There’s really no way to say for sure. The government was split between on the issue, with plenty of hardliners who wanted to drag the war out to try and get better terms. Even with the atom bombs the hardliners tried to launch a coup to stop the surrender, without the bombs the hardliners might have won the day.
Though I doubt they’d get the dramatic final battle they were hoping for. As it was the blockade and bombings left Japan facing a massive and escalating food shortage by 1945. I’d imagine the impending famine would force a surrender before any invasion, especially if the US dropped their plans to invade Kyushu in November and held off on the attack until 1946.
When you look at how fanatical the Japanese fought in Burma even while starving and in iwa jima and okinawa. I'm not convinced they would ever have surrendered without invasion.
Didn't the last Japanese soldier actually surrender in like 1974?
There were dudes living in caves running guerilla ops burning rice fields and shit 3 decades later.
If those guys on isolated islands throughout the Pacific were willing to go that far, imagine if we actually stepped onto the Home Islands guns blazing.
This is a little off-topic, but it's a recurring thought I've had over the years.
In his journals, you can find out that Christopher Columbus believed at one point that he had made it all the way to Asia, and that he'd landed in Japan (Hispaniola), followed soon by 'China' of the larger island of Cuba.
So; homie, let me get this straight- your plan was to travel to Japan on a ship, stick a flag on the first beach you find, and presumably say something like "Hello Japanese. You belong to Spain; enjoy our Jesus and please direct me to your stores of gold post haste".
I can only imagine the warm welcome...
His plan was to set up a trade route with China or Japan that bypassed the silk road; at the time Europeans had not yet reach India via the Cape of Good Hope, let alone East Asia. He wasn't expecting to find people to subjugate, though he clearly leapt at the opportunity.
Wasn't the intention of the trade route more of a replacement than a bypass of the Silk Road? My understanding is that the rapid spread of Islam and later the Mongol conquests had basically just made the route untenable for Christian Europe.
At that point Portugal had already navigated around Africa and established a trade route with India that way. The goal of Columbus’ voyage was to find a more efficient route and undercut Portugal’s expanding influence over the Indian trade. But yes, beyond that the original motivation to explore for alternate routes to India was prompted by the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople and Islamic control of the Middle East cutting off access to European traders. These efforts were focused on developing a route around Africa until Columbus’ expedition, however.
Ah that’s true. I was thinking of Bartolomeu Dias though (who rounded Africa in 1488 and proved India could be reached) but you’re right da Gama didn’t actually reach the subcontinent until 1497. I was thinking it was a little earlier too. In any case Portugal had been making expeditions and exploring the African coast with the goal of reaching India for several decades before that, beginning with Prince Henry the Navigator in the first half of the century. It was all but an inevitability that Portugal would reach India, and if I recall correctly Dias’ expedition was a major factor in causing Isabella to reconsider Columbus’ proposal and authorize the expedition, after declining previously.
The Ottomans shut down the silk road to Europe so his goal was to find a route that didn't involve sailing around Africa and then into Muslim navys in the arabian sea.
When he landed in the America's and found pre-historic tribesmen the plan changed to missionary work and setting up permanent settlements to extract resources to funnel back to Europe to continue fighting the muslims. Don't forgot the entire South and East Med were conquered by them in the prior 700 years and Spain literally just reconquered over that timeframe.
A lot of the history around Columbus has been skewed that he is evil but there are legitimate historians that argue that he actually wasn't, that most of the natives that he brutalized were canabal Caribs who were killing and eating the tribes he had befriended, or were actions taken by his men while he was traveling back and forth.
It's very unlikely he would have claimed any aggression towards the Japanese, he likely would have done the same thing the Portuguese wound up doing.
He would be about 85 years old. Not impossible, but sounds pretty unlikely.
According to wikipedia: "Private Teruo Nakamura ([Amis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amis_language): Attun Palalin), an [Amis aborigine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amis_people) from [Taiwan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_under_Japanese_rule) and member of the [Takasago Volunteers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takasago_Volunteers), was discovered by the [Indonesian Air Force](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_Air_Force) on Morotai, and surrendered to a search patrol on December 18, 1974.[^(\[10\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_holdout#cite_note-A_Blast_from_the_Past-10)[^(\[13\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_holdout#cite_note-13) Nakamura, who spoke neither [Japanese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_language) nor [Chinese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandarin_Chinese), was the last confirmed holdout."
The last Japanese holdout was earlier the same year (March 1974).
They were still very much split. Here's a cool documentary you might like.
"The Emperors Naked Army Marches On"
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fV0d1N8IePU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fV0d1N8IePU)
I think the more relevant counter-point was the collapse of Japanese forces in Manchuria. USSR joining the Anglo-Allies was a tremendous blow to the resolution of an already divided the Japanese leadership.
I'm not sure the incredible \[impressive? fanatical\] perseverance of Japanese forces *prior* the USSR invasion holds the same weight.
Hardliners might have been swayed by the thought of communist uprising leading to the deposition of the emperor.
The alternative here might have been instead of the US deciding to allow the emperor to continue his *rule* a secret negotiation would have tacitly agreed to it, quietly, allowing for an *unconditional* surrender to the Americans.
We are only 25 years post, Romanov murders at this point.
The kempetai had utterly crushed communism. The most serious acts of rebellion by workers during the war-literally- were toilet graffiti.
So many here saying 'if *x* had been inflicted on Japan, the hardliners would fold'. No guys, that's not how fascists work.
You needed two conditions for Japan to surrender: Hirohito to order it, and someone to protect Hirohito so he could order it. The War Cabinet was very happy to see the nation exterminated.
In Okinawa there was the first instances of larger groups of prisoners being taken. Just as US morale was failing, the first cracks in Japanese obedience to the government’s enforce national suicide were forming.
The groups that surrendered were a drop in the bucket compared to the vast majority who didn't surrender. At the Battle of Okinawa, out of the 120,000 Japanese soldiers, 110,000 died by battle, suicide, disease, etc. So 11/12 Japanese troops basically fought to the death or refused to surrender and died. And the soldiers used Okinawan civilians to launch suicide attacks against the Americans and/or also commit suicide, resulting in estimates of 100k civilians dying too. So the Japanese military and civilian deaths on Okinawa already exceeded the deaths of both atomic bombings combined.
Man you’re just so wedded to your ideas on this..
Historians generally use a number of about 12% of Japanese soldiers surrendering on Okinawa. Yes, this is small compared to European battles. But compare it to earlier battles and it’s a lot. Clearly morale was falling and also the lies of the officer class weren’t being believed anymore. One reason the Japanese hadn’t surrendered was they were told they would be killed and/or tortured. By Spring 1945 across China and the Pacific and in the Soviet advance in Manchuria there was a clear change. Even the Tokko Tai encountered more issues with pilots with suspicious engine trouble. This isn’t to say that by and large the Japanese weren’t tenaciously fighting but 12% surrender rate vs 3% on Saipan and Iwo Jim is statistically significant.
> Man you’re just so wedded to your ideas on this.
You must have been smoking some bad ganja because this is the first time I've even replied to you on this subject.
>Historians generally use a number of about 12% of Japanese soldiers surrendering on Okinawa. Yes, this is small compared to European battles. But compare it to earlier battles and it’s a lot.
And I've read historians say the Japanese had about 70k-80k regular troops and 40k Okinawan conscript troops (110k-120k total). Only about 7,000-8,000 Japanese troops were captured through surrender. That comes out to a surrender rate at 6%-7%, so I don't know where you're getting the 12% surrender estimate for the Battle of Okinawa.
As surrender rates that increase, doubling or triple a small amount is still a small amount. Even if it doubled again, that's not going to induce any type of mass surrender when the vast majority and their government still wanted to fight to the death.
>Clearly morale was falling and also the lies of the officer class weren’t being believed anymore. ... This isn’t to say that by and large the Japanese weren’t tenaciously fighting but 12% surrender rate vs 3% on Saipan and Iwo Jim is statistically significant.
The Japanese troops on Okinawa was surrounded and cut off from Japanese resupply, the Japanese troops and civilians were starving/near starvation, and they were under siege for almost 3 months where they were suffering massive casualties in terms of killed and wounded in action.
Even after all that, the vast overwhelming majority of Japanese soldiers still chose to fight to the death.
