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

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,530
San Antonio, Tx
I wouldn't say that it's irrelevant at all.

If the argument that the Soviet intervention was by itself sufficient to induce the Japanese surrender holds water - and I find it to be quite persuasive - then it has some massive implications. First, it would give strong weight to the widely argued view that in hindsight the dropping of the bombs was tragic and unnecessary. Second, it undercuts a great deal of the strategic thinking that has related to nuclear weapons and their utility - based on the narrative about the supposed success of the bombs in bringing a speedy end to the Pacific War.
How curious, especially since the Japanese surrendered shortly after the bombs were dropped. Are you proposing that the atomic weapons were trivial and did not lead to the Japanese surrender? Undoubtedly the Russian invasion was problematic for the Japanese, but it was more like someone breaking into one’s house while the Japanese were being held at gunpoint by the American-led coalition

I’m always a bit surprised when posters insist that it was the Russian invasion of China was somehow more important and crucial than homeland cities being destroyed by nuclear weapons. That strikes me as just ridiculous on the face of it.
 

royal744

Ad Honorem
Jul 2013
9,530
San Antonio, Tx
I wouldn't say that it's irrelevant at all.

If the argument that the Soviet intervention was by itself sufficient to induce the Japanese surrender holds water - and I find it to be quite persuasive - then it has some massive implications. First, it would give strong weight to the widely argued view that in hindsight the dropping of the bombs was tragic and unnecessary. Second, it undercuts a great deal of the strategic thinking that has related to nuclear weapons and their utility - based on the narrative about the supposed success of the bombs in bringing a speedy end to the Pacific War.
The “utility” of the atomic bombs was that shortly after they were dropped, the Japanese surrendered. We can discuss whether or not it was right or moral to drop those bombs, but the impact on Japan seems plainly irrefutable. Successful Russian attacks against Japanese colonies in China sounds to me more akin to learning that one’s garage is being burglarized while one’s home is on fire - which, to be honest, is more of an immediate concern to Japan? Did the Japanese Emperor cite those attacks in Manchuria as his reason for capitulation? Hm. I thought so.
 

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,896
How curious, especially since the Japanese surrendered shortly after the bombs were dropped. Are you proposing that the atomic weapons were trivial and did not lead to the Japanese surrender? Undoubtedly the Russian invasion was problematic for the Japanese, but it was more like someone breaking into one’s house while the Japanese were being held at gunpoint by the American-led coalition

I’m always a bit surprised when posters insist that it was the Russian invasion of China was somehow more important and crucial than homeland cities being destroyed by nuclear weapons. That strikes me as just ridiculous on the face of it.
Same can be said about the Second Front. If you are just willing to mirror them.
 
Sep 2012
3,458
Bulgaria
I should be noted that the Red army destroyed more Japanese forces (meaning killed more Japanese soldiers) during Manchurian Operation than the USA had done for the whole war. The most Japanese soldiers were killed by Chinese by the way. Japanese historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa - Wikipedia claims that the Pacific war ended not due to nuclear bombings, but because to the entry of the Soviets. Also the fate of the last Russian monarch and his family at the hands of reds and prospects for a punitive red occupation influenced the surrender. Neither Soviets defeated Germans alone nor USA did the same with Japanese. The Allies defeated Japan and Germany.
 
Oct 2015
320
Belfast
From Modern World History by Ben Walsh ISBN 07195 7713 6

Page 295 - Did Truman make the right decision?

"The war was over, but the nuclear age had begun. The bomb served no military purpose and it was dropped because, as an anti-communist, President Truman wanted to scare the Soviet Union. It is also claimed that army leaders were desperate to test the bomb in real warfare and this was more important to them than military need. Others have argued against this and that he dropped the bomb because it would cost fewer lives than a conventional war. The debate continues".
 
Jul 2016
7,353
USA
I should be noted that the Red army destroyed more Japanese forces (meaning killed more Japanese soldiers) during Manchurian Operation than the USA had done for the whole war. The most Japanese soldiers were killed by Chinese by the way. Japanese historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa - Wikipedia claims that the Pacific war ended not due to nuclear bombings, but because to the entry of the Soviets. Also the fate of the last Russian monarch and his family at the hands of reds and prospects for a punitive red occupation influenced the surrender. Neither Soviets defeated Germans alone nor USA did the same with Japanese. The Allies defeated Japan and Germany.
So when they all verbally said it was the atomic bombs during their meetings, when the emperor makes his recorded surrender address and says atomic bmbs, what they really mean is soviet union, all unconscious like. Groovy!
 
