Conquer Club

So I was poking around Reddit and came across a discussion of the Soviet Union's involvement in the war against Imperial Japan. In this discussion found an argument by a Japanese-American historian who was basically arguing that the commonly accepted cause, Nuclear bombs caused imperial Japan to surrender, is incorrect and that the true motivation was Soviet invasion of Japan's Asian mainland holdings, which prompted them to do so.

A couple different articles for your parusing

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas ... ?page=full

http://azstarnet.com/news/world/article ... 03171.html

I find the theory to be rather convincing. That atom bombs were the cause of Japanese surrender does seem strange in the context of the war (several other Japanese cities had been completely destroyed by fire bombing with similar casualty levels.). Soviet invasion, and the resultant loss of them as a possible mediator, in combination with American arial and Naval supremacy certainly seems like a more motivating factor than the loss of two more cities in a granted novel manner.

That's pretty much what I've heard too.

Granted, the nuclear weapons were shocking, the ensuing Soviet invasion, and American bombing campaigns would have been even worse.

With the collapse of Nazi Germany they were basically fucked with no allies left. Surrender was imminent..

nagerous wrote:With the collapse of Nazi Germany they were basically fucked with no allies left. Surrender was imminent..

Sure, but they were able to get a pretty nice deal out of it. Much as it might be tempting to think that Japan was completely defeated, they survived without being invaded, kept their head of state, and didn't suffer the kind of division of their country that Germany did.

Japan was never particularly close to Nazi Germany or the other Axis forces. Allies didn't matter much, except as a drain on the manpower and resources of the US and USSR.

I never really like the way that Japan taught history while I lived there, but there is some merit in the way that they separate the war in Europe from the war in the Pacific.

Another way to think about it:

Would you rather capitulate to the Americans now or incur much more costs and capitulate to the Russians?

Baron Von PWN wrote:So I was poking around Reddit and came across a discussion of the Soviet Union's involvement in the war against Imperial Japan. In this discussion found an argument by a Japanese-American historian who was basically arguing that the commonly accepted cause, Nuclear bombs caused imperial Japan to surrender, is incorrect and that the true motivation was Soviet invasion of Japan's Asian mainland holdings, which prompted them to do so.

A couple different articles for your parusing

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas ... ?page=full

http://azstarnet.com/news/world/article ... 03171.html

I find the theory to be rather convincing. That atom bombs were the cause of Japanese surrender does seem strange in the context of the war (several other Japanese cities had been completely destroyed by fire bombing with similar casualty levels.). Soviet invasion, and the resultant loss of them as a possible mediator, in combination with American arial and Naval supremacy certainly seems like a more motivating factor than the loss of two more cities in a granted novel manner.

I heard a really excellent interview with a guy who wrote a book on this (perhaps the one who wrote that? I will have to check?) I will try to find it.

However, he indicated that most historians now say not only that the bomb was unnecessary, but that our president actually knew it was unnecessary. They dropped the bomb just before the Russian army could get to Japan in order that Russia would not have Japan in its "net", essentially.

Another point he made was that Japan had been willing to surrender a long time prior as long as the US gave the assurance that the Emperor would not be disgraced or killed. The line "to the last man, woman, and child" apparently was only IF the Emperor were killed. If he were killed, then Japan would rise up.

nagerous wrote:With the collapse of Nazi Germany they were basically fucked with no allies left. Surrender was imminent..

Germany had little to do with Japan. The REAL tie-in, per the guy I mentioned above (will try to find the interview) was that it was only after the German army was defeated that the Soviet Union could turn to Japan.

Another point made was that They needed a real bomb drop to show what Nuclear weapons could do, not just tests.

A third, equally nasty point was that if the true intent were military threat, then the bomb should have targeted military targets, not cities that were, by then, inhabited almost entirely with old women and children.

All of this came as quite a shock to me. I had always believed that the bombs ended the war more quickly and saved lives in the long run. Now I am not so sure.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

nagerous wrote:With the collapse of Nazi Germany they were basically fucked with no allies left. Surrender was imminent..

Germany had little to do with Japan. The REAL tie-in, per the guy I mentioned above (will try to find the interview) was that it was only after the German army was defeated that the Soviet Union could turn to Japan.

Another point made was that They needed a real bomb drop to show what Nuclear weapons could do, not just tests.

A third, equally nasty point was that if the true intent were military threat, then the bomb should have targeted military targets, not cities that were, by then, inhabited almost entirely with old women and children.

All of this came as quite a shock to me. I had always believed that the bombs ended the war more quickly and saved lives in the long run. Now I am not so sure.

Not a point that many people are happy to deal with, but the US knew that the atomic bomb would keep killing people long after the bomb was dropped. Radiation wasn't an unknown.

