Was Dropping the Atomic Bomb Necessary for Ending the War with Japan?

[Klaus]

gao_yixing has a point there. Both sides knew what would happen if one throws the bomb. They only could threaten each other. The race for arms.

[jdbeatty]

Originally Posted by Jim O

I voted that they were necessary, and that while cruel, did actually serve several purposes. They ended the war, they showed the world the real danger of atomic warfare, and they saved Allied lives.

Not just to be contrarian, but...the bombs were needed, but not to end WWII with Japan.

Japan was not going to surrender, ever. Strictly speaking, the government and the military (coequal under the Meiji Constitution) were compelled to it by the Imperial Rescript. Hirohito issued that rescript when he realized that he could no longer fulfill his sacred duty in protecting the imperial regailia, since the military told him that they could not stop any invasion. He was also aware that Japan would have been immolated in the resulting campaigns. The atomic bombs played no part in his decision according to the extant records.

Japan would indeed have starved, and the probablility existed that the peasants would rise up against the military (after the civil government was disbanded, which was planned for early September). But the military would probably have just killed them off. Waiting for starvation to take hold would have resulted in far more Japanese casualties. Invasion, of course would have resulted in their destruction, as well.

No, the bombs were needed to show that it could be done, that an operational weapon could be made, which had been an object of some speculation for at least a decade. The arms race and cold war that followed cost everyone a lot of money, but comparatively fewer lives IF...and a big if... the West and the Soviets had squared off immediately afterwards, and there was some potential for that. The West's economies were not built for it, the manpower reserves on neither side were not infinite, and everyone needed to get back to rebuilding. A major conflict was not reasonable, but within Stalin's power.

The a-bombs bought the world breathing space. They did not end WWII with Japan.

[Leonard]

I think the northern most Japanese island would have been invaded by the Soviets had the war not ended when it did. Also, when the military coup failed who knows how many officers might have felt differently had it not been for the bombs. Would they have supported the coup?

[DDLDSDB]

I voted not necessary. An example of an island that was defended by troops may have had a great impact also.Japan was talking surrender at least 6 months prior to the bombings. But then again, she was very close to building her own,and if she had, our troops would have been up the creek. Politics etc.

[jdbeatty]

Originally Posted by DDLDSDB

I voted not necessary. An example of an island that was defended by troops may have had a great impact also.Japan was talking surrender at least 6 months prior to the bombings. But then again, she was very close to building her own,and if she had, our troops would have been up the creek. Politics etc.

"Japan" was most decidedly NOT talking "surrender," though a couple of times the military had offered an armistice on terms unacceptable to anyone (essentially just stopping the shooting while still occupying the turf they had).

Further, Japan was nowhere near building a nuclear device, having only started serious reserch in 1945. With less than a hundred tons of uranium ore in the archepelago they could not have made anything more than a firecracker even if they had a design and the manufacturing capacity (neither of which they had).

[jdbeatty]

Originally Posted by Leonard

I think the northern most Japanese island would have been invaded by the Soviets had the war not ended when it did. Also, when the military coup failed who knows how many officers might have felt differently had it not been for the bombs. Would they have supported the coup?

THe Soviet archives show a definate plan and buildup for an invasion of Japan by mid-September, certainly by October, 1945. The "military coup" of which you speak would only have replaced officers obeying the Empero's wishes with those who wanted him to think differently. Supporting the "coup" was a non-starter.

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by jdbeatty

THe Soviet archives show a definate plan and buildup for an invasion of Japan by mid-September, certainly by October, 1945.

Indeed the Soviets planned to invade Hokkaido, the northernmost island of the Japanese archipelago, on August 23, 1945 after mopping up in Manchuria. This was postponed by Stalin one day before, probably because he did not want to confront the US who did have "the bomb" (I suppose that he did not know that there was not another working device at the time).

Source When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler, DM Glantz and JM House, p 282

There are those who claim that Japan was talking "conditional surrender" much earlier, but the condition would be that Hirohito would not be tried as a war criminal and he would be allowed to stay on the throne. Evidently the Japanese did have a huge fear of the communism in general and the Soviets in particular, so the threat of Soviet invasion may well have played into the decision to accept American and British terms. Since this issue was not resolved until after the war (with Hirohito putting most of the blame on Tojo) that was unacceptable politically in the US at the time, even though eventually that wound up being the result.

[DDLDSDB]

Originally Posted by jdbeatty

"Japan" was most decidedly NOT talking "surrender," though a couple of times the military had offered an armistice on terms unacceptable to anyone (essentially just stopping the shooting while still occupying the turf they had).

Further, Japan was nowhere near building a nuclear device, having only started serious reserch in 1945. With less than a hundred tons of uranium ore in the archepelago they could not have made anything more than a firecracker even if they had a design and the manufacturing capacity (neither of which they had).

Where,did you come up with that?

[jdbeatty]

Originally Posted by Jim O

There are those who claim that Japan was talking "conditional surrender" much earlier, but the condition would be that Hirohito would not be tried as a war criminal and he would be allowed to stay on the throne. Evidently the Japanese did have a huge fear of the communism in general and the Soviets in particular, so the threat of Soviet invasion may well have played into the decision to accept American and British terms. Since this issue was not resolved until after the war (with Hirohito putting most of the blame on Tojo) that was unacceptable politically in the US at the time, even though eventually that wound up being the result.

THe "conditional surrender" often touted by those who screech about the non-nessesity of the bomb wasn't a surrender at all, but a cease-fire. The terms included no withdrawls from then-occupied territory, no war crimes trials except by the Japanese, no disarmament except on a Japanese timetable, no demobilization, and no occupation by anything or anyone Allied. Essentially it was a cease-fire and completely unacceptable to everyone except of coure the samurai.

And those who were offerieng it weren't even authorized to do so. A businessman in Berne and a second-level diplomat with cocktail-party ties to the a neutral embassy does not a true peace overture make from a societiy that saw the military as coequal with the government.

[jdbeatty]

Originally Posted by DDLDSDB

Where,did you come up with that?

Japanese A-Bomb: Rhodes, "Making of the Atomic Bomb;" Powers, "Heisenberg's War;" Frank, "Downfall."

Surrender: Bix, "Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan;" Frank, ibid; Herries, "Soldiers of the Sun;" Varley, "The Samurai."

Why?