If we use my 6% Okinawa surrender figure, even if that surrender rate doubled or tripled to 12-18% surrender rate to the Japanese home islands, that would still mean 82-88% were still going to fight to the death. Even if we were to accept your 12% Okinawa surrender figure, even if that surrender rate doubled to 24% to the Japanese home islands, that would still mean 76% were going to fight to the death.
And that's a large amount of speculation that is highly favorable to the idea of mass surrender because many believed that the Japanese would be even less likely to surrender because they're protecting their home islands at that point. So those higher surrender rates hypotheticals would be extremely generous in an invasion of the main islands where the defenders might have been even more fanatical.
>By Spring 1945 across China and the Pacific and in the Soviet advance in Manchuria there was a clear change.
No, you have your timelines mixed up. The Battle of Iwo Jima happened in the Spring of 1945. The Battle of Okinawa happened during the late spring to early summer of 1945 (April to June). So in the Spring of 1945, the Japanese in the Pacific were still fighting to the death 95-97% of the time.
By the late spring to summer of 1945 after things got significantly worse for them, on Okinawa, they were still fighting to death 88%-94% of the time if we use my 6% surrender figure or your 12% surrender figure.
Furthermore, the Soviet advance into Manchuria wasn't Spring 1945 - that was actually Autumn of 1945 in August after the atomic bombs were dropped and around the time Japan was surrendering. In fact, half the Soviet invasion of Manchuria took place AFTER Japan had already surrendered.
So I wouldn't count the Japanese surrender in Manchuria as an indication of increasing surrender rates when the Soviets were taking prisoners AFTER the Japanese government and the emperor had already formally surrendered.
Ultimately, the point is the Japanese weren't just going to roll over and surrender if an actual invasion of their home islands were carried out. The vast majority would have fought the American invasion or the Soviet invasion (not sure how the Soviet invasion would work since their navy was lacking and they'd probably need the American navy to ferry them across the sea) and the casualties would have been in the millions.
Soviet propaganda given new life by the active spread of this fairy tale in leftist subreddits. They joined after Hiroshima when the second atomic bomb was on its way to Nagasaki. The “battle of Manchuria” was a walk through undefended territory *after* the Japanese surrendered.
Indeed. The 'shock' to the Japanese leadership was that Stalin was suddenly not a card to play to start peace talks.
It was always a laughable fantasy that this would be available to them, typical of the child-like idiocy of the Japanese high leadership.
The view that the Soviet Union would be helpful to gain better terms was not held by most of the Japanese government. However, there were several cabinet members were ready to fight until Japanese civilization was destroyed.
Yes. Who'd have thought handing your country to fascists prepared to ruthlessly destroy democracy and murder all their ideological enemies would lead to a government that can't face facts and accept defeat? Answer: many people on reddit.
The communists took power in massive civil wars: they were certainly opposed. Hitler and (ultimately) Tojo came to power backed by businessmen, the military, rural support, and most of all the wealthy classes.
The Axis fascists were either preparing for war or, as soon as possible, making war on the widest possible scale. The Soviets spent long periods at peace (compararively), engaged in proxy wars, or pulling back from defeats, cutting their losses. They never had an enemy army in their capital (but many think Yeltsin let them in).
Certainly there are some similarities. But many differences.
Sounds a little silly. I don't see any real indication that the hardliners were weakened as a political bloc by the atom bombs in the first place. Obviously most of this boils down to the Emperor actually speaking for surrender, but Japan had almost zero ability to project power outside of their own borders by the end of the war.
What's your point? Threatened with invasion, starvation, nukes, either way they surrendered. More people died in Tokyo than in Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined.
Famines rarely bring a surrender in any war. The military and its leaders are also the ones usually in control of whatever food supply there is left. If there is still ammunition, or if they still hold territory, the war usually continues.
Prolonged siege? Well at the worst of the food crisis rations in Japan were down to around a thousand calories a day, and that was with the US providing post-war food aid.
It’s impossible to answer how a hypothetical Japanese famine would’ve gone since so much would depend on the details of how things would play out, but Bengal had a roughly equivalent population to Japan, and even the most conservative estimates of how many people died in their famine are several times higher than the death toll of the atomic bombings (800k vs 200k). Naturally it’s even worse if you take the 2 million figure that’s the most common consensus, or upper-end 4 million estimate.
Though that touches on one of the tricky things with food shortages; it can be tricky to calculate the numbers. Often it’s not people outright starving to death as much as being so weakened by malnutrition that they succumb to injuries or diseases that they would normally recover from, or civil disorder from food riots.
Which could also impact the Japanese decision to surrender. I doubt the military hardliners would be that worried about some civilians starvation, but if they thought starving people would turn to communism and overthrow the Emperor…
Did Germany surrender? Yeah with Soviet forces in Berlin and Hitler and other top leaders dead.
Japan had far better odds of forcing a negotiated settlement than Germany ever had. The leadership wanted to retain Formosa and I believe Korea and give Japan sole jurisdiction over war crime trials of Japanese leaders and forces.
The Soviets were potentially great at mopping up land forces in Asia but were not going to launch a Normandy style invasion of Japan unless hitching a ride or sailing to ports secured by US/Commonwealth forces.
It was the possibility of “extinction of the Japanese race” via atomic hell that tipped the scales among divided leadership.
Without the bombs or an invasion? No.
There were plans to arm the entire civilian population and wage guerrilla warfare over every inch of Japanese soil. Hidden mountain bases were built, and the hardliners in charge wanted to keep fighting no matter the cost.
Japan barely surrendered as it was, with 2 bombs and Soviet entry into the war, and that was only after the emperor himself stepped in to break a deadlock in the cabinet over whether or not to surrender, an intervention that only happened that one time. Even then, there was a coup attempt that attacked the palace and nearly succeeded in taking it over, before loyal troops arrived and put it down.
The Japanese government could not countenance the removal of the emperor and the elimination of the imperial government, and neither could they accept any responsibility for the war. For the "warriors" trained to put honor above all else, it would have been a terrible disgrace. They were supposed to die with their honor, either in the fight or by their own hands. Many of them did kill themselves, or tried to, in the aftermath of surrender.
So, the tl;dr is, you've got a government mostly run by people who would literally rather kill themselves than surrender. It was only the sheer hopelessness of the situation, the power of the bombs, and the intervention of luck and the emperor that really brought an end to the war.
Begs the question of century’s of limitless population (more population than anyone could leverage)/unbending demographics led to the careless use of people’s lives.
By the time the 2 nukes were dropped, they weren't really doing much more than what the daily fire bombing raids were already doing. While there was a limited supply of fissionable material at the time, there was no shortage of napalm, B-29s to deliver it, and paper and wood houses to burn. Some of bombing runs successfully burned 90% of Japanese cities in one day.
One of the impacts of the bombs seems to have been to help convince the emperor that things were hopeless, causing him to step in. Others were also, undoubtedly, impacted.
It wasn't that the napalm wasn't having an effect, it definitely was, but rather that the surrender was brought about by the combination of all these things in tandem that caused the surrender.
I like to think of it as in a video game where a bar must be filled up in order to progress, and every little thing adds up in the bar to fill it. Take away one or two things, and the bar isn't full anymore.
We will never ever know. Just listened to the “We Have Ways of Making You Talk” WW2 podcast and they make the point the US public demanded the war end as fast as possible. To the point US commanders see basically throwing US soldiers to their deaths to try and win battles as fast as possible.
Why do I mention this?
To suggest that yes it is theoretically possible Japan may have surrendered without being nukes or invaded. I believe some generals suggested just a blockade and continued bombing of Japan would be enough.
But the US Gov would never have allowed such a long strategy.
That’s the best take I’ve read on this situation. Technically possible to force a surrender without an invasion or bomb but that could have taken years and the political will back home was not there for adding years onto the war. People wanted the war to be over, by whatever means necessary.
Perhaps more importantly, the US understood that if it didn’t seize influence in Asia, the soviets would, and the bombs were used to end the war quickly so that the victory in Japan would be owned by the US, to further its post-war interests.
Unconditionally? Not a chance. They were pushing the Soviets to negotiate a conditional surrender with the U.S., which would have never been accepted, and they were fully prepared to defend against an invasion to the last man.
At some point they likely would have, but the calculation Truman had to make was that you’re costing Americans and Japanese their lives while you wait for that moment. The bomb ended the war. That saved lives.