Sep 2012
3,458
Bulgaria
So when they all verbally said it was the atomic bombs during their meetings, when the emperor makes his recorded surrender address and says atomic bmbs, what they really mean is soviet union, all unconscious like. Groovy!
Please show me exactly where in my previous post i said such thing. Repeat: the war was won and all axis powers were defeated due to combined efforts of the all allied forces.

The Manchurian Operation was of great significance and arguably - let me put it in this way - a factor in Japan's decision to surrender.

“What ended World War II? …Tsuyoshi Hasegawa—a highly respected historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara—has marshaled compelling evidence that it was the Soviet entry into the Pacific conflict, not Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that forced Japan’s surrender. His interpretation could force a new accounting of the moral meaning of the atomic attack. It also raises provocative questions about nuclear deterrence, a foundation stone of military strategy in the postwar period. And it suggests that we could be headed towards an utterly different understanding of how, and why, the Second World War came to its conclusion.”—Gareth Cook, The Boston Globe
https://www.amazon.com/Racing-Enemy-Stalin-Truman-Surrender/dp/0674022416
 
Last edited:
Jul 2016
7,353
USA
I should be noted that the Red army destroyed more Japanese forces (meaning killed more Japanese soldiers) during Manchurian Operation than the USA had done for the whole war.
Soviet kill claim (higher than reality, but let's use it nonetheless): 83,737 killed
Battle of Okinawa: US Claimed 77,166-110,000 enemy KIA

That was a single battle, not the whole war.

Hell, for the Philippines campaign there were over 400,000 Japanese soldiers KIA. Let that number sink in.

Stop making things up, you do history no service.
 
Likes: Dentatus
Jul 2016
7,353
USA
Please show me exactly where in my previous post i said such thing. Repeat: the war was won and all axis powers were defeated due to combined efforts of the all allied forces.

The Manchurian Operation was of great significance and arguably - let me put it in this way - a factor in Japan's decision to surrender.
No, the Manchurian operation was not of great significance to surrender. Soviet declaration of war was, but the invasion happened too late to be of any real influence.

The decision to surrender unconditionally was made by the Big Six and agreed upon by the Emperor the early morning of August 10, continuing a series of meetings that were held the day before which addressed not only the Soviet declaration of war but also the Nagasaki atomic bomb raid. Pre-dawn of Aug 10 the decision the hold outs of the Big Six had agreed to end the war. The Manchuria Operation had barely even begun by that point, it kicked off early on August 9 but the exact nature of the operation wasn't transmitted real time to the Big Six, besides that they were already quite preoccupied conceding defeat because of atomic bombs, by the point the Big Six and Emperor had voted on unconditional surrender, the Soviets had barely advanced more than a score of miles, that operation would continue on until August 20 in order to conquer all the land it did and achieve so many casualties.

The Japanese had communicated to the US by Aug 11 that it intended to surrender. There was some back and forth about provisions regarding the status of the Emperor (at which time the US had halted the use of atomic bombs), but besides that the Japanese had already fully agreed upon the remainder of the Potsdam Proclamation, unconditional surrender, assured occupation, war crime trials, the destruction of Japanese military, govt and power elite structures in govt and economy. THEY HAD ALREADY AGREED TO THAT BY AUGUST 10.

So unless somebody had a time machine, nobody cared about the loss of Manchuria until after the surrender decision had been made.
 
Likes: Dentatus
Jul 2016
7,353
USA
From Modern World History by Ben Walsh ISBN 07195 7713 6

Page 295 - Did Truman make the right decision?

"The war was over, but the nuclear age had begun. The bomb served no military purpose and it was dropped because, as an anti-communist, President Truman wanted to scare the Soviet Union. It is also claimed that army leaders were desperate to test the bomb in real warfare and this was more important to them than military need. Others have argued against this and that he dropped the bomb because it would cost fewer lives than a conventional war. The debate continues".
Not even poetic nonsense. Of course the bombs served a military purpose. Before the bombs were detonated in Japanese cities the Big Six would not vote unanimously for unconditional surrender. Afterwards, they did. Ergo, the atomic bombs had strategic purpose. Beyond that, they also had operational purpose, as the location of those cities coincided with major army and navy headquarters locations, major plants for construction of military equipment, etc.
 
Likes: Dentatus

Similar History Discussions