"The bomb didn't beat Japan... Stalin did" Topic

"The U.S. use of nuclear weapons against Japan during World War II has long been a subject of emotional debate. Initially, few questioned President Truman's decision to drop two atomic bombs, on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But, in 1965, historian Gar Alperovitz argued that, although the bombs did force an immediate end to the war, Japan's leaders had wanted to surrender anyway and likely would have done so before the American invasion planned for Nov. 1. Their use was, therefore, unnecessary. Obviously, if the bombings weren't necessary to win the war, then bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong. In the 48 years since, many others have joined the fray: some echoing Alperovitz and denouncing the bombings, others rejoining hotly that the bombings were moral, necessary, and life-saving.

Both schools of thought, however, assume that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with new, more powerful weapons did coerce Japan into surrendering on Aug. 9. They fail to question the utility of the bombing in the first place — to ask, in essence, did it work? The orthodox view is that, yes, of course, it worked. The United States bombed Hiroshima on Aug. 6 and Nagasaki on Aug. 9, when the Japanese finally succumbed to the threat of further nuclear bombardment and surrendered. The support for this narrative runs deep. But there are three major problems with it, and, taken together, they significantly undermine the traditional interpretation of the Japanese surrender…"
See more here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Whatever

I think we are already covering this topic … TMP link

Great topic… but not the same my friend… this article talk about the causes of the Japanese surrender and the other one is a "what if" about combat battle on Japan.

Amicalement
Armand

"Japan's leaders had wanted to surrender anyway and likely would have done so before the American invasion planned for Nov. 1. Their use was, therefore, unnecessary."

and

"The United States bombed Hiroshima on Aug. 6 and Nagasaki on Aug. 9, when the Japanese finally succumbed to the threat of further nuclear bombardment and surrendered."

Thankfully the revisionist's theory nullified itself in the very first paragraph.

Surprise, surprise – an article by a known Stalinist claiming that Stalin beat Japan.

Just a coincidence, nothing to see here folks, move along. They had all the weaponry stacked up on the beach ready to hand over to the allies. You betcha.

The Japanese could have surrendered anytime they wanted. Could have, might have, may have are only speculation.

Every day the war continued Allied POWs were in prison and dying, Allied soldiers were killed in operational accidents and in combat, Allied civilians in China and other places were dying. Millions of Americans and British and other allies had to be away from their families and prepared for invasion. War economies had to be maintained and privation and hardship continue for most of the world.

No one can predict the future with certainty. The Germans and Japanese were certain they were going to win the war. They were wrong. Neither the atomic bombs nor Stalin ended the war in the Pacific. The Japanese ended it when they surrendered. If they did not want to be hit with atomic bombs, or invaded by Russians they could have surrendered a month earlier. If you sow the wind you reap the whirlwind.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

The argument that the Japanese leadership was influenced by the Soviet declaration of war on August 9th is interesting, and at least superficially plausible. Thanks Tango for finding this article. :-)

The argument that the Japanese were little impressed with our use of atomic bombs is somewhat less plausible, but I am admittedly not an expert in this area.

However, the argument that all this has any bearing on the importance of / dangers of nuclear weapons is not convincing.

BTW, the knee-jerk criticism of this article by the usual TMP right-wings guys tends to illustrate the author's point on the importance of what people *want* to believe about this issue.

MH

The author's a Stalinist? Those are rare these days. Please explain.

The original article dated back to 1965. Plenty of Stalinist around then.

My freshman college history professor made this argument over 25 years ago. Now, he openly proclaimed that he was a communist (he even made us write a paper talking about how Marx's theory of socialism was the only true path forward for humanity- it was the only threatened F I ever got from a professor, because I refused to write that paper, and wrote a fantastic paper disproving Marx. He finally relented and gave me a B when I threatened to take him to the Dean and the Department board over his stupid methodology of requiring you to argue his point, rather than your own).

He was the professor that I hated the most to this day because he wouldn't put out an argument and have us explore it, he would state things like 'The imminent Soviet invasion and not the bomb was why Japan surrendered, if you disagree, then you are a fool and I will downgrade you.'

I was open minded to hear him out, and his arguments were much the same as this article except that he argued we only bombed Japan because we were terrified the Soviets would intervene. I felt it was revisionist and pro-Soviet propaganda then and I feel it is revisionist now. Now, you can make the argument, and you can even make a plausible case based on those arguments- that doesn't make them true. The moon landing was fake people make pretty plausible arguments as well- that doesn't mean they are right, either.

The original article dated back to 1965. Plenty of Stalinist around then.

If you look at the author's Facebook page, he doesn't look old enough to have written anything back in 1965…

TGerritsen; your prof sounds like an idiot, but IMHO his personal failings are not logically connected with the qualities (be they good or bad) of the article referenced by the OP.

MH

From a translation of the Emperor's broadcast:

"… the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interests.