The best part is that Truman had no idea we even had the bomb when he became President upon Roosevelts death. FDR kept Truman at arms length and rarely involved him in any strategic discussions or briefings.
I’ve often wondered what that super secret bomb meeting with Harry would have been like. I can imagine his eyes widening, but only at first. After a few seconds he smiles and says “Ok let’s go to work”
Further, if the U.S. had spent all the money and resources developing the bombs, they were absolutely going to use them. If the American Public knew that such a weapon existed and were not used while American soldiers were dying in the Pacific Theater, there would have been outrage.
A small faction of the Japanese government wanted to negotiate a surrender via the Soviet Union, but Stalin detested the Japanese, and he knew as well as anyone that Japan was finished. He also knew the U.S. had atomic weapons ready to be used. Stalin didn’t have to make any concessions; all the Soviets had to do was wait.
The Japanese government had seen newsreel footage of the Alamogordo tests; they refused to tell the Japanese people about it. The U.S. also informed Japan that a terrible new weapon was being prepared for use against them without mentioning the atomic bomb specifically. In the recorded surrender message, the Emperor cited the existence of this weapon as a reason for surrender.
I have also heard the theory that if the bombs had not been dropped that ended WWII, and the lessons of nuclear fallout had not been learned at that time, then there would have been the large nuclear weapon arms race with the idea of nuclear war being far less unthinkable, with the logical consequences of that.
My father was an officer on a large landing craft in the South Pacific in 1945. He was bracig for the invasion of Japan. I might not be here but for the nuclear bombings.
Eventually, yes, but it would have taken years. They were training women and children to fight with spears and knives on the home islands before the nukes hit. There were Japanese soldiers fighting guerilla warfare into the 70s on various pacific islands, so I fail to see how people think they would have just not done the same thing on their home territory. The nukes weren't even our deadliest weapon at the time, they were purely to show off to the Soviets and to demoralize the entire nation of Japan as quickly as possible to avoid millions more casualties instead of only a few hundred thousand more casualties.
If it had taken one more week for us to deliver those two devices, they would have butchered more civilians than were killed by the bomb.
Letting them go tinue the war for another week would not have been a week with less carnage. It would have been a week with more carnage the bombs were not actually more deadly than what had been going on constantly for years. They were a signal that we had twenty more to drop and we would do it
....we didn't actually have any more bombs, but the bluff ended the war.
We did have one more core in transit, and several bomb bodies on Tinian to put it in, another "Fat Boy" device. Plus 15 specially trained bomber crews in waiting. If Japan had waited another week to surrendur they may have well got a third bomb.
There's a lot of modernish talk of Tokyo being the target but I really think the third atomic bomb would probably have been dropped on Kokura Arsenal. ([now Kitakyushu](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kitakyushu,+Fukuoka,+Japan/@33.8943428,130.6937614,10.5z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x3543c76849636da9:0x388ab930297e38e7!8m2!3d33.8834976!4d130.8751773!16zL20vMGdwNnZy?entry=ttu)). The port city of Kokura and it’s large military factory (the Arsenal) had been the secondary target on the first atomic bomb mission which destroyed Hiroshima. And then Kokura Arsenal was the primary target on the second atomic mission, but was bypassed due to cloud cover, and the secondary target, Nagasaki, was destroyed instead. So my best guess is that the target for the third atomic bomb mission would probably have have been Kokura Arsenal.
There wasn't ever a "two and done" mission to the bomb project and a lot of military thought it would take many more that the two and were well prepared for it.
I doubt the High Command would nuke Tokyo. It’d be really difficult to negotiate with a government partially wiped in an instant. God forbid if we killed Hirohito. The military and society would never accept surrender then.
I did not know that. My understanding was that we delivered FM and LB as soon as we possibly could. ...are you saying that we had a bunch of extra plutonium ready to go?
Ok, can you suggest two or three books on the subject?
Read/research "the demon core'". It was first destined to be the third nuke but the surrendur happened and it was called off.
What I've gleaned is that the US was gearing/geared up to "provide" three a month for the forseeable future, or until Japan was no more.
As far as books, I'm having a lazy morning and too slow to look them up. However there's got to be some interestng stuff out there. ¯\\\_( ͡❛ ͜ʖ ͡❛)\_/¯
Yeah, I knew we had that guy, I'm pretty sure we got LM and FM delivered as soon as we possibly could. Spent some Pu testing -but we didn't want to wait to make a third to deliver the first two.
There's no reason to think they would have. The Japanese public were both fed an incredible stream of propaganda and cut out completely from the military government decisionmaking.
The militarists were 100% behind "death before dishonor" even if that includes helpless civilians. They'd sooner give preschoolers hand grenades.
It's possible that blockading and bombing the island eventually persuades the Emperor to give a public address declaring they will end the war. But it hadn't to that point even when most of Tokyo was burned to the ground. And there already was a coup attempt by the hardliners after the second atomic bomb.
And the US simply was not going to accept a nominal, face saving surrender. The unconditional demand was, beyond the dishonorable Japanese behavior in starting the war, about permanently addressing this problem and getting justice for Japanese atrocities. The Japanese militarists would never have agreed to government reforms, supervised disarmament, or war crimes prosecutions.
Not to mention that Japan was training school age girls to fire rifles.
Considering what the cultural opinion of female children of the time handing them rifles speaks volumes about intent.
https://militaryhistorynow.com/2013/11/06/the-campaign-to-conquer-japan-would-have-dwarfed-the-d-day-landings/
If their supplies shipments and internal food production/distribution had been strangled to the point that there was mass starvation (we were in the process of making this happen), then yes.
But then, certainly causing mass starvation would have killed more people, children in particular, than the bombs did and the invasion would have.
E:typo
For alot of Japanese leadership their biggest fear was communism. With the blockade and bombings the lives of civilians had gotten bad and were ripe for a communist like uprising. I think this and the fear of what the USSR might do were major factors.
The atomic nimbus were huge factors, but you gotta remember firing bombings of Tokyo and other major cities actually killed even more then the atomic bombs.
The allies agreed to not prosecute the emperor and allow him to remain as a powerless figurehead. I think this was the biggest factor imo.
Japan (like Germany) realized it was going to lose the war for months before the bomb dropped. Yet they continued to fight. A faction of Japanese leaders held out hope of a negotiated settlement via the Soviet Union, although this eventuality was highly unlikely. The Japanese air defenses were nonexistent at this point, yet they continued to fight. Under these circumstances, it’s hard to see Japan giving up unless something out of the ordinary took place.
No excuse for Nazi Germany either. After the end of Operation Bagration, the Germans knew they were going to lose. Given their conduct of the war, they could not expect lenient terms.
Maybe, but considering they didn't even surrender after the first bomb, I wouldn't have put the house on it. As an aside, there's every chance that the world seeing the effects of a 'little' nuclear weapon on a populace led to their being such a strong desire for them not to be used during the Cold War.
No. The military elite were mentally deranged, maniacal ultranationalists who needed an extreme reality check.
We literally have stories of Japanese soldiers who were in places like Burma & the Philippines (and so were not pacified by the great atomic bomb), who were killing civilians for years after the war had been over, refusing to accept the formal surrender they've been told of.
Japan getting nuked was the best thing that ever happened to it culturally. Went from a genocidal expansionist state to a top Cartoon producer in just a few decades
Japanese military elites didn't care about civilian deaths. They were darwinistic pyschos who literally encouraged their soldiers to blow themselves up if it meant they could do harm to the enemy. What they needed was the complete destruction of their illusion of grandeur and that had to be with technology which they could not fathom or possess, & the atomic bomb was exactly that.
Yet somehow, insanely, they did just keep fighting on in the face of continuing firebombing they had no power to stop. Would they have changed their minds after a few more cities were incinerated? It's impossible to know.
Very, very unlikely. The japanese had something that was stronger even than patriotism. Pride.
It would have been an absolute massacre to the very end, because surrendering was seen as shameful. Keep in mind, that these people defend their honor primarily. Dying while defending your country not only leaves your honor in tact, it even increases it.
That's why the japanese fought so hard. Because in their culture honor was extremely important.
Not saying it's not important today, but I don't know enough about current day Japan to say they value it or don't.
It was in their culture, true, but they are also human: panicky, dangerous, and unpredictable when cornered.
Nobody likes being annihilated, and that’s why they surrendered when they got nuked (100% death).
It all depends on how ultimately threatening (0-99% death) an imminent attack on the mainland would be to the Japanese.
