Vj Day

[phart]

The propaganda was done later smoothing around the edges.

The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians." Harry Truman

Edited August 15, 2015 by phart

[Eisegerwind]

Exactly

Oliver Stone is a fantasist albeit an entertaining one as his JFK proves

The last Japanese troops to surrender did so in 1974 for those that think they were "definitely about" to surrender before the first bomb was dropped

Not that i'm advocating the bomb being dropped - but there are a hell of a lot of revisionists about these days which will sadly only increase as those that were actually there are no longer here

People seem to forget what it was like taking the islands off Japan - Peleliu, Okinawa and Iwo Jima in particular

Its not a hard argument to suggest that the casualties on both sides of an assault on the Japanese mainland would have been far worse

Yeah, lets judge Japans ability to fight ,surrender, or make peace one isolated lost soldier who'd probably lost it.

[Eisegerwind]

Interesting theory, what was the time scale from the 1st and 2nd bomb. You would think they would have surrended after the 1st bomb if they were on the verge of surrendering.

Maybe they were thinking about if they could out-do the Allies with something even more monstrous. They though too long about it obviously as we outdid first.

[Eisegerwind]

'thought'

[Ally Bongo]

Yeah, lets judge Japans ability to fight ,surrender, or make peace one isolated lost soldier who'd probably lost it.

Aye thats what i was doing

There will always be conjecture - especially 70 years after the event.

Was Japan beaten before the bombs were dropped ? Yes - but it was still fighting desperately and there was every indication it would continue do do so.

Yes - Some of the more informed and intelligent elements in Japanese official circles realised they were fighting a losing battle and that complete destruction lay ahead if the war continued.

Were these people powerful enough to sway that argument with the dominating Army organization backed by the less informed and brainwashed masses ?

Easy to answer these questions now than it was in 1945

[Eisegerwind]

Exactly

Oliver Stone is a fantasist albeit an entertaining one as his JFK proves

The last Japanese troops to surrender did so in 1974 for those that think they were "definitely about" to surrender before the first bomb was dropped

Not that i'm advocating the bomb being dropped - but there are a hell of a lot of revisionists about these days which will sadly only increase as those that were actually there are no longer here

People seem to forget what it was like taking the islands off Japan - Peleliu, Okinawa and Iwo Jima in particular

Its not a hard argument to suggest that the casualties on both sides of an assault on the Japanese mainland would have been far worse

'People seem to forget..' would imagine those that fought don't. However I would guess it was loads of death,blood and unimaginable horror for both sides. I wasn't there you weren't there,it's history.Let's move on.

[Ally Bongo]

'People seem to forget..' would imagine those that fought don't. However I would guess it was loads of death,blood and unimaginable horror for both sides. I wasn't there you weren't there,it's history.Let's move on.

Eh ?

Wind yer neck in chum

The thread developed into a "was the bomb justified" discussion before i appeared

I only added my tuppence worth as devils advocate to those that are stating it wasnt

[Eisegerwind]

Fair enough. As I typed that I had 're living the dreams of past glories' running about in my head

Other versions are available.

[ThistleWhistle]

Interesting theory, what was the time scale from the 1st and 2nd bomb. You would think they would have surrended after the 1st bomb if they were on the verge of surrendering.

My understanding is just basically the History Channel; World at War series; the Soviet equivalent; a few articles and wiki to tie up the time-line so if I'm havering shite someone can point out:

At the Yalta Conference in February 1945 Stalin agreed to declare war on Japan within 3 months of German surrender.

In March the US began carpet bombing Japan; Tokyo in one night caused 100,000 deaths which is a similar number to the total US deaths of the Pacific War. This continued for 9 months with total estimated civilian deaths ranging from 300,000 to 900,000.

In April Soviets told Japan the Neutrality Pact would expire in 12 months. Via this route Japan hoped to negotiate with the Allies surrender other than 'unconditional' to protect the Emperor.

In Mid-June LaMay authorised bombing of small/medium populated areas between 60,000 and 250,000 as anywhere bigger had already been levelled. However, Hiroshima and Nagasaki remained pretty much untouched. The inference being these were already identified as targets for the atomic bombs.

In June Japan offered land concessions to the Soviets for a negotiated surrender as believed they were still honouring the Neutrality pact.

End of July Allies announced the Potsdam Declaration that demanded unconditional surrender. Japan waited for the Soviet's response on their behalf that obviously never came.

Early August the US knew the Soviets were due to join the war on the 8th as per Yalta and had intelligence of the size of the force being amassed for the invasion.

8th first bomb was dropped.

9th Soviets invaded Manchuria, smashed what was regarded as an elite Japanese army, only stopping for lack of provision. A further force invaded Sakhalin with the end objective being to take the Northern Mainland within 10-14 days. Japan were unprepared for the Soviets due to believing their Pact was still in place and estimated invasion would take days compared to the US whose invasion they estimated in months.

During a cabinet meeting to decide on course of action they were made aware the second bomb was dropped. The vote remained 3:3 on accepting unconditional surrender. They remained deadlocked even after intelligence from a captured US pilot falsely stated under interrogation that Tokyo and Kyoto were to have the bomb dropped on them within the week.

