Did the atomic bombs really convince Japan to surrender?

[FBM]

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.

I suppose that was implied, but not the main message.

[Coito ergo sum]

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?

The Japanese will to fight in the 1940s is almost incomprehensible to us today.

One - Japan was a totalitarian regime, much like the fascists in Germany and Italy, only with an Emperor. For the previous 50+ years, Japan had modernized and expanded, and become one of the most powerful military regimes on the planet. The Japanese empire was huge:



EDIT - everything red (except Japan) was forcibly conquered by unprovoked invasion, and the Japanese were extraordinarily brutal to all non-Japanes.

And, from birth, Japanese were taught to entirely subordinate themselves to the regime. Soldiers on the various islands that the US had to fight through to defeat the Japanese were quite willing to fight viciously to the death, even when it was apparent that there was no chance they could win or even survive. They made the US pay dearly for every yard on every island.

The US high command had no illusions about an invasion of Honshu. The Japanese were dug in, and ready to fight. And, when the same folks that were willing to die for a piece of rock in the middle of the Pacific, like Iwo Jima, were fighting for their own homes and their own families, it was clearly expected that each yard on Honshu would cost even more than each yard on the Pacific rocks.

The Japanese were particularly brutal. Google - Rape of Manchuria and Bataan Death March. Japanese had a policy and practice on the island hopping invasions by US forces that captured Americans would NOT be allowed to return to the American forces. So, if Japanese forces were losing, they would murder the American captives. That occurred many times, by firing squad, by drowning, by throat slitting, and by clubbing - any means of dispatching the prisoners.

Prior to dropping the atomic bombs, the US firebombed Japanese cities, including Tokyo.

This is not Hiroshima or Nagasaki - this is Tokyo:





Tokyo was burned and bombed to the ground by conventional weapons just as surely as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were wiped out by atomics. And, in Tokyo over 100,000 people died. Contrast that with the 80,000 killed directly by the atomic bomb in Hiroshima, and then another 40,000 ish who died later due to radiation.

This war was "for keeps."

[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.

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.

I think it was more of the sentiment of: This war is for all the marbles - cage match - two walk in, one walks out. We weren't going to accept anything short of unconditional surrender. Period. There was no other option.

And, when the Japanese surrendered, that's what it was: unconditional. And, in my view, rightly so.

They fucking started it, and they were perfectly happy to enslave and rape the Koreans and the Chinese, not to mention what they did the Allied soldiers. It was us against them, and the only satisfactory result was complete capitulation by the Japanese.

[Pensioner]

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.

Why would you say “cowards waited until the end” 20,000,000 of them died during World War two.

[FBM]

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.

Why would you say “cowards waited until the end” 20,000,000 of them died during World War two.

Even if he was referring to the leadership and not the troops, I don't see how 'cowards' fit. Every military commander worth his salt strives to allocate resources as strategically as possible. Rush here, wait there, depending on how the tide is turning. That said, the troops back then had little option to be cowards. Either you went into battle or were executed (or only imprisoned, if you were lucky).

[Ian]

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.

Why would you say “cowards waited until the end” 20,000,000 of them died during World War two.

I read somewhere that Stalin agreed at Yalta in February '45 to enter the war against Japan three months after their war against Germany had concluded - enough time for them to shift significant forces to the far east. Russian troops stormed into Manchuria on August 8th, exactly three months after Germany had formally surrendered.

Maybe the USSR could've stalled and gone in later, or at a slower and less risky pace compared to what they did in August, but IMO the Hiroshima bombing of August 6th probably convinced Stalin to charge ahead and grab whatever he could before the allies took everything without him. Stalin knew about the Manhattan Project btw, but may not have know if or when the first bomb would be used against Japan.

[Don't Panic]

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.

Why would you say “cowards waited until the end” 20,000,000 of them died during World War two.

I read somewhere that Stalin agreed at Yalta in February '45 to enter the war against Japan three months after their war against Germany had concluded - enough time for them to shift significant forces to the far east. Russian troops stormed into Manchuria on August 8th, exactly three months after Germany had formally surrendered.