The enemy, moreover, has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is indeed incalculable, taking toll of many innocent lives, Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in the ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation but would also lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are we to save millions of out subjects, or ourselves atone before the hallowed spirits of our Imperial ancestors?

This is the reason we have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint declaration of the powers…"

Enough said?

This is just Hasegawa's 2005 book, which is very good. Hasegawa specifically rejects both the traditionalist and revisionist positions. link

I can't prove what TGerritsen may or may not have heard 25 years ago, but I would be very surprised if the real argument was the same as Hasegawa's--I don't believe that Hasegawa had published anything at all on the subject in 1991. The Wikipedia article actually summarizes this quite well: "This view is in contrast to earlier critics of the bombing, such as Gar Alperovitz, who argued that US President Harry S. Truman's underlying objective was showcasing US military might, as a deterrent to Soviet leader Joseph Stalin's ambitions."

There's an interesting argument contract Hasegawa here link but it doesn't address the timing of events in Japan. It is suggestive that Hasegawa may have mischaracterized some American documents, so we have to treat his telling of the Japanese documents with some caution. Unfortunately, there are few people in the English-language side of the debate who can evaluate his claims.

"Enough said?"

John, did you actually read the article? It addresses that head-on.

John Armatys,

If you *read* the article referenced in the OP (granted this takes more work) you will see its suggestion that using the atom bomb as an excuse for surrender may have been perceived by the Emperor and the Japanese leadership as being in their best interests, at the time. (Meaning that they may have been not telling the whole truth).

Of course, this is just the author's opinion, but it does cast doubt on your "enough said".

MH

I know what I heard. His name was William Cecil Fronsman if you care to check with him. I believe he's now an assistant professor at Washburn. (Not the school I went to, FYI).

I read this article weeks ago when it came out. I never claimed my old professor based his beliefs on Hasegawa. I'm just stating what he told us way back when in Freshman History. Hell, maybe if he'd published that theory back then, he'd be more than an assistant professor now.

Yea, cuz they did so well against Japan in the past… I am sure the Japanese were terrified.

Mardaddy,

You are probably thinking of 1905, which is pre-Soviet Union. A more recent battle was Khalkhin Gol, in 1939, where the Soviets won. For example, see here: link Given that the Soviets had vastly improved their military capability since 1939, it should be clear why the Japanese would be concerned about fighting them in 1945.

MH

"It was beauty killed the beast."

Simply possibillity, both had an effect.

Re bombing cities, misses the point that a bomb or two dropping on the dug in armies just before the invasion would have had more effect than blanket bombing – fewer survivors at the point of contact.

Unfortunately the Bear would have had trouble swimming. The Soviet nave in the Pacific was not up to supporting an invasion of Japan. The Japanese fleet, even in it's weakened condition was stronger then the Soviet navy.It would require American/British support with fleet and support ships for an invasion.

The problem for the Japanese was not to stop the Russians, it was to get them out after they took parts of Japan.

According to "The History of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – The War Against Japan", the time sequence of events was as follows:

05 August – First A bomb dropped upon Hiroshima. Allied demand for surrender ignored.

08 August – USSR formally declares war against Japan.

09 August – Second A bomb dropped upon Nagasaki. Soviet troops cross the Manchurian border.

10 August – Japan offers to unconditionally surrender per the terms of the Potsdam Declaration, provided that the imperial sovereignty be maintained. Japan is informed that the authority of the emperor would be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers. Japan accepts. (note – this correspondence exchange presumably extended over several following days)

14 August – The fighting war ends.

The declaration of war by the USSR certainly foreclosed the last wishful hope of Japan to obtain a negotiated conditional settlement short of outright surrender. But to argue that a single day of Soviet advance into Manchuria was the dominant factor in Japan's decision to throw in the towel is IMO rather a reach.

Strictly my opinion, of course.

- – - Late edit – - -

Here is another view from Allen and Polmar -

"The Potsdam Declaration was not accepted by the Japanese. The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima did not produce a surrender. Not until the dropping of the second bomb on Nagasaki and the Soviet invasion of Japanese-held territory did the Big Six begin to seriously contemplate surrender. Still, they demanded unacceptable terms. The Emperor's broadcast, which finally ended the war, was not made until six days after that. And every day that surrender was delayed the death toll rose. Rebellious Army and Navy officers attacked and killed other Japanese, calling for continued resistance. …"

- which helps to underscore the fact that Japanese policy was not being deliberated by a single unitary political entity, but was a pawn in a vicious struggle between several vying factions.

B

The author's a Stalinist? Those are rare these days. Please explain.

Ward Wilson has a history of writing articles promoting the Soviet view of things – you know, lend lease and the invasion of France didn't matter, the purges never happened, etc.

Great topic… but not the same my friend… this article talk about the causes of the Japanese surrender and the other one is a "what if" about combat battle on Japan.

Understand … but in the end both revolve around the same or similar facts. IMO of course …

Japanese would be concerned about fighting them in 1945.