Later on that day when the deadlock was taken to the Emperor he agreed to the surrender noting the inadequate defences to repel invasion first and the destruction of the bombs second.

Emperor remained in power as essentially US didn't want it turning communist.

[exile]

The Soviet dimension is often overlooked in typical accounts of the war against Japan, but seems crucial, and seems to deserve airing, whatever else is being commemorated.

And the idea that the US dropped the bombs as much to show its own prowess, send a signal to USSR and to avoid them having a foothold in Japan.

[King Of Paisley]

This.

To find out what they actually did go through there are some great books out there. Unbroken, The Forgotten Highlander, and The Railway Man, amongst others.

Couldn't believe the brutality that was meted out by the Japs when reading that book. And to think Phil The Greek rubbed salt into the woods by attending that despicable khunt' Hirahito's funeral.

[exile]

My understanding is just basically the History Channel; World at War series; the Soviet equivalent; a few articles and wiki to tie up the time-line so if I'm havering shite someone can point out:

It's also covered in the book 'Between the Lies'

Chapter 7, around pages 97-99

The writing was on the wall as soon as the Soviets entered the attack on Japan. Truman's claim to be saving lives refuted here - the target cities were chosen because of their concentration of population. Even Eisenhower and Churchill admitted the atomic bomb was not necessary to end the war.

http://www.slideshare.net/vipulmahapatra/winer-between-the-lies-rise-of-the-mediamilitaryindustrial-complex-2004

[mcnpauls]

It's a tough one, because the Japanese military leadership, who were immensely powerful, although they did not quite have total control of the government, were sticking to their "100 million will perish together" strategy to deal with an invasion, ie national suicide, and they had no intention of surrendering. The U.S. had encountered really horrifying mass suicides of woman, children and old people on small islands like Saipan, and really feared the Japanese were willing to commit national suicide if the sacred home islands were attacked.

After the occupation, the US authorities were horrified to discover they had many thousands of planes hidden and with massive bomb stockpiles to launch kamikaze attacks on the Americans landing on the home islands. The most nightmarishly pessimissitic American planners had foreseen only a fraction of that capacity.

Remember, too, that the Japanese leaders did not surrender after Hiroshima, or after the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, but it was the Emperor himself who took the decision to surrender after those events and Nagaski made him realise the generals' way might actually lead to the extinction of Japan. He thought he would be murdered by his own generals for doing so, or executed by the Americans if he survived, but I genuinely believe his decisions saved at least millions of Japanese lives, and at least hundreds of thousands of American ones.

Edited August 17, 2015 by mcnpauls

[exile]

It's a tough one, because the Japanese military leadership, who were immensely powerful, although they did not quite have total control of the government, were sticking to their "100 million will perish together" strategy to deal with an invasion, ie national suicide, and they had no intention of surrendering. The U.S. had encountered really horrifying mass suicides of woman, children and old people on small islands like Saipan, and really feared the Japanese were willing to commit national suicide if the sacred home islands were attacked.

After the occupation, the US authorities were horrified to discover they had many thousands of planes hidden and with massive bomb stockpiles to launch kamikaze attacks on the Americans landing on the home islands. The most nightmarishly pessimissitic American planners had foreseen only a fraction of that capacity.

Remember, too, that the Japanese leaders did not surrender after Hiroshima, or after the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, but it was the Emperor himself who took the decision to surrender after those events and Nagaski made him realise the generals' way might actually lead to the extinction of Japan. He thought he would be murdered by his own generals for doing so, or executed by the Americans if he survived, but I genuinely believe his decisions saved at least millions of Japanese lives, and at least hundreds of thousands of American ones.

Interesting.

Can anyone explain, though, why surrender came after two bombs?

Why was one (or none) not enough, but then two was enough?

Why was the second bomb dropped so soon after the first?

Incidentally (or not) there were two different types of bomb...

[Ally Bongo]

Good post

It's also worth remembering that there were 3 weeks between the Japenese offer to surrender and the actual surrender on September 2nd

The was because time was needed to arrange details of the surrender/occupation and for the Japanese Government to prepare it's people to accept the defeat.

There was the genuine threat of a revolt against the Government. led by an army group and supported by the peasants to seize control and continue the war and for several days it was touch and go as to whether the people would follow the Government in surrender

[Ally Bongo]

Interesting.

Can anyone explain, though, why surrender came after two bombs?

Why was one (or none) not enough, but then two was enough?

Why was the second bomb dropped so soon after the first?

Incidentally (or not) there were two different types of bomb...

There are a couple of theories

As mentioned earlier most intellectuals in the Japanese Government knew they were beaten and had already offered surrender but it was not unconditional (issues over the Emperor) but also the Army held the real power and a large swathe of them (and the people who believed they were winning) were not for surrendering

The intellectuals needed to sway the army and one devastation after another (the fire bombing followed by Hiroshima and then Nagasaki and then the Russian invasion of Manchuria) swayed more of them over until they had enough of the army on their side.

