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

Maribat

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
5,049
The Japanese estimated that 20,000 soldiers died at Hiroshima. That would count as a military defeat in my book.
If I hammer down one nail and beat to a pulp all my fingers in the process I would not count myseld a great carpenter
 

OpanaPointer

Ad Honoris
Dec 2010
11,643
Near St. Louis.
If I hammer down one nail and beat to a pulp all my fingers in the process I would not count myseld a great carpenter
Of course you wouldn't, and you wouldn't be the architect who designed the building either.

Retrofitting the almost neurotic fear we have of nuclear weapons on the decision makers who were tasked with ending the war doesn't make sense to me. But I guess that people who only know the number of people who died, and not the number of people who lived, can be excused for having a limited view of the events. Such limitations can be removed with some solid research.
 
Feb 2014
527
South Carolina, USA
That was the line which was taken by the militarist hard-liners, who at that point were in control of the government.

There was a substantial body of politicians and industrialists who were convinced that continuing the war was a folly, and who were prepared to accept pretty much any surrender conditions that didn't degrade the Emperor, or significantly imperil them in a prospective occupation (as Soviet involvement certainly would have).

If the U.S. had held out an offer in the right way, there is a good chance that the chain of events which culminated in Hirohito's intervention (which he would not have taken without considerable political backing for his decision) would have been accelerated.
I'm aware there was a peace party, but everything I've read gives the impression they were more radical than you believe. Here's an example from my most recent read on the Pacific War, that being Hastings' book.

From the winter of 1944 onwards, a significant part in Tokyo was seeking a route by which to end the war, and to overcome the army's resolve to fight to the last. Even the most dovish, however, wanted terms that were not remotely negotiable, including the preservation of Japanese hegemony in Korea and Manchuria, freedom from Allied military occupation, and the right for Japan to conduct any war crimes trials of its citizens. As late as May 1945, the emperor clung to a belief that a victory was attainable on Okinawa, which would strengthen Japan's negotiation position-in other words, that military resistance was still serviceable.
Here's an article from the author of Downfall.

Why Truman Dropped the Bomb | The Weekly Standard

When a complete set of the "Magic" Diplomatic Summary for the war years was first made public in 1978, the text contained a large number of redacted (literally whited out) passages. The critics reasonably asked whether the blanks concealed devastating revelations. Release of a nonredacted complete set in 1995 disclosed that the redacted areas had indeed contained a devastating revelation--but not about the use of the atomic bombs. Instead, the redacted areas concealed the embarrassing fact that Allied radio intelligence was reading the codes not just of the Axis powers, but also of some 30 other governments, including allies like France.


The diplomatic intercepts included, for example, those of neutral diplomats or attachés stationed in Japan. Critics highlighted a few nuggets from this trove in the 1978 releases, but with the complete release, we learned that there were only 3 or 4 messages suggesting the possibility of a compromise peace, while no fewer than 13 affirmed that Japan fully intended to fight to the bitter end. Another page in the critics' canon emphasized a squad of Japanese diplomats in Europe, from Sweden to the Vatican, who attempted to become peace entrepreneurs in their contacts with American officials. As the editors of the "Magic" Diplomatic Summary correctly made clear to American policymakers during the war, however, not a single one of these men (save one we will address shortly) possessed actual authority to act for the Japanese government.
What sources are you primarily relying on? Because it seems our information directly contradicts each other.
 

Thegn Ansgar

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
5,638
Canada
The Japanese estimated that 20,000 soldiers died at Hiroshima. That would count as a military defeat in my book.
Try 20,000 unarmed conscripts. There was barely enough weapons to arm even a fifth of the 40,000 soldiers at Hiroshima, and they could barely feed them.
 
May 2015
698
Far From Home
It's incontrovertible fact, Japan in 1945 was ready to surrender if only Allies were prepared to give some kind of guarantee, they wouldn't exterminate institution of their Emperor. Grotesque fantasies of millions dying in huge invasions which ignorant superpatriots bring up aren't relevant to discussions of this fact.

