Did the atomic bombs really convince Japan to surrender?

[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.