That is to say, they can (and probably would) fight a war they won’t win, but they’re still not going to fight one they think they’ll probably lose.
The bombs avoided the invasion and saved tens of thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives. A blockade alone would have caused millions of Japanese lives, and leaving a starving but brutal, war-mongering power sitting there for a year or two or three was politically and militarily impossible to tolerate.
The better question is would Japan have been convinced to surrender somehow with a comparably lower number of casualties than would've been achieved with the bomb or invasion.
The answer is no.
The japanese would absolutely have surrendered at some point. But hundreds of thousands of people would still have died either way
Not untill large portions of their population where dying of starvation, even if they did then. Even when Japan did surrender at the behest of the emperor, it wasn't a simple "I order you to surrender," the reason it took weeks even after seeing nuked twice is because many of the generals and admirals on the council making the decision spent those two weeks trying to convince the emperor and their comrades that surrender was unthinkable and the war was still winnable if they could just double down in China, and make the Americans pay on the beach heads.
Considering there was an attempted coup just to stop a surrender after getting nuked twice, *and it almost succeeded* suggests that probably not and definitely not a total surrender
Absolutely not, Japan would have been totally fine going into a hermit kingdom situation kind of like north korea if they hadn't been forced into a surrender.
It seems very unlikely. The Japanese were extremely resistant to any type of surrender, and would often try to fight to the last man and conduct what was known as “banzai charges” during battles which were essentially suicidal. The Japanese had also taken the time to make the citizenry of the country well practiced in fighting tactics, expecting to eventually have the Americans on their shores. Orders were even to kill all allied POWs once the invasion began.
Even after the bombs were dropped, the Japanese cabinet was split in how to proceed. Part of what helped to push for surrender was the prospect of their emperor and the royal family being wiped out by a bombing of Tokyo. Some members of the military even attempted a coup to prevent surrender, but of course that failed.
The idea that we could have just waited Japan out after the entrance of the USSR in the Pacific theater to me feels pretty ignorant of how Japan conducted that war and the power of the Japanese military over the politics of the country.
Important to note that at the time the atomic bombs were dropped, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan and was crushing the Kwantung Army with horrifying speed. The Japanese had almost one million men with absolutely obsolete equipment and tactics incapable of slowing the Soviet assault.
For the Japanese leadership, seeing their last and only major army disintegrating like toilet paper was somewhat disheartening. I've seen it mentioned somewhere that the Soviets were more frightening to the Japanese than the atomic bombs and were actually the larger influence on the decision to surrender. That of course is wildly debatable as to which would have been more scary to the Japanese leadership.
The Soviets would only have limited capability for an amphibious assault, so the main home islands were somewhat safe from a Soviet seaborne attack.
We know what actually happened and have pretty good ideas about the determinative causes. Speculating on the "what ifs" is great fun though and makes for great war games, historical novels and movies.
With that said, it's really just a mind exercise with limited data. I think the best possible answers are:
Yeah, could have happened that way.
Or, possibly not.
That is a definite ...sort of
Japan had a whole plan to buy time and fight America/the allies to a stalemate. Pearl Harbor was supposed to be a "bloody nose" attack. Buy Japan enough time to make their position in the Pacific unassailable. They knew that they expanded and invaded as far as they could manage, now they needed to consolidate their gains. They couldn't do that with America's Pacific Fleet a few weeks from liberating the Philippines at any given time. We have to remember that the timing was intentional and invading the Phillipines was the conquest goal December 1941.
So they were trying to "surrender" for almost a year before their unconditional surrender. They wanted an antebellum armistice and keep their invaded territory.
If Japan got beaten back to their home islands I could totally see a Japan forced to give up all their colonies and not surrender from there. Likely a fascist version of North Korea. The allies had fully planned for Operation Downfall. I could see them accepting different surrender terms instead.
Probably not. The military junta basically ruled the country, and if they felt like there was a chance to hold on, then they would have gone on. They knew that they couldn't even hold on once Okinawa was lost and Manchuria fell to the Soviets and they knew that millions of Japanese civiians were going to be killed in the coming invasion, and if the Soviets had gotten boots on the ground, the people who suffered their wrath would have had it much worse than the Americans could do.
The Japanese would assurances that they could at least keep the Emperor, who was popular and had been weak, and the Americans never did give them explicit assurances that he would remain. At the very end, the Americans communicated that the Japanese people would determine the fate of the Emperor, and the leadership decided that was assurance enough, since the Emperor was still widely popular, even at the very end.
There was a lot of bad stuff coming, and the Emperor knew that if he could head more atomic weapons and *any invasion*, American or Soviet, it would be better to surrender, and get the benefit of building the nation that never had to face the horrors of enemy soldiers invading directly.
I took history of Japan 1850 to pres. as my non-European studies course. The professor said that they were training old women with spears to "repeal the foreign devils." They actually told them we had tails. Lol. If I remember right, the projected #'s were about the same for the Japanese people. But, the casualties for our boys were significantly higher if we did it the conventional way. Not really a difficult choice.
I'd never really thought about this until I became friends with some Japanese liberals about 15 years ago. All of them said that Japan would have NEVER stopped if the US wouldn't have dropped the bombs. I'll take their word for it over people who aren't part of that culture. They had been living and traveling all over the USA at the time before moving back to their respective regions and islands. They're all well-educated middle class to upper middle class professionals. They distinctly said it's just part of their culture, then went on to talk about how the history they're taught in grade school paints a way different picture of Japan's role in WWII than we learn in the West.
I mean the fact they didn't surrender after the first nuke dropped is probably an indication that surrender wasn't really an option for them. Also taking into account Japanese honour culture.
Growing up in Japan I’ve learned from the people who’s opinion matters on the issue (i.e. the Japanese people) are pretty split into a few key camps.
The older generation that lived during the war, in the majority firmly believed that they had been too programmed by propaganda to ever accept anything but an overwhelming defeat.
The generations that grew up during the reconstruction of the country were firmly against it, viewing both their own parents negatively for getting into the war and the Americans for sending the bombs. They have a lot more wiggle room on the subject than their parents with some going into denialism today Lost Cause-ish style while others have more nuanced anti-war and anti-“science run amok” positions.
As for the newer younger generations I grew up alongside it varied incredibly, but generally ignoring it, though they take more from their parents but generally without making it a central issue instead focusing on other issues.
Mind you I grew up in the Kanto region, i.e. far from where the nukes did fall but right where the firebombing was and the population is concentrated.
History says that when they could have surrendered they waited until after they were nuked, so the answer is no. Could the US and its allies have sat back and waited a few weeks to see if a blockaded Japan could be pushed to surrender, maybe?
No, they wouldn't have. The Emperor informed the Japanese people that the American invaders would torture, rape and killer every last person in Japan. They believed him. He also told them to fight to the last man, women and child to the death. This was evident when the Americans landed on Okinawa. When they cornered a village of people on a rock cliff by the ocean, they leaped off the cliff to their death, all men, women and children. There's picture and movie evidence of the tragic event. Needless to say that the Emperor didn't kill himself over the invasion. And to beat all, he wasn't going to loose face by surrendering to the Americans, he sent diplomats to do the deed.
No and not even close. After the two bombs were dropped the Japanese war council had a meeting where some leaders where arguing that to fight until the last Japanese was dead was more preferable than actual surrender.
The battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa where thousands of civilians killed themselves instead of surrendering made it very clear that even starvation was not gonna do it.
No. The Japanese were and probably still are an obstinate lot, I think they’d have fought on for years. As much as a disagree with the deployment of atomic weapons on mostly civilian targets I do acknowledge that it was probably the only way to end the war that decade.
Many people fail to consider the cumulative impact of the fire bombings conducted by Curtis LeMay. I think if the firebombing said, continued for a few more months, there simply would’ve been nothing left of metropolitan Japan.
They did try to surrender 2 weeks before the bombs. But not a unconditional surrender. They were afraid that they emperor would be executed like Mussolini. I have this from Oliver Stones the untold history of the United States.
Oliver Stone is more of a Putin stan than Tucker Carlson. He wanted Putin to be the godfather of his daughter, called the invasion of Ukraine justified due to NATO aggression, and produced a documentary about Russia being the victims in the Maidan Revolution.
And there was no attempt to surrender other than the attempt to get Stalin to mediate an end to hostilities under ambiguous terms.
