Did the atomic bombs really convince Japan to surrender?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Perhaps using the word 'disproportionate' was misguided.

At the time it was just a BIG BOMB.

With hindsight we can all look back and agree that a terrible thing occurred.

Hindsight sux. We get to take an event that happened THEN and try to force it into the NOW mindset. If you can't discuss things in term of THEN, you are discussing NOW and not THEN.

[Don't Panic]

So, they used the minimum necessary force required to achieve the objective.

They used every fucking thing they had, and were ready, if necessary, to do a ground invasion beginning approximately October, 1945, to take Honshu house by house, hole by hole.

Yep, sounds like how you win a war.

[Coito ergo sum]

Perhaps using the word 'disproportionate' was misguided. With hindsight we can all look back and agree that a terrible thing occurred. Could the world have been a better place without the dropping of the bombs? possibly. Who knows, the Japanese were not particularly nice to those they had conquered and, apart from the concentration camps, made the Germans look like model prison-guards, would they have surrendered soon? Probably not but again who knows? Perhaps they needed a dose of reality.

Nevertheless most of us here have grown up hearing about the incredible power of 'the bomb' whilst the only time it has ever been used in anger was against the Japanese in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Whilst those attacks were, possibly, unwarranted it cannot be argued that the result of their use was the ending of hostilities in the Pacific and a clear demonstration to Stalin that the US was not to be fucked with.

Yes the Cold War resulted but it was so much better than an actual war.

The "proportionality" thing is bullshit new age mumbo jumbo that doesn't acknowledge the reality that a war like WW2 was like being in a room with someone and one of you will come out alive, the other won't. If you can rip the other guy's head off with your bare hands and pulverize him into powder, that might be "disproportionate" but you do it. The only thing that matters is winning.

When I think of Bull Halsey and NImitz and McArthur, et al, the last fucking thing I'd want them to do is be proportionate. In a war like WW2, you swat flies with sledgehammers and fight fire with dynamite. You don't give a flying fuck about the god damn Japanese, and it would be a crime for them to give half a piece of shit about them. They surrender or they die. That may not sit well with the delicate sensibilities of those who think a war has been "mismanaged" if it takes more than a 2 months to conquer a country and you get body bags in over three figures. But, WW2 was a war where something 25 MILLION soldiers died and around 75 MILLION civilians died. Proportionate response? Proportionate response in that circumstance is "every fucking thing you have."

Even in hindsight, I can easily say that had they dropped atomic bombs on more Japanese cities, it would have been the right thing to do under the circumstances. All the deaths are on the heads of the Emperor and his leadership.

[Coito ergo sum]

With hindsight we can all look back and agree that a terrible thing occurred.

Hindsight sux. We get to take an event that happened THEN and try to force it into the NOW mindset. If you can't discuss things in term of THEN, you are discussing NOW and not THEN.

Even in hindsight, it was the right thing to do.

Not one American soldier's life would be worth not dropping the bombs on Japan.

They started it. We finished it.

[owtth]

The "proportionality" thing is bullshit new age mumbo jumbo that doesn't acknowledge the reality that a war like WW2 was like being in a room with someone and one of you will come out alive, the other won't. If you can rip the other guy's head off with your bare hands and pulverize him into powder, that might be "disproportionate" but you do it. The only thing that matters is winning.

When I think of Bull Halsey and NImitz and McArthur, et al, the last fucking thing I'd want them to do is be proportionate. In a war like WW2, you swat flies with sledgehammers and fight fire with dynamite. You don't give a flying fuck about the god damn Japanese, and it would be a crime for them to give half a piece of shit about them. They surrender or they die. That may not sit well with the delicate sensibilities of those who think a war has been "mismanaged" if it takes more than a 2 months to conquer a country and you get body bags in over three figures. But, WW2 was a war where something 25 MILLION soldiers died and around 75 MILLION civilians died. Proportionate response? Proportionate response in that circumstance is "every fucking thing you have."

Even in hindsight, I can easily say that had they dropped atomic bombs on more Japanese cities, it would have been the right thing to do under the circumstances. All the deaths are on the heads of the Emperor and his leadership.