Allies chose to insist on immoral "unconditional surrender" idea and so alone are responsible for continuing war. Nuclear bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki was totally unnecessary murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

In another thread I quoted from truthful words of Admiral Zacharias (head of military intelligence of USA) when he described how Japanese sued for peace and were ignored by New Dealers and jingos in Truman Administration. His article had correct title: "How We [USA] Bungled The Japanese Surrender":

One of the first such [peace] moves, proving we were on the right track, came when the Emperor of Japan asked the Holy See to intervene with us on his behalf and seek out our terms in preparation for formal peace negotiations with Pope Pius XII himself acting as intermediary.

Involved in this move, besides the Pope, were Pietro Cardinal Fumasoni-Biondi, head of the Congregazione de Propaganda Fide, the Vatican's own "intelligence service"; His Excellency, Petro Tatsuo Doi, Archbishop of Tokyo; two of the Cardinal's representatives in Tokyo and members of a special mission of the Office of Strategic Services working in Italy on contacts developed through the Vatican.

If we still needed evidence that Tokyo was actually suing for peace, the appeal to the Vatican provided it for us. Unfortunately, nobody outside the Navy Department and the O.S.S. seemed to take the opportunity seriously. In fact the State Department discouraged it altogether and told the O.S.S. to discontinue its efforts, since American public opinion "might never approve of a peace negotiated with the help of the Roman Catholic Church."

To strengthen our knowledge of Japanese sentiments for peace still further, Tokyo---at about this time---also called on the Russians to negotiate peace on its behalf. Here, however, the obstacle was that the Soviet never acted on the request, in fact it never advised us of the Japanese move. We had to learn about it in a roundabout way.


How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender

In fact Zacharias was not quite truthful when wrote this last sentence in 1950. As most Second World War buffs probably now know, USA had broken Japanese codes. In July 1945 they read clearly instructions from Japanese Foreign Ministry to their Ambassador in Moscow Mr. Sato on asking USSR to broke peace. So from several sources USA had crystal clear info Japan wanted peace.


Zacharias was sane and competent man with unquestioned integrity. And hardly can be said was unpatriotic or left wing peacenik. So his words are very potent anti toxin against lies and falsehoods peddled by our chest thumper USA superpatriots.:)
 
Feb 2014
527
South Carolina, USA
I would like to extend a formal congratulation to DIVUS for presenting serious arguments backed up by a decent amount of research. Maribat has also tried his hands at an anti-bomb argument, but unfortunately it seems this fat clown couldn't muster up anything more complicated than ''boo hoo what about the civilians?''
 

OpanaPointer

Ad Honoris
Dec 2010
11,643
Near St. Louis.
Try 20,000 unarmed conscripts. There was barely enough weapons to arm even a fifth of the 40,000 soldiers at Hiroshima, and they could barely feed them.
If you want to quibble about the status of the soldiers I get to point out that the civilians were engaged in activities supporting the war.
 
Feb 2014
527
South Carolina, USA
Warhouse means I or Admiral Zacharias is the "fat clown" with no arguments?:)
I didn't even refer to you or your post. I appreciate that you actually provided some evidence for your argument, though I don't appreciate how you think anyone that disagrees with you is a ''superpatriot'' blinded by their nationalism. Granted, I've done my share of name calling in this thread, but I wasn't engaging in a serious argument, I just wanted to poke fun at Maribat because he's a boob.

Your previous post kind of relies on nothing but referring to an authority figure though. Granted, when I first learned MacArthur, Eisenhower and Nimitz disapproved of the bombs I actually believed for a while that the bombings were unjustified, but earlier this year I did some reading and it turned my opinion around again. I think I've provided enough evidence the Japanese were not pursuing an unconditional surrender, I'll be back later to debate some more.