[Bristolhibby]

Did you watch Oliver Stone's series? According to him US knew that the Japanese were up for surrendering and dropping the bombs was more to do with sending the shiters up the Russians - I always foolishly thought the Russians started the Cold War. He said why would dropping one bomb from one plane make any difference than dropping thousands from hundreds - pretty much anywhere with a decent sized population had been firebombed to cinders apart from the two they were saving for the bomb.

He argued the Japanese were up for surrendering because of the speed the Russians had taken Manchuria and South Sakhalin in under a fortnight - if they took the Japanese mainland then they were concerned the Russians would do away with the Emperor.

Interesting thing on Truman was he was essentially an eejit (not much of an education/various failed businesses) and was about fifth choice to contest for the Vice President for a big hitting group in the Democrats who needed a puppet. Wallace, who'd been Roosevelt's Vice President since 1940, was to romp it but his socialist leanings had made him unpopular with the top dogs. By the time he came to get re-elected in 1944 Roosevelt didn't have the health to help his campaign and even though he was polling 60% compared to Truman <5% Truman won after some shenanigans with when the vote took place. In less than 100 days Truman was president and pretty much f**ked up relations with Russia from day one.

Interesting to contemplate how the world would have turned out had Wallace been President at the same time Attlee was Prime Minister.

That series is possibly one of the best series I have ever watched on television.

I went and bought the book afterwards. It was an epiphany for me, really opened my eyes up to the "real" world. Seriously felt like Neo awakening from the Matrix.

Can't recommend it enough, you will view life differently after watching it.

J

[exile]

There are a couple of theories

As mentioned earlier most intellectuals in the Japanese Government knew they were beaten and had already offered surrender but it was not unconditional (issues over the Emperor) but also the Army held the real power and a large swathe of them (and the people who believed they were winning) were not for surrendering

The intellectuals needed to sway the army and one devastation after another (the fire bombing followed by Hiroshima and then Nagasaki and then the Russian invasion of Manchuria) swayed more of them over until they had enough of the army on their side.

I guess we'll never know, if there was a specific tipping point. But with the Soviet declaration of war on same day (or thereabouts) as 2nd bomb, it must be at least as likely, as not, that the Soviet thrust would have been enough, to trigger surrender, without the 2nd bomb.

The question remains, why was the 2nd bomb so soon after the first?

There must be at least some suspicion the Americas wanted to try out their 2nd type of bomb (Fat Man - plutonium - as opposed to Little Boy - uranium), before the war was ended by other means. And in doing so send the Soviets the most potent message, and stop them invading Japan first...?

[phart]

Another issue that muddies the water is all the wartime propaganda.

[wellyman]

One thing that appears to be forgotten here is what the Japanese did to the Chinese from 1937 through to 1945 , they raped the city of Nanjing killing upto 300,000 people. That was not done by carpet bombing but actual troops on the ground, in total the loss of the Chinese throughout that period was 6 million.

I think it is important to remember VJ day as to what the Japanese did not only to western people but also to asian people who suffered .

The dropping of the atomic bomb in that period was the correct thing do at that time.

[phart]

So because one group of Japanese brutalised a city, some other group of Japanese should have got eradicated.

You do realise the Allies raped their way across Europe too? starved entire cities. Would the people living in Glasgow deserve to have the bomb dropped on them.

the Allies also Pardoned the perpetrator of the Nanking Massacre, so it's OK to pardon the officer in charge and OK to drop a bomb on civilians that had nothing to do with it.

I'd suggest dropping bombs on children and turning them into shadows on a wall will never be the correct thing to do.

Sacking populations in war is as old as war. It's trait of our species not individual nations.

Edited August 18, 2015 by phart

[Nobby]

One thing that appears to be forgotten here is what the Japanese did to the Chinese from 1937 through to 1945 , they raped the city of Nanjing killing upto 300,000 people. That was not done by carpet bombing but actual troops on the ground, in total the loss of the Chinese throughout that period was 6 million.

I think it is important to remember VJ day as to what the Japanese did not only to western people but also to asian people who suffered .

The dropping of the atomic bomb in that period was the correct thing do at that time.

This

fairly certain if i was sitting on a troop ship en-route to japan and they said "lads weve got two options 1. invade and lots of you die or 2. drop a big bomb and loads of them die . i know which i would have opted for !!!

[Toepoke]

It's actually hard to disagree with both sides of the argument here. I think if I was Harry Truman I'd have got them to drop the bomb over the sea as a show of strength. That might have been enough to force a surrender without the horrific aftermath (although a resulting tsunami might have been fairly devastating too!)

[phart]

It's actually hard to disagree with both sides of the argument here. I think if I was Harry Truman I'd have got them to drop the bomb over the sea as a show of strength. That might have been enough to force a surrender without the horrific aftermath (although a resulting tsunami might have been fairly devastating too!)

The bombs detonate about half a mile in the air, they don't hit the ground/water then blow up.

[Toepoke]

The bombs detonate about half a mile in the air, they don't hit the ground/water then blow up.

Understand that, perhaps they could've set it off 10 miles from the coast though?