 1875 – July 20, 1959), the senior-most United States military officer during th Second World War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_D._Leahy#Atomic_bomb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_D._Leahy#Atomic_bomb The bomb was dropped not to win the war, but to intimidate the USSR.

hga 13y ago
By the time Leahy published that, nuclear weapons were an existential threat to the US Navy, see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt_of_the_Admirals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt_of_the_Admirals
Scramblejams 13y ago
When I read these revisionist pieces, I often see the same phrase you quoted: "ready to surrender." If someone is "ready to surrender," what does that mean? Well I'll tell you what it certainly doesn't mean: It doesn't mean that they've _actually_ surrendered. What a lot of revisionist writings gloss over is that yes, certain parts of the Japanese leadership were "ready to surrender." But it is well documented that some were only ready to surrender if conditions X and Y were met. Others were only ready to surrender with conditions Z and A. And of course others weren't ready to surrender at all. Yet until a credible leadership figure actually _offered_ unconditional surrender, it was going to be war as usual. And so if this phrase, "ready to surrender," is taken alone (notwithstanding its distinguished source), then it is facile in that it deliberately ignores both the wide diversity of opinion which existed within Japanese leadership, and the complex process which was necessary for the leadership to converge and make a firm, unified political decision.
- soperj 13y ago
  When they are actively trying to surrender, then they're probably "Ready to surrender". The US wouldn't negotiate because the bombs were on the way. What were the conditions? Because if they were "you help us rebuild" or "and we get a grill-cheese sandwich" then really they're not much. Plenty of peace treaties have taken place with conditions.
  - Scramblejams 13y ago
    "Negotiate?" The US had no appetite for negotiation at that point -- only unconditional surrender was acceptable. I won't do your research for you, but various factions within the Japanese leadership wanted to put lots of significant things on the table, like maintaining the seat of the emperor, the existing political structure, etc. All were showstoppers to the US.
    - soperj 13y ago
      Yes, that's what I wrote. They wouldn't negotiate because the bombs were on the way. It wasn't unconditional anyway, there were plenty of conditions in the potsdam declaration.
      - Scramblejams 13y ago
        You're badly misunderstanding the history. The Japanese didn't participate in Potsdam. The Allies wrote the declaration by themselves as an ultimatum and issued it to Japan, warning the Japanese of complete destruction if they didn't fully accept it. "Unconditional" doesn't mean "there are no terms." It means that the loser dictates no terms, while the victor dictates all the terms.
    - fancyketchup 13y ago
      > All were showstoppers to the US. But that isn't true. The seat of the emperor was maintained, at least nominally, so it clearly wasn't a showstopper. The US may have demanded unconditional surrender before the atomic bombings, but it accepted a conditional surrender after.
hkmurakami 13y ago
Shouldn't we ask some people on the other side of the ocean?
- cema 13y ago
  Japanese or Russians? The answer might differ.
- gruseom 13y ago
  This is a good question. Let's make it more explicit: What do Japanese historians have to say about how and why Japan surrendered in 1945?
  - saraid216 13y ago
    > What do Japanese historians have to say about how and why Japan surrendered in 1945? Given Japan's current record on how they engage with World War 2 history, I honestly wouldn't trust any of their claims. Wikipedia has an overview of the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes#Debate_in_Japan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes#Debate_in_J... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_history_textbook_controversies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_history_textbook_contr... I'm not saying that they would lie, but at this point I think the propaganda war is going to eclipse any useful qualitative data that could be gained.
    - gruseom 13y ago
      One really has to be careful with this kind of reasoning. That Japan minimizes its war crimes (as other countries do) and engages in propaganda (as other countries do) does not render irrelevant what Japanese scholars have to say about how and why Japan surrendered in 1945. Indeed, nearly all the important evidence on this is bound to be of Japanese origin (not to mention language), so it's the obvious place to start to learn about it.
      - saraid216 13y ago
        I absolutely agree; I'm not saying that it's irrelevant, but rather that there are still people alive and in power who have a demonstrated interest in lying on the matter. This is far less true in other countries. What confuses me about this debate is what purpose is serves. Minus patriotism, why does it matter? I've maintained a neutral stance on the matter precisely because I don't understand this. (But I'm also a relatively non-nationalistic person, and I also have seen people who still think we need to get revenge for Pearl Harbor (4srswtf), so maybe it's just me.)
emmelaich 13y ago
It certainly eased the introduction of peace. If the Emperor had not accepted defeat we might well have a guerrilla war still going today. Or the equivalent of North and South Korea.
friendstock 13y ago
> The bomb was dropped not to win the war, but to intimidate the USSR. This was actually the essay topic on my US History AP exam.
greedo 13y ago
William Leahy was not the "leader of the US military at the time." That would be a) Harry S. Truman, or b) George Marshall, depending on whether you consider the Commander in Chief to be the leader.

