Did the atomic bombs really convince Japan to surrender?

[FBM]

Apparently, there's still some disagreement about it. I read somewhere (please don't make me look it up) today that some historians say that Russia's entrance into the war was what did it. Anybody here know anything about this?

[Jay G]

I think the Atomic bombs probably added a little to the mix. I've also read about the entry of Russia (cowards waited until the end) into the war pushing the Japanese to surrender.

[FBM]

Nobody mentioned that in any of my history classes, high school or university.

[Jay G]

Nobody mentioned that in any of my history classes, high school or university.

Did you go to school in the USA?

[FBM]

Nobody mentioned that in any of my history classes, high school or university.

Did you go to school in the USA?

[Jay G]

Nobody mentioned that in any of my history classes, high school or university.

Did you go to school in the USA?

Did you wear shoes?

[FBM]

Nobody mentioned that in any of my history classes, high school or university.

Did you go to school in the USA?

Did you wear shoes?

On every major holiday, anyway.

Anyway, I was left with the impression that the Japanese were told or led to believe that the US had an arsenal of such bombs and the third one would land on the Royal Palace, and hopefully, Hirohito himself. Thus, the emperor shat his royal underpants and capitulated. No?

[Jay G]

Stalin thought he could help pick the Japanese empire clean after the war by coming in at the end. I think the Americans and British basically blew him off.

[FBM]

Stalin thought he could help pick the Japanese empire clean after the war by coming in at the end. I think the Americans and British basically blew him off.

Hmm. What I read earlier today said that the US and Britain were afraid that Russia had plans to occupy all of Korea and Japan, but later documents proved that false. The Ruskies only had designs on Hokkaido. But by the time the US and British govt's figured that out, Korea was already split and all the shit that followed on the peninsula was set in action.

[Coito ergo sum]

Apparently, there's still some disagreement about it. I read somewhere (please don't make me look it up) today that some historians say that Russia's entrance into the war was what did it. Anybody here know anything about this?

The reason Russia entered the war in Manchuria was to impress upon the Japanese that they were going to be wiped out. All guns were blazing at the Japanese.

We have to remember that this was a motherfucker of a war. As many soldiers died in single days fighting - repeatedly, as died in the last 9 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The scale of the fighting was monumental, and the war was for all the marbles. Existence was at stake.

There was no "one thing" that caused the Japanese to surrender. It was also the Russian entry. It was also the brutal firebombing of Japanese cities, that incidentally killed more civilians than the atomic bombs.

What caused Japan to surrender was the combination of things that made them finally accept that there was no way out except either unconditional surrender or complete obliteration of their society and government. If they did not unconditionally surrender, the Japanese leadership would be killed or captured and tried and probably executed. And, to capture or kill them, probably a million Japanese civilians would die in the process (whether by atomic bomb or by conventional weapons).

Before the Japanese agreed to unconditionally surrender, they were trying to come up with a way to settle the war with conditions, preserving the regime and not allowing an occupation of the Japanese mainland. The Russian entry into the war was one factor in making it clear to them that they did not have that option.

[Rum]

I have certainly read that scaring the USSR was part of the calculation, but of course these things are multi-faceted and a decision like that would be made for a number of reasons. Must have scared the shit out of the Japanese that's for sure!

[Jay G]

I think, however, that we (USA) only had 2 bombs and we were bluffing about dropping more.

[FBM]

Huh. The multi-faceted explanation does seem to fit, but you'd think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki would've been sufficient. Then there's the timing. *BOOM* Surrender or we'll drop another......*BOOM* Surrender or we'll drop another....*OK, wait!* Too simplistic?

[Coito ergo sum]

I think, however, that we (USA) only had 2 bombs and we were bluffing about dropping more.

False. The U.S. expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a further three in October. "The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II, A Collection of Primary Sources," (PDF). National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 162. George Washington University.

I did a research project on this in high school and wrote a paper. A read up on Truman's decision process, including Truman's own writings on the topic, and the results of my research were that Truman and the American leadership viewed the atomic bomb as a weapon they would use without hesitation. There was no weapon that wouldn't be use to defeat the Japanese.

Here is an example of what Truman said:

"Having found the bomb we have used it. We have
used it against those who attacked us without
warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have
starved and beaten and executed American prisoners
of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense
of obeying international laws of warfare. We have
used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in
order to save the lives of thousands and thousands
of young Americans. We will continue to use it
until we completely destroy Japan's power to make
war. Only a Japanese surrender will stop us."

Nobody beat around the Bush in 1945. It was "surrender or die." Period.

[Jay G]

I think, however, that we (USA) only had 2 bombs and we were bluffing about dropping more.

False. The U.S. expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a further three in October. "The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II, A Collection of Primary Sources," (PDF). National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 162. George Washington University.

I did a research project on this in high school and wrote a paper. A read up on Truman's decision process, including Truman's own writings on the topic, and the results of my research were that Truman and the American leadership viewed the atomic bomb as a weapon they would use without hesitation. There was no weapon that wouldn't be use to defeat the Japanese.

Here is an example of what Truman said:

"Having found the bomb we have used it. We have
used it against those who attacked us without
warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have
starved and beaten and executed American prisoners
of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense
of obeying international laws of warfare. We have
used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in
order to save the lives of thousands and thousands
of young Americans. We will continue to use it
until we completely destroy Japan's power to make
war. Only a Japanese surrender will stop us."

Nobody beat around the Bush in 1945. It was "surrender or die." Period.

Interesting. So the "we did it to save lives that would have been lost invading Japan" line is only partly true. We did it to give as much pain as possible to the Japanese in return for Pearl Harbor, etc.