I'd be tempted to say that this was naivety, but repeats with agent orange and landmines in other eras kind of suggest otherwise. The UK is far from free of these sins.

The war didn't end as long as US weapons were killing people.

cuz of the pacific ocean.

Symmetry wrote:
Not a point that many people are happy to deal with, but the US knew that the atomic bomb would keep killing people long after the bomb was dropped. Radiation wasn't an unknown.

I'd be tempted to say that this was naivety, but repeats with agent orange and landmines in other eras kind of suggest otherwise. The UK is far from free of these sins.

The war didn't end as long as US weapons were killing people.

True. Another thing for which we have to answer. However, that said, we did not start the war. And, you can ask just about anyone in China (well.. maybe not today, but those of Chinese descent outside China, for sure) or Korea about the crimes of the Japanese.. and many of them continued long past the war.

Baron Von PWN wrote:So I was poking around Reddit and came across a discussion of the Soviet Union's involvement in the war against Imperial Japan. In this discussion found an argument by a Japanese-American historian who was basically arguing that the commonly accepted cause, Nuclear bombs caused imperial Japan to surrender, is incorrect and that the true motivation was Soviet invasion of Japan's Asian mainland holdings, which prompted them to do so.

A couple different articles for your parusing

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas ... ?page=full

http://azstarnet.com/news/world/article ... 03171.html

I find the theory to be rather convincing. That atom bombs were the cause of Japanese surrender does seem strange in the context of the war (several other Japanese cities had been completely destroyed by fire bombing with similar casualty levels.). Soviet invasion, and the resultant loss of them as a possible mediator, in combination with American arial and Naval supremacy certainly seems like a more motivating factor than the loss of two more cities in a granted novel manner.

This is what the book in my WW2 class said too. Just want to note, upon many American requests for Russia to commit troops to an invasion, Russia pussy footed the shit out of us and didn't invade until the last possible second. Sure, I play my risk games the same way and it is a winning strategy, but if Russia had kept their word perhaps the bombs would never need to have been dropped in the first place.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:
Not a point that many people are happy to deal with, but the US knew that the atomic bomb would keep killing people long after the bomb was dropped. Radiation wasn't an unknown.

I'd be tempted to say that this was naivety, but repeats with agent orange and landmines in other eras kind of suggest otherwise. The UK is far from free of these sins.

The war didn't end as long as US weapons were killing people.

True. Another thing for which we have to answer. However, that said, we did not start the war. And, you can ask just about anyone in China (well.. maybe not today, but those of Chinese descent outside China, for sure) or Korea about the crimes of the Japanese.. and many of them continued long past the war.

I don't justify how Japan sees history, but a fair majority do see it as a conflict between east and west started by the west.

Many Japanese people see it as a war of liberation from colonial influences.

I disagree with whomever said the US didn't start the war. America had repeatedly violated its neutral nation status. The US provided coordinates of Kriegsmarine ships to the RN, the US returned escaped Axis POWs to Canada rather than inter them in the US, then there was the whole lend-lease thing.

The U.S. craved war because it and the UK have historically opposed European unity and have sought to impose English morays such as English language, common law and Anglicanism on the world at large.

Sorry, but Pearl Harbour was a legitimate self defence action.

The atomization of Japan was a war crime, however, with which even Gen. MacArthur disagreed.

Also, I agree with the OP. In the grand scheme of things the atom bombs were pin pricks. The Red Army defeated Japan.

Tripe.

All of it.

... And don't tell me I don't know WW2 history.

The bombs were dropped for a combination of reasons.
The main two being...
1) end the war and save US lives
2) retaliation for Pearl Harbor

We did not drop the bombs because Russia was about to invade. That is tripe. We had been asking Russia to enter the Pacific War... they were war-weary and happy to let us do the heavy lifting at this time.
(Granted they had done most of the bleeding in Europe so u can understand their view.)

Russia entered the war at the last minute AFTER we dropped the first bomb... Primarily so the US would not be able to take full credit for Japan's surrender and also so they would have a seat at the table. This thread is attempting to turn history upside down.

There is some truth to the facts regarding the Emperor... and how we could have had a negotiated peace without the bombs.

We would not have had a surrender without the bombs... and the US people would not have had closure.

saxitoxin wrote:I disagree with whomever said the US didn't start the war. America had repeatedly violated its neutral nation status. The US provided coordinates of Kriegsmarine ships to the RN, the US returned escaped Axis POWs to Canada rather than inter them in the US, then there was the whole lend-lease thing.

Sorry, but Pearl Harbour was a legitimate self defence action.

The atomization of Japan was a war crime, however, with which even Gen. MacArthur disagreed.

Also, I agree with the OP. In the grand scheme of things the atom bombs were pin pricks. The Red Army defeated Japan.