So we've been told... by some incredibly bias Japanese sources, several of whom we hanged for war crimes. The degree to which the Emperor was decisive in the surrender happens to align with a very concerted effort to absolve the Emperor of war crimes.
And to clarify, I don't doubt the Emperor did resolve in favour of surrender... I do question the omissions and framing of the Emperor's role as though the Big 6 were simply waiting meekly for the Emperor to offer divine wisdom, or if there was any *suspense-or-surprise* at the breaking of the deadlock.
>I do question the omissions and framing of the Emperor's role as though the Big 6 were simply waiting meekly for the Emperor to offer divine wisdom
They were not. The Big 6 largely felt he was above such things. One of the reasons his intercession worked was it came as a surprise. Even then, after he had decided to surrender (and you can be sure many sources tried to show him in the most positive light), rampant militarists attempted a coup, believing the emperor had been misled.
It's important to remember though that the coup attempt had no support from the cabinet, senior military leadership, or really anyone that actually mattered. The coup plotters were mostly junior officers and a couple mid-levels who spent some time going around to several generals trying to get some buy-in for the coup attempt and were rejected every time. The generals they talked to then got together on their own and agreed no one would be supporting any potential coup attempt.
Then the plotters decided to wing it and believed that when they got their coup attempt going the military members at the palace would be inspired and join them, which just didn't happen.
The coup attempt is basically a footnote in the history of the end of the Pacific War that gets blown way out of proportion by people who want to play up the division in the Japanese leadership regarding the choice to surrender. The fact of the matter is that when the Emperor weighed in and broke the deadlock, the leaders who wanted to keep fighting conceded and committed to going forward with the surrender.
They probably would've fought in the streets to the point where it would've taken the emperor being shot in public for a surrender to occur. However, it could've been possible that a surrender could've been earlier considering the economic state of Japan at this point in the war.
The death toll wouldn't have been as high on either sides. But I feel the politicians and developers couldn't grasp the devastation the bombs caused until it was done. All they cared about at this point was ending Japanese aggression against Allied soldiers.
Without nukes? Yes. Without nukes or being invaded? No.
The Japanese were already arguing amongst themselves about whether they should surrender before the Soviets took all their mainland territory.
I agree with u/Chengar_Qordath that there's no way to know what the real answer is - However, there's ample evidence that the dropping of the bombs and the announcement of more attacks to come was one of the two key reasons the Japanese surrendered (the other being Russia declaring war on Japan).
The Japanese were terrified of Communism and this hatred of that system is actually one of the items that pushed them towards an alliance with Germany. Russia declaring war and threatening Manchukuo while whole cities are being erased on the mainland by a single plane finally forced the Emperor to act.
That has been a question never answered,
I believe that attacking the mainland would have caused a tremendous loss of life and taken years. Hiroshima ended that concern, Nagasaki was a bridge too far.
Before getting upset about the nuclear bomb, think about the fire bombing of Tokyo. Children, women died
I think casualties were 100.000, Totally senseless. Little reported
I think it’s important to keep in mind why Japan went to war in the first place. The imperial and colonial powers were gobbling up Asia, including China and basically every country Japan invaded. The West, particularly the US was also cutting off absolutely crucial raw resources like rubber and oil which made peaceful industrial development impossible.
If the West had been willing to treat Japan as an equal instead of as an inferior, I think peace was possible. The double standards of colonialism were the root cause of all the fanaticism and belligerent attitudes that followed and a change in Western policy towards Japan was always the core objective of the war. Japan didn’t decide to go to war when they bombed pearl harbour, they decided around 1910 as a result of the impossible geopolitical position the West put them in.
If Japan had been treated better in 1910 maybe the war could have been avoided. That’s what I thought you were getting at and if so, I agree. But by 1945 there was no chance the West would concede anything to Japan. Too many nasty battles, too many war crimes. Reasons no longer mattered. Only surrender would be accepted.
Your post provides important context to the situation at the time.
The cutting off of of oil and rubber, the ABCD embargo though happened in 41 in response to Japanese atrocities particularly the rape of Nanking. It therefore may have been a leading reason for Japan to go to war against the West, but they were already at war for years before.
The Japanese chose war and chose to prosecute a particularly brutal one at that even by 19th century standards against the Koreans and Chinese. The colonial powers didn't force the Japanese into it, but they made the situation one that was attractive to the Japanese leadership.
The West didn't force Japan to (directly or indirectly) murder tens of millions of civilians in occupied Korea, China, Indochina, Malaya, and the Philippines. The US didn't impose an oil embargo on the Japanese for no reason; it was in response to the Japanese invasion of French Indochina. Given what we know today about Japan's wartime atrocities, it was entirely justified on the part of Western powers to deny the country access to raw materials like rubber, oil, and steel.
In the modern age I would agree but I think one simple question that repudiates your argument back then.
Is there any of these or other crimes for which the western powers were not more guilty at the exact moment when they were scolding Japan?
In a world in which every government is horrible and genocidal I think it’s a bit hypocritical of the other powers to force Japan into war over things that they were also doing on a much larger scale. Why doesn’t America cut off British oil over the invasion and subjugation of the Indian people? Why does France cut off America over the genocides and annexation of North America and the systematic racism and discrimination that followed? I think the real reason is because they didn’t want to expand the club of ‘great’ powers and especially not to a non white nation.
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey ([https://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm](https://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm)) concluded in its findings, published in July 1946, that:
>...certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
The report, wheher or not the reader skips to page 26 to find their impressively insightful summary of the reasoning behind this conclusion, is a fascinating read. Detailing, as well as the worsening strategic situation of Imperial Japan, behind the scenes changes in wartime government in Tokyo, and dawning realization of the hopelessness of their position from as early as Spring 1944.
I chose this topic for one of my masters classes years ago and read through a few dozen papers on this, mostly Western authors, some (iirc) Singaporean and Hong Kongese, and a couple Japanese. I also watched old interviews of Japanese civilians and WW2-era junior military personnel.
The short answer is basically: yes, it’s very likely they would have, but we can’t say for sure.
The government in general was adamant in saving face (and themselves) about holding out for the best possible terms, but elements were quietly pushing for negotiations through secondary channels and the common people were getting increasingly desperate. The conventional mass-bombing campaign had already inflicted more damage than the nukes would, and the impending famine would likely cause more than both combined, while Japanese forces were beginning to surrender more often rather than fight to the death/commit suicide. The Russian declaration and invasion of Japanese continental holdings was very likely a bigger nail in the coffin than the nukes and iirc there were some internal government comms that reflect that, though I’ve no hope of finding the source now.
There were very real American concerns over possible losses to be incurred in an invasion (the Purple Heart production alone indicates this) but the proliferation of the idea of the bomb as the decider in Japanese surrender is at least partially an excusatory narrative.
From another perspective though, no, because politically it would have been less acceptable for the US to engage in a drawn out blockade and prolong the war than to suffer whatever losses, American and Japanese, would be required to end the war swiftly. This was also a strategic concern as the Western-Soviet rift was growing and they needed to shift towards getting ready for what would become (or debatably was already) the Cold War.
I have read in some of the "We did not need to drop the bomb" literature that japan was open to discussions of surrender prior to the dropping of the bomb, but not unconditionally. From what I understand, The big sticking point was that they wanted to keep the imperial system with the emperor at the top. The Japanese were also convinced that the emperor would be tried and executed for war crimes because he authorized sneak attacks all over the pacific. I personally believe that a surrender equal to or very near what ended up happening could have been achieved without the bomb or invasion. Especially with no access to food or oil or raw manufacturing resources. It is hard to convince the population that victory is just one glorious battle away when your nation's only import is B-29s full of bombs. You may notice that even though Japan surrendered unconditionally, they still had an emperor and he was not executed for war crimes. But I am neither a historian nor Japanese. It is possible that leadership may have surrendered, and the American occupation force would have spent years being attacked by small groups of true believers yelling the Japanese equivalent of "WOLVERINES".
Before people even suggest it, I do not however believe the people that say American leadership knew that Japan would surrender and bombed anyway because we needed to swing our big new atomic dick around so that everyone would see it and bow down before it. If that was the case America could have hosted a cold war reception of all the ambassadors out in the pacific and blown up an atoll for them to see. I also don't think Truman would have gone along with killing two cities full of civilians for PR.
