We nuked Japan because we wanted to test nukes, not because it materially affected the war effort. It’s possible our government would have considered it “wrong” to nuke white Europeans.
This is false. A conventional invasion of the homeland would have been extremely costly. The Japanese were deeply convinced of the war being live or death for everyone.
to illustrate the scale of this: The invasion of japan was estimated to produce hundreds of thousands of dead and millions wounded US servicepeople. We still haven’t used up the production run of Purple Hearts produced in anticipation of the war lasting for years longer.
I’ve read that Hirohito may have wanted to surrender or sue for peace but the generals / admirals controlling the war basically refused, and it was only the second bomb that finally pushed them to allow the emperor to surrender.
It’s all “boo hoo, they dropped the bomb on Japan”, but the only context given, or reference to the absolute horrors Japan inflicted on SE Asia is like “somehow Japan found itself at war”
Japan sees itself as a victim of the war, not the bloodthirsty, psychopathic nation that murdered millions of innocent people out of imperial greed.
The museums are about the bombs, not the war. Other atrocities like the destruction of Tokyo also weren’t mentioned, so if you call it disingenuous you might’ve missed the point to be honest. 300.000 lives were destroyed in an instant, with many of them suffering greatly over day, weeks, years and even decades. The museus show what happened on those 2 days and why nuclear bombs should never be used again
All 3 can be true; dropping the bombs were a warcrime, being an untargeted attacked against civilians of a country that already tried to surrender, Japan committed atrocities across EA, and has failed to come to terms with its past.
I don’t think it was ‘about to surrender’ in the way your interpreting.
don’t get me wrong, it was a war of annihilation - on the 6th the US drops the bomb on Hiroshima, on the 8th the soviets flood 1m+ soldiers into manchuria, the next day the US drops on Nagasaki, then on the 10th the emperor breaks the deadlock in the cabinet.
On the 15th the Emperor makes the radio address and it’s pretty much over.
the problem is there’s a LOT of moving parts on both sides trying to figure out if it’s over or just the beginning of another series of conflicts that will split japan between the western allies and the soviets - something I think the Japanese feared more than actual destruction.
I’m definitely interpreting their words correctly, something along the lines of “investigations have shown that Japan would’ve surrendered even without dropping the bombs.”
I didn’t fact check this of course, but I assume the museum did. In the end it’s difficult to say for sure, there were a lot of variables like you said, but that is the conclusion that the museum came up with
But… I’ve heard (from people online) nuking Japan was a necessary evil. Is that not the case? (I am big dummy and legit don’t know, suck at history. Though I am somewhat skeptical hearing potential USians say their violence was necessary)
Even after the bombs were dropped there was a coup attemptto overthrow Emperor Hirohito so that Japan could keep on fighting to the last man, woman and child.
It was a necessary evil, but it was just that. Evil.
Japan could keep on fighting to the last man, woman and child.
“fighting to the last man, woman and child” invokes a long-standing racist orientalism, with this notion of a super-honorable Japanese race who are incapable of making rational decisions - conveniently played up and accepted as gospel to justify the mass murder of a six-figure number of civilians whilst also painting them as not normal humans.
Operation Downfall estimated casualties in the millions for both sides with the USA still using purple hearts that were made FOR Downfall
It’s not racist to say that a society that would rather commit ritualistic suicide than spread shame or dishonour to their family would fight to the very bloody end than bear the shame of losing the war.
It’s not racist to say that a society that would rather commit ritualistic suicide than spread shame or dishonour to their family would fight to the very bloody end than bear the shame of losing the war.
It’s dictionary definition racism. You’re attributing something that a small number of people in the country did, to the entire group. It doesn’t get any more racist than that.
Your citations are poor as well, given the Allies also had conscription, and you’re citing Allied reports as though they could possibly be regarded as a reliable unbiased description of the Japanese.
You’re using “I’m not racist but…” racism, to justify mass civilian murder. Have a word with yourself.
Essentially, there were three options going into the second half of 1945: invasion, blockade, or the atomic bombings.
Invasion and blockade both had projected casualties in the millions. So Truman made the decision to attempt to use the atomic bombs as a weapon of intimidation, dropping them and promising total destruction by the means of more such bombings if Japan did not surrender.
I will never defend the firebombings over Japan, which did nothing to hasten the end of the war. But the atomic bomb was a new and devastating weapon which Truman, and much of US high command who were aware of its existence, correctly surmised would convince the Japanese government of the futility of further resistance (combined with a bluff that we had as many as we needed).
Notably, even after the Soviet Union joined the war and both bombs had been dropped, a significant faction of the Japanese government wanted to keep fighting, even attempting a coup to continue the war. Only the direct intervention of Emperor Hirohito, a key figure in the State Shinto faith pushed by the Japanese Empire at the time, pushed the Japanese government to the negotiating table on terms less than “We keep our imperial conquests but say sowwy 😊”
Is it not the case that the US favored the atomic bombs also because they saw that the USSR was carving a part of Europe into its sphere of influence and wanted to avoid the same happening in Japan?
The Soviets were preparing a massive invasion and they had started moving into Manchuria about at the same time.
Getting Japan to surrender now would allow the US to move in instead of the Soviets.
The Soviets never had any serious chance at making headway into Japan, even in its weakened state. The Soviet Pacific fleet was in terrible condition, and would not have been able to sustain anything more than a tiny expeditionary force.
I think it had to be a sneak attack, because planes didn’t have the long range they have now, so warning your enemies about the bomb would enable the to prepare.
We nuked Japan because we wanted to test nukes, not because it materially affected the war effort. It’s possible our government would have considered it “wrong” to nuke white Europeans.
