Another factor was that the U.S. thought it was very possible we’d be going to war with Russia and was slow to demobilize so there was definitely the intent to intimidate the Soviet Union even that early.
If you mean developing the bomb, then fine.
If you mean dropping the bomb, then that seems pretty controversial.
I thought it was pretty well established that the USA knew Japan was willing to surrender, but dropped the bomb anyway?
This is the opposite of what I usually hear? I've heard things about how Japan was getting ready to fight to the last man, starting to arm civilians.
I have heard that the emperor was maybe willing to surrender, but that the country was essentially being run by the military leadership, who would ~never see surrender as an option.
If the USSR decided to invade Japan on its own, who cares? We could let them fight. Or we could ally with Japan.
I honestly see this as a purely gut-level reaction to the astonishing power of the nuclear bomb more than anything about the victims. The casualties of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are but a rounding error next to all those who died by fire bombing, carpet bombing, siege and starvations, and all the other infernos of WW2.
It's not that this makes it okay, it just makes it strange that the bombings get all this attention in popular culture over other much more horrific atrocities and massacres. This was probably an effect of the 1960s/1970s/1980s terror of nuclear projected back on the events of 1945.
The A bomb is extensively discussed late in the series, with shift in the strategy from strategic bombing to mass firebombing as US were preparing the invasion of mainland japan.
TL;DR: > I thought it was pretty well established that the USA knew Japan was willing to surrender, but dropped the bomb anyway?
Simply not true, however answering if Abomb was good move or not, is such a complex and nuanced question you cannot just have a simple statement for or against.
The USA feared the invasion of mainland japan because of the unimaginable looses they would incur. Japan's population was prepared to fight USA with sharpened bamboo stick, and I mean population as in civilians, as in EVERY single person is possibly out to get you. Just imagine what kind of mental damage you would put of your soldiers to have to mow down scores of suicidal civilians. Note that this behaviour was already showing up as US were nearing closer to actual japan.
Also you had USSR freed from fighting nazis having a massive score to settle with japan. Do you want uncle stalin also be involved? (given what happened to west/east germany was it better japan avoided est/west japan split?)
Have a listen to [1] on the accounts of firebombing of Tokyo. It horrendous fate in comparison to A-bomb. On top the horror of slowly burning alive trapped in fire cage there were far more death from firebombings/carpetbombings than Abombs.
[0]https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-62-supern...
[1]https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-67-supern...
There are a few different theories about this, and still some controversy about it all to this very day as I understand it.
One idea holds that Japan would have surrendered earlier had the Allies not insisted on the abolition of the role of the Emperor (who as I understand it, is something akin to God in Japanese culture). This was apparently a step too far for the Japanese at the time.
Another idea holds that even if the Allies had invaded, the Japanese would have quickly capitulated IF the Russians were part of the invasion. Supposedly Japan was uniquely afraid of Russia at that moment in history, for some reason. I don't recall now the details behind this suggestion.
I can't say much about the veracity of either position, but those are two themes I've heard repeatedly about the situation.
If you have any evidence otherwise, I would be interested in reviewing it.
- nuclear threat is a serious cost to productivity and well-being - the bomb merely brought forward a conclusion that was already looking inevitable
There's an obvious counter that some nation likely would have developed nuclear weapons independently - America was merely the first.
Nonetheless, I think it's not a given that the bomb was a positive.
By the time nukes were dropped on Japan [0] in August 1945 nazi Germany was defeated, the war in Europe ended, Soviets attacked Japanese army in Manchuria [1] on August 9-th -- the day of Nagasaki bombing.
Dropping bombs on Japan had one main purpose - to show the Soviets who is the boss and prevent them from invading and occupying Japan before the USA can do it.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a...
Between that, and the amphibious attacks against Korea, the Kurils, and Sakhalin, the US was on a pretty short clock to end the war before communism had a chance to move in, and settle down.
Stalin respected the pre-agreed partition of Europe, but neither Postdam, nor Tehran said very much about who would be in control of what part of the Japanese empire after the war... And in practice, this meant that when the war ended, possession, in the form of 'whose army is parked where' was nine tenths of the law.
The United States was not at all interested in seeing an East/West Japan partition. North/South Korea was bad enough.
Sometimes there are only bad options available. The bomb was the best choice
"After the war, the commander of Japan's minesweeping operations noted that he thought this mining campaign could have directly led to the defeat of Japan on its own had it begun earlier. Similar conclusions were reached by American analysts who reported in July 1946 in the United States Strategic Bombing Survey that it would have been more efficient to combine the United States' effective anti-shipping submarine effort with land- and carrier-based air power to strike harder against merchant shipping and begin a more extensive aerial mining campaign earlier in the war. This would have starved Japan, forcing an earlier end to the war." [0]&[2]
"While some of the main actors (the UK, the US, Germany, and Japan) escaped famine..." [1]
"In Britain, Germany, and Japan, rationing was effective; even though food availability was sharply reduced almost everywhere, few literally died of hunger. Britain and Germany managed to maintain food consumption per capita at about 3,000 calories throughout the war. In Japan consumption fell from a norm of 2,000 calories per capita before Pearl Harbor to 1,900 calories in 1944, plummeting to 1,680 calories by the war’s end." [1]
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Starvation