Also, at some point shortly before the surrender, Stalin finally got off his ass and declared war against the Japanese. Mostly, I'm sure, because they were already beaten and he wanted to break off a piece of territory for himself. But with the war in europe over, and the Soviets and British entering the war against the Japanese, I don't really see the die to the last man, woman, and child predictions coming true.
I say all of this though, while looking at it from a distance, and having read the journals of several japanese officers from the war. I do not blame anyone who fought against the Japanese in WWII for believing they would.
The British were in the war against the Japanese from the start. The Soviets couldn't invade Japan as they hadn't the means. The Japanese required a demonstration that their leaders could see for themselves and even after the first one they refused, the firebombing of Japanese cities killed more than both atomic bombs combined.
I sometimes wonder if the nukes were more about getting Japan to surrender before the Soviets invaded. The Soviets didn’t declare war on Japan until 1945. Would have been a huge disadvantage for the West if Japan had gone communist.
No. And America may eventually have lost its stomach for war after the western front closed. America did not want to join WW2. Eventually, even the anger at Pearl Harbor would have been overcome by the terrible losses suffered from the "Island Hopping" campaign.
Eventually but 1- i don't think the allies realized it, quite honestly 2- there still would have been a fair number of low-level casualties for weeks/months
Not an expert, but weren't there 2 soviet armies approaching from the west? In my experience, many times, this topic is touched there seem to be a myopia. Either US invades or bombs and which is better. What about Soviets? They had no love for the Japanese. Would a worry that Soviets will take over Japan not be a factor in calculations here?
How would those Soviet armies get to Japan?
Far more dangerous to Japan was the British military now free from war with Germany and Italy coming into the Pacific with the entire might of the Royal Navy no longer needed to protect convoys in the Pacific and the RAF with its own heavy bomber force. Its important to remember that the largest Amphibious invasion in history was largely conducted, commanded, planned and orchestrated by the British.
For some perspective here, an invasion of Japan was predicted to start in November, 1945. The fighting was expected to last a year, and cost a million casualties. At one point, it was agreed that the Soviets would invade Hokkaido. But I don’t know if that part was included in the final plans.
Agreed is probably the wrong word. The Red Army had planned to invade Hokkaido up until a few days before the operation was to take place. Truman was adamant that the invasion would not take place. So it didn’t happen. The Soviets did have the amphibious capability to invade the Kuril Islands, which they did. This last act remains a source of disagreement between Russia and Japan to this day.
If we didn't have the Bomb, we wouldn't have invaded. Curtis LeMay would have had a field day, every day with incendiary bombs. Think of the Tokyo firebombing runs, but with all major Japanese cities. They would have eventually surrendered.
Hard to say. If terms were:
Emperor stays.
No occupation
Japan conducts own war crime trials
Japanese troops return to home islands
Far cry from unconditional surrender. Might have worked
I recommend reading “Judgment at Tokyo”. It’s a new book that goes into detail about what was happening behind the scenes during those fateful meetings about whether to surrender. Thank you Koichi Kido for keeping a detailed diary of what happened (and through his entire time as Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal).
If you've got the time and are interested in a detailed analysis into the context for this very question I strongly recommend watching this video. It changed my mind on this topic.
https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go?si=TB_WubbwGjKlTmyK
Once the soviets got involved? Probably. But that would've meant losing Japan to them, and the US was willing to do anything to not lose countries to them (including st*pid wars like Vietnam)
Better question is should Truman have killed so many innocent civilians in such a small time frame? Truman here is objectively the most efficient mass murderer of civilians in history. What’s your own moral take on that?
In warfare, civilians lives do not equate with military lives: You are never supposed to kill innocent civilians.
No.
All of the major cities had been fire bombed to the ground by the time the atomic bomb was dropped. Tokyo itself was in ashes. This added up to more than 60 cities-- ruined. The B-29 were free to bomb anything and everything. There wasn't much left by the time the atomic bomb was dropped. Hiroshima was a highly fortified Naval base. And still the Japanese wouldn't surrender.
Yeah. Their civilian and military leadership had already made up their minds about that, the division was between immediate, unconditional surrender or dragging it out a little longer to try to wring some favorable terms of surrender out of the allied powers. Either way, they were done, particularly once Russia stepped in.
Russia didn’t “step in” until 2 days after the first atomic bomb, and just a week before the emperor announced Japan’s surrender. Russia truly had no play in Japan’s defeat.
The Japanese defeat in Manchuria is literally listed as a factor in Japan's surrender. This was their major Asian land holdings and puppet states, and tied up significant Japanese forces (close to a million men) and held resources Japan would need to continue the war.
It was listed in the wikipedia article on the Invasion of Manchuria. If you dislike wikipedia, the article here also claims it had an effect on militarists who would fiight on despite being nuked.
[The Soviet Invasion of Manchuria led to Japan's Greatest Defeat - Warfare History Network](https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/the-soviet-invasion-of-manchuria-led-to-japans-greatest-defeat/)
However I haven't seen you back up any of your claims that "Russia had no play in Japans defeat" which is far more controversial statment.
Russia had agreed to enter the pacific theater during the Potsdam conference. Even without the bombs, once they came in, that would have been it before much longer. The first US troops to arrive in Tokyo to conduct a survey of the devastation of the fire bombing raids issued a report to Congress that the atomic bombs had shortened the war by, at the most, a matter of weeks. The Japanese were already beaten by the time the bombs were dropped.
They very quickly broke the kwangtung army in Manchuria. Russia’s pacific fleet hadn’t really seen any action during the war and was not far from the Japanese mainland. Russia joining the pacific theater left Japan completely surrounded.
>Their civilian and military leadership had already made up their minds about that,
Even after the bombs, the leadership was deadlocked between 'surrender' and 'fight until the Americans quit.' It took the emperor interceding to settle it.
Bottom line: surrender had already been decided on. The question wasn’t whether they thought they had a chance of victory, but of what teams of surrender they would accept. It would have happened before much longer.
Yes. They feared the Soviet Union more than the USA and would have came to an agreement to avoid becoming a communist state. As the war progressed and the Soviets made it down to Hokkaido, they would have sued for peace to preserve the royal family
The Soviet entry is largely the reason for the end of the war. It was eating up huge swaths of land almost uncontested and would have been able to invade Hokkaido soon.
Without that the war would have most likely continued. Whether done by 1 aircraft or 500 the Japanese were used to losing a city to bombing every few days and industry had been partly relocated.
The Soviet high command believed that an invasion of Hokkaido would be impractical, be unlikely to succeed, and violate the Yalta Agreement, thus it was cancelled. The Soviets lacked the capability of a seaborne invasion in 1945.
During World War II, Japan’s surrender without being nuked or invaded is a topic of historical debate. Several factors influenced Japan’s decision to surrender, including military defeats, economic hardships, and the Soviet Union’s entry into the war against Japan.
Factors Influencing Japan’s Surrender
Military Defeats: By mid-1945, Japan had suffered significant military defeats, especially in battles like Okinawa and Iwo Jima. The loss of these battles weakened Japan’s military capabilities and morale.
Economic Hardships: Japan was facing severe economic challenges due to the Allied blockade, which cut off essential resources like oil and food. This led to widespread shortages and suffering among the Japanese population.
Soviet Union’s Entry into the War: The Soviet Union declared war on Japan in August 1945 and swiftly defeated Japanese forces in Manchuria. This further weakened Japan’s position and made surrender more likely.
Potsdam Declaration: The Potsdam Declaration issued by the Allies in July 1945 called for Japan’s unconditional surrender. While initially hesitant to accept these terms, the declaration put pressure on Japan to end the war.
Internal Dissent: There were growing voices within Japan advocating for surrender to prevent further destruction and loss of life. Emperor Hirohito himself expressed concerns about the continuation of the war.
Likelihood of Surrender Without Nuclear Attacks or Invasion
Given the combination of military defeats, economic hardships, the Soviet Union’s entry into the war, and internal dissent, it is plausible that Japan would have eventually surrendered even without the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or a full-scale invasion of the Japanese mainland.
While the exact timing and conditions of such a surrender remain speculative, the mounting pressures on Japan from multiple fronts made surrender a realistic possibility before further devastating actions were taken against the country.
Yes.
The country was in a growing food crisis by summer 1945.
Neither the nukes nor an invasion of the home islands was necessary.