hga 13y ago

By the time Leahy published that, nuclear weapons were an existential threat to the US Navy, see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt_of_the_Admirals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt_of_the_Admirals

Scramblejams 13y ago

When I read these revisionist pieces, I often see the same phrase you quoted: "ready to surrender." If someone is "ready to surrender," what does that mean? Well I'll tell you what it certainly doesn't mean: It doesn't mean that they've _actually_ surrendered. What a lot of revisionist writings gloss over is that yes, certain parts of the Japanese leadership were "ready to surrender." But it is well documented that some were only ready to surrender if conditions X and Y were met. Others were only ready to surrender with conditions Z and A. And of course others weren't ready to surrender at all. Yet until a credible leadership figure actually _offered_ unconditional surrender, it was going to be war as usual. And so if this phrase, "ready to surrender," is taken alone (notwithstanding its distinguished source), then it is facile in that it deliberately ignores both the wide diversity of opinion which existed within Japanese leadership, and the complex process which was necessary for the leadership to converge and make a firm, unified political decision.

soperj 13y ago
When they are actively trying to surrender, then they're probably "Ready to surrender". The US wouldn't negotiate because the bombs were on the way. What were the conditions? Because if they were "you help us rebuild" or "and we get a grill-cheese sandwich" then really they're not much. Plenty of peace treaties have taken place with conditions.
- Scramblejams 13y ago
  "Negotiate?" The US had no appetite for negotiation at that point -- only unconditional surrender was acceptable. I won't do your research for you, but various factions within the Japanese leadership wanted to put lots of significant things on the table, like maintaining the seat of the emperor, the existing political structure, etc. All were showstoppers to the US.
  - soperj 13y ago
    Yes, that's what I wrote. They wouldn't negotiate because the bombs were on the way. It wasn't unconditional anyway, there were plenty of conditions in the potsdam declaration.
    - Scramblejams 13y ago
      You're badly misunderstanding the history. The Japanese didn't participate in Potsdam. The Allies wrote the declaration by themselves as an ultimatum and issued it to Japan, warning the Japanese of complete destruction if they didn't fully accept it. "Unconditional" doesn't mean "there are no terms." It means that the loser dictates no terms, while the victor dictates all the terms.
  - fancyketchup 13y ago
    > All were showstoppers to the US. But that isn't true. The seat of the emperor was maintained, at least nominally, so it clearly wasn't a showstopper. The US may have demanded unconditional surrender before the atomic bombings, but it accepted a conditional surrender after.

hkmurakami 13y ago

Shouldn't we ask some people on the other side of the ocean?

cema 13y ago
Japanese or Russians? The answer might differ.
gruseom 13y ago
This is a good question. Let's make it more explicit: What do Japanese historians have to say about how and why Japan surrendered in 1945?
- saraid216 13y ago
  > What do Japanese historians have to say about how and why Japan surrendered in 1945? Given Japan's current record on how they engage with World War 2 history, I honestly wouldn't trust any of their claims. Wikipedia has an overview of the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes#Debate_in_Japan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes#Debate_in_J... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_history_textbook_controversies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_history_textbook_contr... I'm not saying that they would lie, but at this point I think the propaganda war is going to eclipse any useful qualitative data that could be gained.
  - gruseom 13y ago
    One really has to be careful with this kind of reasoning. That Japan minimizes its war crimes (as other countries do) and engages in propaganda (as other countries do) does not render irrelevant what Japanese scholars have to say about how and why Japan surrendered in 1945. Indeed, nearly all the important evidence on this is bound to be of Japanese origin (not to mention language), so it's the obvious place to start to learn about it.
    - saraid216 13y ago
      I absolutely agree; I'm not saying that it's irrelevant, but rather that there are still people alive and in power who have a demonstrated interest in lying on the matter. This is far less true in other countries. What confuses me about this debate is what purpose is serves. Minus patriotism, why does it matter? I've maintained a neutral stance on the matter precisely because I don't understand this. (But I'm also a relatively non-nationalistic person, and I also have seen people who still think we need to get revenge for Pearl Harbor (4srswtf), so maybe it's just me.)

emmelaich 13y ago

It certainly eased the introduction of peace. If the Emperor had not accepted defeat we might well have a guerrilla war still going today. Or the equivalent of North and South Korea.

friendstock 13y ago

> The bomb was dropped not to win the war, but to intimidate the USSR. This was actually the essay topic on my US History AP exam.

greedo 13y ago

William Leahy was not the "leader of the US military at the time." That would be a) Harry S. Truman, or b) George Marshall, depending on whether you consider the Commander in Chief to be the leader.