All Tripe!

saxitoxin wrote: The U.S. craved war because it and the UK have historically opposed European unity and have sought to impose English morays such as English language, common law and Anglicanism on the world at large.

Saying we craved war is silly.

Some segment of the population certainly did... another big chunk wanted us to join on the side of Germany!

The majority would have been happy to sit it out.
--------------------

There is no such thing as "European Unity". The closest experiment to that... The current EU... is on the verge of collapse because they can't agree on how to solve their fiscal crisis.
--------------------

I do agree the UK and the Us have tried to impose our cultural standards on the world. This is good and bad.

Bad because in today's world we do this in a half-hearted manor, and that will never work. If you want to impose you culture on another you have to be brutal about it, or don't bother trying.

Good because when the UK did this right in the 18th and 19th centuries they transformed the world for the better. Look at the countries transformed (not half-heartedly, but fully transformed) by the UK and they are all "1st World" modern countries with stable governments, the rule of law, and (comparatively) strong economies.

If you took the top 10 countries in the world... More than half (easily) are English speaking with English common law.

Weren't there some Japanese soldiers out in the Pacific somewhere that were never told that WWII had ended and were still hiding out for the next 20 something years?

CoffeeCream wrote:Weren't there some Japanese soldiers out in the Pacific somewhere that were never told that WWII had ended and were still hiding out for the next 20 something years?

Yeah, great movie. I loved it!

jimboston wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:I disagree with whomever said the US didn't start the war. America had repeatedly violated its neutral nation status. The US provided coordinates of Kriegsmarine ships to the RN, the US returned escaped Axis POWs to Canada rather than inter them in the US, then there was the whole lend-lease thing.

Sorry, but Pearl Harbour was a legitimate self defence action.

The atomization of Japan was a war crime, however, with which even Gen. MacArthur disagreed.

Also, I agree with the OP. In the grand scheme of things the atom bombs were pin pricks. The Red Army defeated Japan.

All Tripe!

Very well. Jim and myself have now established the two extremes in this thread. We're the bread. You may now each align your silly positions at various points between us and become the filling in this SaxiJim sandwich.

Who's hungry?

saxitoxin wrote:I disagree with whomever said the US didn't start the war. America had repeatedly violated its neutral nation status. The US provided coordinates of Kriegsmarine ships to the RN, the US returned escaped Axis POWs to Canada rather than inter them in the US, then there was the whole lend-lease thing.

The U.S. craved war because it and the UK have historically opposed European unity and have sought to impose English morays such as English language, common law and Anglicanism on the world at large.

Sorry, but Pearl Harbour was a legitimate self defence action.

The atomization of Japan was a war crime, however, with which even Gen. MacArthur disagreed.

Also, I agree with the OP. In the grand scheme of things the atom bombs were pin pricks. The Red Army defeated Japan.

Would you like to debate a few finer points of this post? Or shall we sweep it under the Carpet of Trolls?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:I disagree with whomever said the US didn't start the war. America had repeatedly violated its neutral nation status. The US provided coordinates of Kriegsmarine ships to the RN, the US returned escaped Axis POWs to Canada rather than inter them in the US, then there was the whole lend-lease thing.

The U.S. craved war because it and the UK have historically opposed European unity and have sought to impose English morays such as English language, common law and Anglicanism on the world at large.

Sorry, but Pearl Harbour was a legitimate self defence action.

The atomization of Japan was a war crime, however, with which even Gen. MacArthur disagreed.

Also, I agree with the OP. In the grand scheme of things the atom bombs were pin pricks. The Red Army defeated Japan.

Would you like to debate a few finer points of this post? Or shall we sweep it under the Carpet of Trolls?

You can try but if you lose you'll be ordering the sirloin saxi. That's menu item number sixty-nine. Begin.

jimboston wrote:Tripe.

All of it.

... And don't tell me I don't know WW2 history.

The bombs were dropped for a combination of reasons.
The main two being...
1) end the war and save US lives
2) retaliation for Pearl Harbor

We did not drop the bombs because Russia was about to invade. That is tripe. We had been asking Russia to enter the Pacific War... they were war-weary and happy to let us do the heavy lifting at this time.
(Granted they had done most of the bleeding in Europe so u can understand their view.)

Russia entered the war at the last minute AFTER we dropped the first bomb... Primarily so the US would not be able to take full credit for Japan's surrender and also so they would have a seat at the table. This thread is attempting to turn history upside down.

There is some truth to the facts regarding the Emperor... and how we could have had a negotiated peace without the bombs.

We would not have had a surrender without the bombs... and the US people would not have had closure.

My op wasn't about the reasons for the Americans dropping the bombs. Rather it was for the reasons behind Japanese surrender.

