Were the Japanese definitely willing to fight to the very last man, or was this just a bit of western propaganda? What is the evidence backing up these claims?
It was wrong as were the policies to deliberately bomb Japanese and German civilians through conventional means. The strategic mistake behind those immoral acts however was the demand for “unconditional surrender” which not only prolonged the war but created a power vacuum in Eastern Europe and East Asia which was filled by Communists. There is ample evidence that the Japanese would have surrendered with some conditions.
To those who support the bombings, do you also believe that terrorism can be justified under certain circumstances? The bombings were literally a form of terrorism on a massive scale: deliberately bombing a civilian population to destroy its morale and force surrender.
Note that even after the second bomb, the military leadership (which de facto ruled the country) still tried to fight on, no matter the immense cost in blood. They simply didn’t care if everyone else died as long as they kept their power. Rather disgustingly, once the Emperor and his advisors managed to smuggle out his famous (if self-serving) radio address, military officers throughout the country started looting everything it could drag away or scrap for some salvage. They carted off everything from food to chemicals to volumes of metal.
What mistake? It worked, didn’t it?
Yes I do.
It worked to prolong the war and enable a massive expansion of Communist power in Europe and Asia. Not exactly what the US was fighting for, I think. And let’s not forget that the US lost more than a 100,000 lives fighting Communists in Asia. In a sense Korea and Vietnam were blowback for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
So a Japan partly occupied by the Soviet Union would have resulted in less Communist power in Asia?
Heck, if Patton had rolled across Europe to kick the Soviets back to Moscow, that would be prolonging the war and fending off communism. How accepting Japanese surrender earlier (assuming it was an option - dubious at best) would have nullified Mao Tse-Tung is unclear.
So basically, I have my doubts that you have the slightest clue what you’re talking about, pending some really impressive explanations.
Yes, they really did (or tried to…bolding mine):
Unless it is the theory I have seen expressed by some (usually from one particular political viewpoint) that we should have accepted a surrender of Germany which replaced Hitler, and allied with the Wehrmacht against the Soviets.
It is based on a pretty big assumption that this was feasible at the time. Britain would never have gone along with it. And it ignores the likelihood, IMHO, that if a separate peace was going to be made, it was more likely to be made between the Nazis and Soviets. While such a peace would be only temporary on both sides, it would allow the Germans sufficient times to shift resources to the West, making matters probably significantly different.
How this relates to Japan I have no clue.
Putting aside how horrible the Nazis were and how the Japanese were probably just as bad if not worse, the bombs probably saved more civilian Japanese lives than it took. War is hell and if it weren’t we might be inclined to engage in it even more often than we do if we didn’t realize that war will either bring very very bad things down on your head or force you to do very very bad things to others.
If the Japanese were so close to surrendering, why didn’t they surrender after the first 67 conventional bombings of the island? Why didn’t they surrender in the three day interval between the two atomic bombs? Its not like they didn’t have telephones back then.
“created a power vacuum in Eastern Europe and East Asia which was filled by Communists”
It seems like you are trying to say that South-East Asia was better off under Japanese rule than under communism.
“do you also believe that terrorism can be justified under certain circumstances? The bombings were literally a form of terrorism on a massive scale: deliberately bombing a civilian population to destroy its morale and force surrender”
Umm, no that is war. Terrorism is generally associated with assymetrical warfare, not overwhelming force, you might call it murder but when you drop and atomic bomb on a country and threaten to keep dropping them that is not terrorism, it might be a war crime but it is not terrorism.
I believe terrorism can be justified under certain circumstances. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
The Japanese are not particularly repentant over their actions during the war, perhaps its because they feel the bombs kind of evened things up but they actually worship their war criminals.
What is “understatement of the century,” Alex?
I’d argue worse. Which is saying a lot yet somehow the Japanese have gotten mostly a pass on this that the Germans didn’t.
The US negotiating with Japan would have led to a Soviet occupation? That makes no sense at all. In fact a early end to the war in the Pacific would probably have prevented the Soviet occupation of Manchuria while an early end in Europe would have limited Soviet expansion in Eastern Europe. In general a negotiated settlement with Japan would probably have led to a more orderly transfer of power in East Asia instead of the sudden power vacuum which was filled by sundry Communist regimes. We can't predict exactly what would have happened but it's not unreasonable to suppose that Communists would have been weaker both in Europe and Asia.And where is there evidence that the Japanese would have been amenable to negotiations. Or that if such negotiations were successful, the Soviets would have acted any differently?
Once the tide turned I cannot imagine Stalin pulling up short of Berlin itself.
There was Iwo Jima, where only 200 Japanese soldiers were captured while the rest of the 23,000 fought to the death.
However the battle of Okinawa took place where there were civilians, unlike Iwo Jima. Over 110,000 Japanese soldiers died and only about 8000 were captured. Also, the Japanese ordered civilians to fight to the death or commit suicide. Civilians were forced into mass suicide by the Japanese military. About 140,000 civilians died during the battle. Cornerstone of Peace lists 240,000 names of known dead from the battle, including the 12,500 Americans.
Both examples seem to point to the Japanese willing to fight to the last man, plus executing their own civilians.
This is so ahistorical I can hardly comprehend it.
-
The U.S. did offer negotiations. Japan refused except on ludicrous terms.
-
There was no long-term power vacuum. Every area was quickly returned to its previous, similarly-anarchic state. The transition of power took less than a year in most cases, save in China which simply continued its civil war.
-
The U.S. had no intention of allowing Japan to maintain its colonies, so the exact same thing would have happened.
-
The non-existent power vacuum was not filled by Communists intially. That took additional years of fieldwork by Soviet agents, except in Korea where they had already planned for an extensive campaign of propganda and support.
Coincidentally, that’s about the same number of civilians that died in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Just… wow.
From Wikipedia on the planned invasion of Japan:
Again- wow.
Arguably so. The Japanese may have managed to kill more people than the Nazis. They also carried out sadistic “medical” experiments on living people. (you’ll wish you hadn’t clicked that link, if you do) They didn’t come as close to wiping out the Chinese as the Nazis did to wiping out the Jews, of course.
True. They were dealing with a larger starting population though.
I’m not sure there is much to be gained by trying to work out who was worse. They were both evil regimes, that deserved to be wiped off the face of the earth.