If you look at the TMP link I originally posted. I added links for both the USSR Invasions of the Kurile Islands and Manchuria in '45. The IJF didn't fare well … IMO …
As in '39 at Khalkhin Gol. As hindsTMP has been pointed out already …

And again in the end, the IJFs were stuck in '39 where the USSR was clearly in '45 when it came to tech on the ground, at least … again as hindsTMP posted.

Whatever. Revisionist history crap.

None of this matters anyway…they surrendered that is what matters…the Soviet Union no longer exists…

Ward Wilson has a history of writing articles promoting the Soviet view of things – you know, lend lease and the invasion of France didn't matter, the purges never happened, etc.

There are plenty of western historians who point out stuff like the Normandy landings are less significant than Bagration in the fall of Germany, or that Lend lease might not have been the most important element of soviet victory, but these are questions of degree and open to argument. If Anthony Beevor or Max Hastings suggest these points nobody (sensible) denounces them as Communists or Stalinists.

That these ideas happen to be part the unthinking views of nationalist Russians or former Soviets who suppose they won the war without help, does not mean that there might be some truth to the idea in itself, if there is good evidence to support it. Pointing out that Soviet involvement in the war was an essential element of victory is not in itself the "Soviet view" it still leaves plenty of room to despise the Stalinist State simultaneously. I'm sure Churchill would have taken that view, and it would be odd to think of him as being a Stalinist.

If Wilson has written dismissing the purges as a fiction that's different as there's plenty of evidence to back them up, but googling that issue has not yielded me any results. Any citations?

The author makes a fairly well reasoned argument that it was the decision of Stalin to enter the war, thus closing the possibility that Japan could use the Soviets to mediate a settlement with the Allies, that caused the Japanese leadership to surrender. The author's problem is that the Soviets closing the door on a Soviet sponsored mediation isn't the same thing as the Soviets beating Japan. That implies that it was the actual Soviet military intervention that tipped the scales.

The timeline does not support this. Soviet forces attacked on August 9, the same day as the Nagasaki bomb was dropped and the Japanese leadership met. The next day Japanese leadership signals qualified acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration. On August 15 the Japanese agree to unconditionally accept the Potsdam declaration terms. On August 15 Japanese forces still control much of Manchuria, the Soviets have only launched a minimal invasion of Korea, Japanese forces are still holding out in Sakhalin and the Kurils have not been invaded. By the time the Soviets suspended their attacks they had made impressive gains against the Japanese, but much of this happens on or after August 15.

Worth a bit of a review … to put things in context, etc., …

Manchuria – link

Kurile Island – link

None of this matters anyway…they surrendered that is what matters…the Soviet Union no longer exists…

I'd think this very much does matter as part of the study of history, if for nothing else. I'd think that is in part why we are here on TMP ? The discussion of military history, as well as wagaming and military models, etc., … IMO … of course …

Yeah, I don't understand this attitude of "whatever" or "what does it matter". Do people in a historical wargaming website -- of all places! -- not understand that the study of history is a thing? Don't they understand that our prior understanding/consensus is constantly reassessed, and that this is a normal process? Or do they think that "capital H" History is something frozen, to be studied in high school and then forgotten?

You have a point my friend!.

Amicalement
Armand

What's with all the Japan articles lately?

whether they ended the war or not, the japanese deserved a thousand more if we had them

Retiarius9:

Strongly DISAGREED.

Such an awful thing to say, especially because there is no such thing as "the Japanese". There was the emperor, several competing factions within the government and military, civilians, and among the civilians those who supported the war and those who didn't, and among those who supported it many were misled (why, just like some Americans were lied to and misled into supporting the invasion of Iraq), there were Japanese who committed war crimes and those who would have been appalled if they had been aware of those crimes, etc.

There's no such thing as "the Japanese" just as there is no such thing as "the Americans". There are right-wing Americans, left-wing Americans, racist Americans, progressive Americans, Americans from so-called "minorities", wealthy Americans, poor Americans, Americans who supported the so-called "War on Terror" and those who didn't; Americans who support same-sex marriage and those who don't, gun-toting Americans and those who support gun control, etc.

The atomic bombs were dropped primarily on the civilian population, not on those primarily responsible for Japan's military aggression or war crimes.

What you're saying is like saying the US "deserved" the 9-11 attacks because of their terrible policies in the Middle East.

Richard B. Franks' book "Downfall" is an excellent read on this period. It was written after the release of the Emperor's personal dairy and that of several senior officials, not to mention the US intercepts of Japanesse consular messages. The only thing I'd say at this time is that there was no Japanese acceptance of surrender. It was the Emperor's personal call, the day after the second bomb. And it was almost overturned by revolt of Army and Navy factions, that included the assassination of the commander of the Imperial Guard.

Spot on, Thomalley.

B

The plan was to ignore the Soviets and continue to prepare for the American invasion.

link

link