Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by GlennS | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

GlennS

Depends what you mean by "the outcome" here.

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?

View on HN

> 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.

Well, that's what Truman said.

>If you mean dropping the bomb, then that seems pretty controversial

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.

Pure gut level reactions do make a difference though. The exact mechanism of threat can make a substantive difference to fear and how an enemy react. The brutal nature of nuclear weapons could be a feature.

I'm pretty sure the US thought that every man between 16 and 65 was going to be given a weapon and fight for every inch of Japanese soil. That at the time it was considered likely that we would have to fight a long war of attrition across the island losing hundreds of thousands of Americans and being forced to kill uncountable Japanese conscripts.

We never had to do that. We could have simply not invaded the main islands. Furthermore, we could have offered a peace agreement that ends the war without occupation of Japan.

I don't know if we could have just offered peace. The Japanese forces on various islands were refusing to surrender, even when vastly outnumbered. Japan may not have recognized a peace treaty without an occupation. Further, if the US didn't occupy Japan, the USSR could and the Japanese people could have been absorbed as another soviet state.

We know the Japanese forces outside of Japan would have surrendered if there was a peace treaty, because that's what happened. That would be the purpose of a peace treaty (and exchange of prisoners, etc.).

If the USSR decided to invade Japan on its own, who cares? We could let them fight. Or we could ally with Japan.

I have studied this and as yet I am unable to find any evidence that Truman thought Japans surrender was imminent. All evidence I have found seems to point to Truman actually believing that dropping the bomb would save lives- both American and Japanese.

If you have any evidence otherwise, I would be interested in reviewing it.

I thought it was pretty well established that the USA knew Japan was willing to surrender, but dropped the bomb anyway?

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.

The speculation I’ve read is that dropping the bomb was as much about deterring the Russians than preventing a ground invasion of Japan.

If you want to have a comprehensive view of what happened and why things happened, I cannot recommend Dan Carlin's Hardcore History series enough on this topic [0].

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...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com