Maybe the USSR could've stalled and gone in later, or at a slower and less risky pace compared to what they did in August, but IMO the Hiroshima bombing of August 6th probably convinced Stalin to charge ahead and grab whatever he could before the allies took everything without him. Stalin knew about the Manhattan Project btw, but may not have know if or when the first bomb would be used against Japan.

Ive read that too, the decision was made by the big 3(Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin) to settle the war in Europe first and then shift focus to the far east. And I agree with what's been written by a few others, it seems likely that it was a combination of factors that lead to the Japanese surrender, the heavy bombing of it's cities, the use of atomic weapons and the refocusing of the red army to the east after their march through Germany.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I can "prove" the Japanese were thinking about bombing Seattle on Dec. 6th, 1941.

[Mallardz]

Over looking the sudden influx of American troops after victory in Europe.
If the troops already there made progress surely thousands more heading to the pacific made a slight indent on confidence of the Japanese. Leaving the "Oh, Shit! Reinforcements" feeling.

The steady progression would have sped up anyway so they would have, even without the atomic persuasion, been feeling screwed.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Over looking the sudden influx of American troops after victory in Europe.
If the troops already there made progress surely thousands more heading to the pacific made a slight indent on confidence of the Japanese. Leaving the "Oh, Shit! Reinforcements" feeling.

The steady progression would have sped up anyway so they would have, even without the atomic persuasion, been feeling screwed.

In July the 3rd Fleet steamed within gunshot of Japan and pounded them with 16" shells. There was nothing the Japanese could do about it.

ETA: 1945, that is. Not THIS July.

[Lion IRC]

I think the American le@dership could have invited Japanese leadership to come and take a look at an "atom bomb demo" followed by an ultimatum to surrender.
But I think there were two problems with that.
US desire for revenge.
Japanese bushido.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been thought of as death with honor whereas surrendering without a fight might have been thought of as cowardice.

Edit to kill playsushi
No sushi allowed in this thread

[Feck]

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?

Was that a message to the Russians look this was no accident ...we can do it to ANY city BOOM Nagasaki ?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think the American leadership could have invited Japanese leadership to come and take a look at an "atom bomb demo" followed by an ultimatum to surrender.
But I think there were two problems with that.
US desire for revenge.
Japanese bushido.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been thought of as death with honor whereas surrendering without a fight might have been thought of as cowardice.

First, "revenge" was not a driver for military decisions. Second, even if it was, a demonstration was ruled out because it would have not been available to the vast majority of Japanese, so it would have been easy to discount reports about this weapon.

[Ian]

I think the American leadership could have invited Japanese leadership to come and take a look at an "atom bomb demo" followed by an ultimatum to surrender.
But I think there were two problems with that.
US desire for revenge.
Japanese bushido.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been thought of as death with honor whereas surrendering without a fight might have been thought of as cowardice.

First, "revenge" was not a driver for military decisions. Second, even if it was, a demonstration was ruled out because it would have not been available to the vast majority of Japanese, so it would have been easy to discount reports about this weapon.

That applies to everyone else as well. "Scaring the Russians" probably wasn't a driving factor either, but I'm sure Truman considered it a useful bonus.

[Lion IRC]

I think the American leadership could have invited Japanese leadership to come and take a look at an "atom bomb demo" followed by an ultimatum to surrender.
But I think there were two problems with that.
US desire for revenge.
Japanese bushido.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been thought of as death with honor whereas surrendering without a fight might have been thought of as cowardice.

First, "revenge" was not a driver for military decisions. Second, even if it was, a demonstration was ruled out because it would have not been available to the vast majority of Japanese, so it would have been easy to discount reports about this weapon.

You really dont think the US wanted a little payback? Maybe they just couldnt resist taking fatboy for a test drive in real life.
BTW - I dont think the "vast majority" of ordinary Japanese civilians were in any position to "discount reports" about the bomb. The Japanese political/military establishment wasnt accountable to anyone. Their unconditional "surrender" came after Japan had been mortally wounded not before and as such wasnt really a loss of face.