The Bomb didn't beat Japan... Stalin did

Jan 2008
18,733
Chile, Santiago
#1
This discussion started up on another thread, and I thought I'd move it here to avoid derailment.

I have for some time been convinced that the arguments summarised in this article:

The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan: Stalin Did | Foreign Policy

are highly persuasive that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was less influential on the Japanese surrender than the role of the Soviet Union.

What do you think?

EDIT: That link doesn't seem to be working. For those who want to read the article, google "the bomb didn't beat Japan" and click on the Foreign Policy article. That seems to work.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2010
11,643
Near St. Louis.
#4
I invite anyone who hasn't already done so to read the testimony and documents in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) archives. That would settle the matter quite well.
 
Jan 2008
18,733
Chile, Santiago
#5
Secondary source. :yawn:
A secondary source written by a senior fellow at the British American Security Information Council, adapted from a book that I thought demonstrated a good command of the relevant historical literature.

More to the point, would you care to actually read the article, and respond to any of the arguments?
 
Jan 2008
18,733
Chile, Santiago
#6
I invite anyone who hasn't already done so to read the testimony and documents in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) archives. That would settle the matter quite well.
Would you mind telling us about some of the things you learned from that experience, that would actually contribute to this discussion?
 
Jan 2008
18,733
Chile, Santiago
#8
The Red Army was just the last nail. Japan was beaten by the USN, and by US strategy that had been formulated, and revised, since before the 1920s.
Japan was indeed undoubtedly on its last legs by 1945, and a sizeable coalition of politicians and industrialists in Tokyo recognised that.

However, in the absence of creative U.S. diplomacy that might have exploited the situation, something was needed to override the obstinacy of the militarist die-hards (in large part by persuading the Emperor to openly force the issue). The evidence seems persuasive to me that it was fear of the Russians that provided that tip of the scales.
 
Jan 2008
18,733
Chile, Santiago
#10
You want fifty years of reading condensed down for your escape from doing the hard work?

I'll be back when I see some serious work being done.
I see very little evidence that you've done much reading at all.

All you seem to do in your posts is bluster and sneer, and toss in the occasional factoid - which is sometimes incorrect.

I'd honestly love it if you started making substantive posts about why you disagree with the arguments mounted. That could make for a good discussion, if you are as knowledgable as you claim to be.

If you don't want to do that, then why are you even bothering to post here?
 
Likes: Neutral

Similar History Discussions