Japanese Surrender: The A-Bomb or Soviet Advance?

[WaylonMercy5150]

I was always taught that the Japanese surrendered out of fear of Soviet takeover, which was becoming more likely. In their letters of correspondence it seems they didn't feel as though the A-bomb was as significant as the Soviet advance. That cities were being destroyed regularly. Your thoughts?

 

[bref]

Well it was probably a number of factors. The A-bombs, the Soviets declaring war on them and invading Manchuria (fear of a war on 2 fronts), other cities outside of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Tokyo) being fire bombed daily and in complete ruins, their loss of Okinawa, all of their allies being defeated, Japan running low on materials, etc.

The funny thing is that many of the Japanese in power still did not want to surrender after all of this and wanted to fight down to the last man.

 

[Gunny]

I’ll have to just lurk as I don’t have anything per se to contribute but wanted to express appreciation for the interesting topic.

 

[AlexDB9]

As a WWII buff I’ve read many interesting situations that lead to VJ Day. The most interesting I’ve heard was not really why the Japanese surrendered but why the bombs had to be used. It was well known that the Japanese would die down to the last child protecting their home islands. The ferver in which they defended the surrounding pacific islands was a huge clue for the US. Now the interesting part in this theory is that the US population would revolt against its own government had the bombs not been dropped. Imagine the casualties and how people would react when they knew that two bombs could of....as messed up as it seems...actually saved lives

To answer your question though a mix of both but I’d be willing to say that knowing your enemy had that kind of power in one bomb was 85% of the reason

 

[abiG]

Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives

-----

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.

— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet

-----

The use of [the atomic bombs] 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 ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

— Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950

-----

The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

— Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945

 

[Ophydian]

Correct my here but I read watched or just plain made this up but I thought we dropped the bombs more so to keep the Russians from advancing in Eastern Europe?

 

[Deleted member 457759]

The funny thing is that many of the Japanese in power still did not want to surrender after all of this and wanted to fight down to the last man.

They had that Bushido!!!

 

[helltoupee]

As a WWII buff I’ve read many interesting situations that lead to VJ Day. The most interesting I’ve heard was not really why the Japanese surrendered but why the bombs had to be used. It was well known that the Japanese would die down to the last child protecting their home islands. The ferver in which they defended the surrounding pacific islands was a huge clue for the US.

---->

MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

"When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

The decision to drop the bombs was of a political nature, not a militaristic necessity.

The US did not want the Russians stealing all their gusto by Japan's intent to surrender to them.

Furthermore, our very own government admitted as much:

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

Per our miltary commanders in theatre at the time, Japan was already defeated and was negotiating surrender with Russia. We felt the need to flex in front of the Russians.


ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun

1. the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

 

[WaylonMercy5150]

Correct my here but I read watched or just plain made this up but I thought we dropped the bombs more so to keep the Russians from advancing in Eastern Europe?

Maybe in Truman's mind he thought that. He was mad suspicious of the Soviets. But they dropped it because they felt diplomacy failed. Mainly around the Emperor retaining his control.

 

[Rockapotomuss]

Easy answer. The terms of surrender included that the emperor stay in power and all generals keep their swords. Those in power were pussies and sold out.

 

[Rod1]

But Assad gassed a few people mrite?

The Japanese were going to fight until the last man if the US had tried the Emperor, so they were not only irrelevant from a practical standpoint but outright criminal.

 

[SomebodyElse]

Stalin's declaration of war. See Hasegawa's excellent summation:

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674022416&content=reviews

Note: This book, published in 2006, draws primarily on Japanese and Russian documents detailing the negotiations between Stalin and Japan, how the Neutrality Pact was ended, and how the decision to surrender was made. This is the first work to draw on primary sources from the USA, the USSR, and Japan.

The bombs were not a factor.


It is also worth noting that the praise this book has received did NOT derive from the traditional "revisionist" movement, as Hasegawa acknowledges at the time the US dropped bombs surrender was impossible.

 

[tramendous]

Why are japanese invasion casualty figures so warped compared to say allied invasion of europe

 

[superpunch]

nm

 

[Nooob]

...

 

[InternetHero]

Those highly limited and targeted sources are basically a propaganda ploy of the time for the most part, or occasional factions within the Japanese government speaking on different behalf of different parties, and an attempt to water down any agreement to forestall ultimate allied victory. Diplomatic Kabuki Theater one might say, but a lot of people ran with that idea to promote this or that political history.

It all had little to do with Postdam, the capitulation was almost completely A-bomb related.

Most primary sources show this in captured communications, U.S. internal communications, and in the later wires that were released.

 

[AlexDB9]

Those highly limited and targeted sources are basically a propaganda ploy of the time for the most part, or occasional factions within the Japanese government speaking on different behalf of different parties, and an attempt to water down any agreement to forestall ultimate allied victory. Diplomatic Kabuki Theater one might say, but a lot of people ran with that idea to promote this or that political history.

It all had little to do with Postdam, the capitulation was almost completely A-bomb related.

Most primary sources show this in captured communications, U.S. internal communications, and in the later wires that were released.

This....putting aside historical data, just put yourself in the Japanese Emperial Army in the 40’s.....the fuck do they care if Russia declared war? They were still high on their victories over Russia and were prepared to take as many Allied soldiers down as possible. Not even years of firebombing would prepare you for the destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in what seemed like seconds. That type of power will make you kneel quick..

 

[WTF2008]

I was always taught that the Japanese surrendered out of fear of Soviet takeover, which was becoming more likely. In their letters of correspondence it seems they didn't feel as though the A-bomb was as significant as the Soviet advance. That cities were being destroyed regularly. Your thoughts?

The Japanese were pretty ruthless with the Chinese.
When you're that shitty to people, you expect them to be that shitty to you.

 

[James Baller]

The Japanese were pretty ruthless with the Chinese.
When you're that shitty to people, you expect them to be that shitty to you.

 

[original doom]

Why are japanese invasion casualty figures so warped compared to say allied invasion of europe

probably for the same reason japanese soldiers were dying 10/1 in comparison to american soldiers.

fanaticism.