This is false. A conventional invasion of the homeland would have been extremely costly. The Japanese were deeply convinced of the war being live or death for everyone.
to illustrate the scale of this: The invasion of japan was estimated to produce hundreds of thousands of dead and millions wounded US servicepeople. We still haven’t used up the production run of Purple Hearts produced in anticipation of the war lasting for years longer.
https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/75-years-later-purple-hearts-made-for-an-invasion-
Excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta. Is it so hard to see both reasons are true.
It turns out that they were already about to surrender
citation?
I’ve read that Hirohito may have wanted to surrender or sue for peace but the generals / admirals controlling the war basically refused, and it was only the second bomb that finally pushed them to allow the emperor to surrender.
Don’t have a link for it, it was written in the atom bomb museum of Nagasaki I think, or Hiroshima, but I think it was Nagasaki
The Peace Museum is such a disingenuous monument.
It’s all “boo hoo, they dropped the bomb on Japan”, but the only context given, or reference to the absolute horrors Japan inflicted on SE Asia is like “somehow Japan found itself at war”
Japan sees itself as a victim of the war, not the bloodthirsty, psychopathic nation that murdered millions of innocent people out of imperial greed.
The museums are about the bombs, not the war. Other atrocities like the destruction of Tokyo also weren’t mentioned, so if you call it disingenuous you might’ve missed the point to be honest. 300.000 lives were destroyed in an instant, with many of them suffering greatly over day, weeks, years and even decades. The museus show what happened on those 2 days and why nuclear bombs should never be used again
All 3 can be true; dropping the bombs were a warcrime, being an untargeted attacked against civilians of a country that already tried to surrender, Japan committed atrocities across EA, and has failed to come to terms with its past.
I don’t think it was ‘about to surrender’ in the way your interpreting.
don’t get me wrong, it was a war of annihilation - on the 6th the US drops the bomb on Hiroshima, on the 8th the soviets flood 1m+ soldiers into manchuria, the next day the US drops on Nagasaki, then on the 10th the emperor breaks the deadlock in the cabinet.
On the 15th the Emperor makes the radio address and it’s pretty much over.
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/japans-surrender-military-coup-1945
the problem is there’s a LOT of moving parts on both sides trying to figure out if it’s over or just the beginning of another series of conflicts that will split japan between the western allies and the soviets - something I think the Japanese feared more than actual destruction.
I’m definitely interpreting their words correctly, something along the lines of “investigations have shown that Japan would’ve surrendered even without dropping the bombs.”
I didn’t fact check this of course, but I assume the museum did. In the end it’s difficult to say for sure, there were a lot of variables like you said, but that is the conclusion that the museum came up with
But… I’ve heard (from people online) nuking Japan was a necessary evil. Is that not the case? (I am big dummy and legit don’t know, suck at history. Though I am somewhat skeptical hearing potential USians say their violence was necessary)
Even after the bombs were dropped there was a coup attemptto overthrow Emperor Hirohito so that Japan could keep on fighting to the last man, woman and child.
It was a necessary evil, but it was just that. Evil.
“fighting to the last man, woman and child” invokes a long-standing racist orientalism, with this notion of a super-honorable Japanese race who are incapable of making rational decisions - conveniently played up and accepted as gospel to justify the mass murder of a six-figure number of civilians whilst also painting them as not normal humans.
Volunteer Fighting Corps conscripted all males aged 15-60 and all unmarried females aged 17-40
Operation Downfall estimated casualties in the millions for both sides with the USA still using purple hearts that were made FOR Downfall
It’s not racist to say that a society that would rather commit ritualistic suicide than spread shame or dishonour to their family would fight to the very bloody end than bear the shame of losing the war.
It’s dictionary definition racism. You’re attributing something that a small number of people in the country did, to the entire group. It doesn’t get any more racist than that.
Your citations are poor as well, given the Allies also had conscription, and you’re citing Allied reports as though they could possibly be regarded as a reliable unbiased description of the Japanese.
You’re using “I’m not racist but…” racism, to justify mass civilian murder. Have a word with yourself.
Essentially, there were three options going into the second half of 1945: invasion, blockade, or the atomic bombings.
Invasion and blockade both had projected casualties in the millions. So Truman made the decision to attempt to use the atomic bombs as a weapon of intimidation, dropping them and promising total destruction by the means of more such bombings if Japan did not surrender.
I will never defend the firebombings over Japan, which did nothing to hasten the end of the war. But the atomic bomb was a new and devastating weapon which Truman, and much of US high command who were aware of its existence, correctly surmised would convince the Japanese government of the futility of further resistance (combined with a bluff that we had as many as we needed).
Notably, even after the Soviet Union joined the war and both bombs had been dropped, a significant faction of the Japanese government wanted to keep fighting, even attempting a coup to continue the war. Only the direct intervention of Emperor Hirohito, a key figure in the State Shinto faith pushed by the Japanese Empire at the time, pushed the Japanese government to the negotiating table on terms less than “We keep our imperial conquests but say sowwy 😊”
Is it not the case that the US favored the atomic bombs also because they saw that the USSR was carving a part of Europe into its sphere of influence and wanted to avoid the same happening in Japan?
The Soviets were preparing a massive invasion and they had started moving into Manchuria about at the same time.
Getting Japan to surrender now would allow the US to move in instead of the Soviets.
The Soviets never had any serious chance at making headway into Japan, even in its weakened state. The Soviet Pacific fleet was in terrible condition, and would not have been able to sustain anything more than a tiny expeditionary force.
OK thanks for the information.
This might interest you
I think it had to be a sneak attack, because planes didn’t have the long range they have now, so warning your enemies about the bomb would enable the to prepare.
There were warnings before bombings of some Japanese cities, and likely/possibly before the Hiroshima bomb was dropped.
It’s not clear if leaflets were dropped before the Nagasaki bomb however.
https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/key-documents/warning-leaflets/