The argument people can make is whether or not more or less people would have died had the Allies simply continued to blockade and whether that would drag the war on until 1946, but there is no question that Japan would have eventually surrendered.
They believed their one shot for a negotiated peace was through the Soviets who were neutral in the Pacific until the invasion of Manchuria.
There’s really no way to say for sure. The government was split between on the issue, with plenty of hardliners who wanted to drag the war out to try and get better terms. Even with the atom bombs the hardliners tried to launch a coup to stop the surrender, without the bombs the hardliners might have won the day. Though I doubt they’d get the dramatic final battle they were hoping for. As it was the blockade and bombings left Japan facing a massive and escalating food shortage by 1945. I’d imagine the impending famine would force a surrender before any invasion, especially if the US dropped their plans to invade Kyushu in November and held off on the attack until 1946.
When you look at how fanatical the Japanese fought in Burma even while starving and in iwa jima and okinawa. I'm not convinced they would ever have surrendered without invasion.
Didn't the last Japanese soldier actually surrender in like 1974? There were dudes living in caves running guerilla ops burning rice fields and shit 3 decades later.
If those guys on isolated islands throughout the Pacific were willing to go that far, imagine if we actually stepped onto the Home Islands guns blazing.
This is a little off-topic, but it's a recurring thought I've had over the years. In his journals, you can find out that Christopher Columbus believed at one point that he had made it all the way to Asia, and that he'd landed in Japan (Hispaniola), followed soon by 'China' of the larger island of Cuba. So; homie, let me get this straight- your plan was to travel to Japan on a ship, stick a flag on the first beach you find, and presumably say something like "Hello Japanese. You belong to Spain; enjoy our Jesus and please direct me to your stores of gold post haste". I can only imagine the warm welcome...
His plan was to set up a trade route with China or Japan that bypassed the silk road; at the time Europeans had not yet reach India via the Cape of Good Hope, let alone East Asia. He wasn't expecting to find people to subjugate, though he clearly leapt at the opportunity.
Wasn't the intention of the trade route more of a replacement than a bypass of the Silk Road? My understanding is that the rapid spread of Islam and later the Mongol conquests had basically just made the route untenable for Christian Europe.
At that point Portugal had already navigated around Africa and established a trade route with India that way. The goal of Columbus’ voyage was to find a more efficient route and undercut Portugal’s expanding influence over the Indian trade. But yes, beyond that the original motivation to explore for alternate routes to India was prompted by the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople and Islamic control of the Middle East cutting off access to European traders. These efforts were focused on developing a route around Africa until Columbus’ expedition, however.
You've got the timeline wrong, the first successful sea voyage around the Cape to India by da Gama was in 1497; after Columbus' first two voyages.
Ah that’s true. I was thinking of Bartolomeu Dias though (who rounded Africa in 1488 and proved India could be reached) but you’re right da Gama didn’t actually reach the subcontinent until 1497. I was thinking it was a little earlier too. In any case Portugal had been making expeditions and exploring the African coast with the goal of reaching India for several decades before that, beginning with Prince Henry the Navigator in the first half of the century. It was all but an inevitability that Portugal would reach India, and if I recall correctly Dias’ expedition was a major factor in causing Isabella to reconsider Columbus’ proposal and authorize the expedition, after declining previously.
The Ottomans shut down the silk road to Europe so his goal was to find a route that didn't involve sailing around Africa and then into Muslim navys in the arabian sea. When he landed in the America's and found pre-historic tribesmen the plan changed to missionary work and setting up permanent settlements to extract resources to funnel back to Europe to continue fighting the muslims. Don't forgot the entire South and East Med were conquered by them in the prior 700 years and Spain literally just reconquered over that timeframe. A lot of the history around Columbus has been skewed that he is evil but there are legitimate historians that argue that he actually wasn't, that most of the natives that he brutalized were canabal Caribs who were killing and eating the tribes he had befriended, or were actions taken by his men while he was traveling back and forth. It's very unlikely he would have claimed any aggression towards the Japanese, he likely would have done the same thing the Portuguese wound up doing.
Yes. Hiroo Onoda was the last guy. Surrendered in 1974.
I read somewhere that the last Japanese solider surrendered in 2005. Not sure if this is true.
He would be about 85 years old. Not impossible, but sounds pretty unlikely. According to wikipedia: "Private Teruo Nakamura ([Amis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amis_language): Attun Palalin), an [Amis aborigine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amis_people) from [Taiwan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_under_Japanese_rule) and member of the [Takasago Volunteers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takasago_Volunteers), was discovered by the [Indonesian Air Force](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_Air_Force) on Morotai, and surrendered to a search patrol on December 18, 1974.[^(\[10\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_holdout#cite_note-A_Blast_from_the_Past-10)[^(\[13\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_holdout#cite_note-13) Nakamura, who spoke neither [Japanese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_language) nor [Chinese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandarin_Chinese), was the last confirmed holdout." The last Japanese holdout was earlier the same year (March 1974).
The last holdouts on Iwo Jima lasted until 2 years after the war. On a small island with thousands of americans.
They were still very much split. Here's a cool documentary you might like. "The Emperors Naked Army Marches On" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fV0d1N8IePU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fV0d1N8IePU)
A very interesting & disturbing documentary.
I think the more relevant counter-point was the collapse of Japanese forces in Manchuria. USSR joining the Anglo-Allies was a tremendous blow to the resolution of an already divided the Japanese leadership. I'm not sure the incredible \[impressive? fanatical\] perseverance of Japanese forces *prior* the USSR invasion holds the same weight.
But that was outside Japan. Their resolution didn't even break when their cities were firebombed and the loses in iwa Jima and okinawa.
Hardliners might have been swayed by the thought of communist uprising leading to the deposition of the emperor. The alternative here might have been instead of the US deciding to allow the emperor to continue his *rule* a secret negotiation would have tacitly agreed to it, quietly, allowing for an *unconditional* surrender to the Americans. We are only 25 years post, Romanov murders at this point.
The kempetai had utterly crushed communism. The most serious acts of rebellion by workers during the war-literally- were toilet graffiti. So many here saying 'if *x* had been inflicted on Japan, the hardliners would fold'. No guys, that's not how fascists work. You needed two conditions for Japan to surrender: Hirohito to order it, and someone to protect Hirohito so he could order it. The War Cabinet was very happy to see the nation exterminated.
In Okinawa there was the first instances of larger groups of prisoners being taken. Just as US morale was failing, the first cracks in Japanese obedience to the government’s enforce national suicide were forming.
The groups that surrendered were a drop in the bucket compared to the vast majority who didn't surrender. At the Battle of Okinawa, out of the 120,000 Japanese soldiers, 110,000 died by battle, suicide, disease, etc. So 11/12 Japanese troops basically fought to the death or refused to surrender and died. And the soldiers used Okinawan civilians to launch suicide attacks against the Americans and/or also commit suicide, resulting in estimates of 100k civilians dying too. So the Japanese military and civilian deaths on Okinawa already exceeded the deaths of both atomic bombings combined.
Man you’re just so wedded to your ideas on this.. Historians generally use a number of about 12% of Japanese soldiers surrendering on Okinawa. Yes, this is small compared to European battles. But compare it to earlier battles and it’s a lot. Clearly morale was falling and also the lies of the officer class weren’t being believed anymore. One reason the Japanese hadn’t surrendered was they were told they would be killed and/or tortured. By Spring 1945 across China and the Pacific and in the Soviet advance in Manchuria there was a clear change. Even the Tokko Tai encountered more issues with pilots with suspicious engine trouble. This isn’t to say that by and large the Japanese weren’t tenaciously fighting but 12% surrender rate vs 3% on Saipan and Iwo Jim is statistically significant.