The traditional explanation or at least popular explanation is that Nuclear bombs made Japan surrender, the argument being made is that Soviet involvement in the pacific theater was a greater contributing factor.

It's true Russia entered the pacific war after the first bomb was dropped but their entry was along a predetermined schedule established at the Yalta conference. At Yalta it was agree that the Soviets would join the war three months after victory in Europe. The Soviets kept to the agreement and launched their campaign exactly 3 months after German surrender. Their involvement was no minor thing either it involved over 1.5 million troops several thousand tanks and aircraft as well as 26 thousand artillery pieces. Such a force isn't thrown together in a few days in order to spite another country.

Phatscotty wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:So I was poking around Reddit and came across a discussion of the Soviet Union's involvement in the war against Imperial Japan. In this discussion found an argument by a Japanese-American historian who was basically arguing that the commonly accepted cause, Nuclear bombs caused imperial Japan to surrender, is incorrect and that the true motivation was Soviet invasion of Japan's Asian mainland holdings, which prompted them to do so.

A couple different articles for your parusing

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas ... ?page=full

http://azstarnet.com/news/world/article ... 03171.html

I find the theory to be rather convincing. That atom bombs were the cause of Japanese surrender does seem strange in the context of the war (several other Japanese cities had been completely destroyed by fire bombing with similar casualty levels.). Soviet invasion, and the resultant loss of them as a possible mediator, in combination with American arial and Naval supremacy certainly seems like a more motivating factor than the loss of two more cities in a granted novel manner.

This is what the book in my WW2 class said too. Just want to note, upon many American requests for Russia to commit troops to an invasion, Russia pussy footed the shit out of us and didn't invade until the last possible second. Sure, I play my risk games the same way and it is a winning strategy, but if Russia had kept their word perhaps the bombs would never need to have been dropped in the first place.

Actually the Soviets followed the agreed upon timeline at Yalta of joining the pacific theater 3 months(exactly) after victory in Europe. Not unreasonable considering they had pulled troops from the far east to stop the German invasion. They also didn't half ass it they committed well over 1.5 million troops as well as thousands of tanks and aircraft.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:So I was poking around Reddit and came across a discussion of the Soviet Union's involvement in the war against Imperial Japan. In this discussion found an argument by a Japanese-American historian who was basically arguing that the commonly accepted cause, Nuclear bombs caused imperial Japan to surrender, is incorrect and that the true motivation was Soviet invasion of Japan's Asian mainland holdings, which prompted them to do so.

A couple different articles for your parusing

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas ... ?page=full

http://azstarnet.com/news/world/article ... 03171.html

I find the theory to be rather convincing. That atom bombs were the cause of Japanese surrender does seem strange in the context of the war (several other Japanese cities had been completely destroyed by fire bombing with similar casualty levels.). Soviet invasion, and the resultant loss of them as a possible mediator, in combination with American arial and Naval supremacy certainly seems like a more motivating factor than the loss of two more cities in a granted novel manner.

I heard a really excellent interview with a guy who wrote a book on this (perhaps the one who wrote that? I will have to check?) I will try to find it.

However, he indicated that most historians now say not only that the bomb was unnecessary, but that our president actually knew it was unnecessary. They dropped the bomb just before the Russian army could get to Japan in order that Russia would not have Japan in its "net", essentially.

Another point he made was that Japan had been willing to surrender a long time prior as long as the US gave the assurance that the Emperor would not be disgraced or killed. The line "to the last man, woman, and child" apparently was only IF the Emperor were killed. If he were killed, then Japan would rise up.

Japan would have been willing to negotiate a peace, but they wanted to be able to hold onto some of the land they had taken as well.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:This is what the book in my WW2 class said too. Just want to note, upon many American requests for Russia to commit troops to an invasion, Russia pussy footed the shit out of us and didn't invade until the last possible second. Sure, I play my risk games the same way and it is a winning strategy, but if Russia had kept their word perhaps the bombs would never need to have been dropped in the first place.

Actually the Soviets followed the agreed upon timeline at Yalta of joining the pacific theater 3 months(exactly) after victory in Europe. Not unreasonable considering they had pulled troops from the far east to stop the German invasion. They also didn't half ass it they committed well over 1.5 million troops as well as thousands of tanks and aircraft.

The two views are not mutually exclusive. Waiting for the last day of the three month-deadline is the equivalent of waiting until the last possible second.

Yes, the Yalta agreement gave a deadline, but as with most deadlines, there is no crime in going forward sooner, only later. Germany was crumbling fast by early February; Russian troops could easily have been heading east by the end of March and could have entered the war against Japan 90 minutes after the German surrender instead of 90 days. That's if the Russians had been interested in helping their allies after having received so much help from them in the previous four years, instead of just being able to say "look, we stuck to the agreement!"