I think that was my point, we live in a more delicate age where we try to examine the motivations of previous leaders and levy them with all the deaths whilst hoping that we would not commit ourselves in such a fashion. Whilst deep down we wish we could equip ourselves so well in the face of such adversity. Most of us know we could not do so.

[Lion IRC]

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.

Why not?

Because culturally, a loss of face is when you "surrender" too early. I would argue that the Japanese elite held a very strong code of bushido by which Hiroshima and Nagasaki represented a mortal defeat at the hands of a much stronger opponent as against the cowardice of surrendering BEFORE that mortal blow was delivered. There is no dishonor in losing a fight to an obviously superior opponent even when everyone is watching. Ippon kumite is structured around the objective of demonstrating a decisive victory. And a fighter can retain their "honor" even if they lose to a stronger opponent - ESPECIALLY if they lose to a stronger opponent.
The so-called unconditional surrender was more of an acceptance that the fight was over. Train harder and better luck next time.

BTW Your argument that Japan was already beaten ("We'd done all kind of damage to Japan already") actually weighs in MY favor and makes the bomb gratuitous revenge.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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.

Why not?

Because culturally, a loss of face is when you "surrender" too early. I would argue that the Japanese elite held a very strong code of bushido by which Hiroshima and Nagasaki represented a mortal defeat at the hands of a much stronger opponent as against the cowardice of surrendering BEFORE that mortal blow was delivered. There is no dishonor in losing a fight to an obviously superior opponent even when everyone is watching. Ippon kumite is structured around the objective of demonstrating a decisive victory. And a fighter can retain their "honor" even if they lose to a stronger opponent - ESPECIALLY if they lose to a stronger opponent.
The so-called unconditional surrender was more of an acceptance that the fight was over. Train harder and better luck next time.

BTW Your argument that Japan was already beaten ("We'd done all kind of damage to Japan already") actually weighs in MY favor and makes the bomb gratuitous revenge.

I'd argue the point with you, but my grass needs watching. With this weather it may not grow properly unless carefully observed. And that would be a better use of my time.

[Robert_S]

So, we had to bloody their nose and put them in a headlock so they wouldn't look like pussies when we they finally cried uncle...

That seems like a plausible explanation.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So, we had to bloody their nose and put them in a headlock so they wouldn't look like pussies when we they finally cried uncle...

That seems like a plausible explanation.

The problem with that is the rule was to die fighting.

[klr]

Apparently, there's still some disagreement about it.
...

No shit Sherlock. It's something of a publishing goldmine.

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?

"Quite a bit". I once ran someone off RD.net after they demonstrated a seemingly unshakeable fixation with the idea that the bombs were not in any way necessary. There are only so many times you can watch people posting random shit from the internet (without any thought as to it's veracity/credibility) before losing patience with them.

[klr]

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.

You should be careful about reading too much into a statement that was (obviously) meant first and foremost for public consumption. It shouldn't be taken as evidence of US intent/motive by itself. You need to weigh it against any other words or actions that might shed light on these.

[klr]

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

The first stands as unproven. The second is most definitely proven, at least as far as the Japanese leadership (which was all that mattered) goes. The Japanese leaders (especially the more hawkish elements) were steadfast in their belief that the Americans didn't have the stomach for a full-scale invasion and prolonged campaign, and they built their entire strategy around that position. The possibility of a demonstration was considered, but rejected, not least on the grounds that the more belligerent Japanese might have taken the view that a) the Americans were getting desperate and b) that they didn't actually have the resolve to go ahead and use the atomic bomb.

I don't think the Japanese thought about Hiroshima or Nagasaki in terms of "honour", but the use of the atomic bomb did allow the leadership to save face to some extent, in that here was something unexpected that they had no counter for. It also weakened the argument for continuing the fight, since there was now a realisation that the Americans would probably not need to invade the mainland.

BTW, the Japanese were long since on the brink of defeat, but it was just a problem of getting the leadership to actually acknowledge and accept this. As long as they didn't, there remained the possibility of untold death and destruction for everyone involved, not least for the Japanese people. Apparently, the privations of the Japanese people from the fire-bombing was just about never acknowledged or discussed during cabinet meetings.