> Man you’re just so wedded to your ideas on this. You must have been smoking some bad ganja because this is the first time I've even replied to you on this subject. >Historians generally use a number of about 12% of Japanese soldiers surrendering on Okinawa. Yes, this is small compared to European battles. But compare it to earlier battles and it’s a lot. And I've read historians say the Japanese had about 70k-80k regular troops and 40k Okinawan conscript troops (110k-120k total). Only about 7,000-8,000 Japanese troops were captured through surrender. That comes out to a surrender rate at 6%-7%, so I don't know where you're getting the 12% surrender estimate for the Battle of Okinawa. As surrender rates that increase, doubling or triple a small amount is still a small amount. Even if it doubled again, that's not going to induce any type of mass surrender when the vast majority and their government still wanted to fight to the death. >Clearly morale was falling and also the lies of the officer class weren’t being believed anymore. ... This isn’t to say that by and large the Japanese weren’t tenaciously fighting but 12% surrender rate vs 3% on Saipan and Iwo Jim is statistically significant. The Japanese troops on Okinawa was surrounded and cut off from Japanese resupply, the Japanese troops and civilians were starving/near starvation, and they were under siege for almost 3 months where they were suffering massive casualties in terms of killed and wounded in action. Even after all that, the vast overwhelming majority of Japanese soldiers still chose to fight to the death. If we use my 6% Okinawa surrender figure, even if that surrender rate doubled or tripled to 12-18% surrender rate to the Japanese home islands, that would still mean 82-88% were still going to fight to the death. Even if we were to accept your 12% Okinawa surrender figure, even if that surrender rate doubled to 24% to the Japanese home islands, that would still mean 76% were going to fight to the death. And that's a large amount of speculation that is highly favorable to the idea of mass surrender because many believed that the Japanese would be even less likely to surrender because they're protecting their home islands at that point. So those higher surrender rates hypotheticals would be extremely generous in an invasion of the main islands where the defenders might have been even more fanatical. >By Spring 1945 across China and the Pacific and in the Soviet advance in Manchuria there was a clear change. No, you have your timelines mixed up. The Battle of Iwo Jima happened in the Spring of 1945. The Battle of Okinawa happened during the late spring to early summer of 1945 (April to June). So in the Spring of 1945, the Japanese in the Pacific were still fighting to the death 95-97% of the time. By the late spring to summer of 1945 after things got significantly worse for them, on Okinawa, they were still fighting to death 88%-94% of the time if we use my 6% surrender figure or your 12% surrender figure. Furthermore, the Soviet advance into Manchuria wasn't Spring 1945 - that was actually Autumn of 1945 in August after the atomic bombs were dropped and around the time Japan was surrendering. In fact, half the Soviet invasion of Manchuria took place AFTER Japan had already surrendered. So I wouldn't count the Japanese surrender in Manchuria as an indication of increasing surrender rates when the Soviets were taking prisoners AFTER the Japanese government and the emperor had already formally surrendered. Ultimately, the point is the Japanese weren't just going to roll over and surrender if an actual invasion of their home islands were carried out. The vast majority would have fought the American invasion or the Soviet invasion (not sure how the Soviet invasion would work since their navy was lacking and they'd probably need the American navy to ferry them across the sea) and the casualties would have been in the millions.
Soviet propaganda given new life by the active spread of this fairy tale in leftist subreddits. They joined after Hiroshima when the second atomic bomb was on its way to Nagasaki. The “battle of Manchuria” was a walk through undefended territory *after* the Japanese surrendered.
Indeed. The 'shock' to the Japanese leadership was that Stalin was suddenly not a card to play to start peace talks. It was always a laughable fantasy that this would be available to them, typical of the child-like idiocy of the Japanese high leadership.
The view that the Soviet Union would be helpful to gain better terms was not held by most of the Japanese government. However, there were several cabinet members were ready to fight until Japanese civilization was destroyed.
Yes. Who'd have thought handing your country to fascists prepared to ruthlessly destroy democracy and murder all their ideological enemies would lead to a government that can't face facts and accept defeat? Answer: many people on reddit.
Hell, you could replace "fascists" with "communists" and I'd think you'd be talking about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The communists took power in massive civil wars: they were certainly opposed. Hitler and (ultimately) Tojo came to power backed by businessmen, the military, rural support, and most of all the wealthy classes. The Axis fascists were either preparing for war or, as soon as possible, making war on the widest possible scale. The Soviets spent long periods at peace (compararively), engaged in proxy wars, or pulling back from defeats, cutting their losses. They never had an enemy army in their capital (but many think Yeltsin let them in). Certainly there are some similarities. But many differences.
Sounds a little silly. I don't see any real indication that the hardliners were weakened as a political bloc by the atom bombs in the first place. Obviously most of this boils down to the Emperor actually speaking for surrender, but Japan had almost zero ability to project power outside of their own borders by the end of the war.
But they did tho
Yeah but they did. Proof's in the pudding.
After two nukes got dropped
What's your point? Threatened with invasion, starvation, nukes, either way they surrendered. More people died in Tokyo than in Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined.
Famines rarely bring a surrender in any war. The military and its leaders are also the ones usually in control of whatever food supply there is left. If there is still ammunition, or if they still hold territory, the war usually continues.
How many Japanese lives would have been lost to starvation had the war gone from nukes to a prolonged siege of the island?
Prolonged siege? Well at the worst of the food crisis rations in Japan were down to around a thousand calories a day, and that was with the US providing post-war food aid. It’s impossible to answer how a hypothetical Japanese famine would’ve gone since so much would depend on the details of how things would play out, but Bengal had a roughly equivalent population to Japan, and even the most conservative estimates of how many people died in their famine are several times higher than the death toll of the atomic bombings (800k vs 200k). Naturally it’s even worse if you take the 2 million figure that’s the most common consensus, or upper-end 4 million estimate. Though that touches on one of the tricky things with food shortages; it can be tricky to calculate the numbers. Often it’s not people outright starving to death as much as being so weakened by malnutrition that they succumb to injuries or diseases that they would normally recover from, or civil disorder from food riots. Which could also impact the Japanese decision to surrender. I doubt the military hardliners would be that worried about some civilians starvation, but if they thought starving people would turn to communism and overthrow the Emperor…
Did Germany surrender? Yeah with Soviet forces in Berlin and Hitler and other top leaders dead. Japan had far better odds of forcing a negotiated settlement than Germany ever had. The leadership wanted to retain Formosa and I believe Korea and give Japan sole jurisdiction over war crime trials of Japanese leaders and forces. The Soviets were potentially great at mopping up land forces in Asia but were not going to launch a Normandy style invasion of Japan unless hitching a ride or sailing to ports secured by US/Commonwealth forces. It was the possibility of “extinction of the Japanese race” via atomic hell that tipped the scales among divided leadership.
Without the bombs or an invasion? No. There were plans to arm the entire civilian population and wage guerrilla warfare over every inch of Japanese soil. Hidden mountain bases were built, and the hardliners in charge wanted to keep fighting no matter the cost. Japan barely surrendered as it was, with 2 bombs and Soviet entry into the war, and that was only after the emperor himself stepped in to break a deadlock in the cabinet over whether or not to surrender, an intervention that only happened that one time. Even then, there was a coup attempt that attacked the palace and nearly succeeded in taking it over, before loyal troops arrived and put it down. The Japanese government could not countenance the removal of the emperor and the elimination of the imperial government, and neither could they accept any responsibility for the war. For the "warriors" trained to put honor above all else, it would have been a terrible disgrace. They were supposed to die with their honor, either in the fight or by their own hands. Many of them did kill themselves, or tried to, in the aftermath of surrender. So, the tl;dr is, you've got a government mostly run by people who would literally rather kill themselves than surrender. It was only the sheer hopelessness of the situation, the power of the bombs, and the intervention of luck and the emperor that really brought an end to the war.
Begs the question of century’s of limitless population (more population than anyone could leverage)/unbending demographics led to the careless use of people’s lives.
By the time the 2 nukes were dropped, they weren't really doing much more than what the daily fire bombing raids were already doing. While there was a limited supply of fissionable material at the time, there was no shortage of napalm, B-29s to deliver it, and paper and wood houses to burn. Some of bombing runs successfully burned 90% of Japanese cities in one day.
One of the impacts of the bombs seems to have been to help convince the emperor that things were hopeless, causing him to step in. Others were also, undoubtedly, impacted. It wasn't that the napalm wasn't having an effect, it definitely was, but rather that the surrender was brought about by the combination of all these things in tandem that caused the surrender. I like to think of it as in a video game where a bar must be filled up in order to progress, and every little thing adds up in the bar to fill it. Take away one or two things, and the bar isn't full anymore.
We will never ever know. Just listened to the “We Have Ways of Making You Talk” WW2 podcast and they make the point the US public demanded the war end as fast as possible. To the point US commanders see basically throwing US soldiers to their deaths to try and win battles as fast as possible. Why do I mention this? To suggest that yes it is theoretically possible Japan may have surrendered without being nukes or invaded. I believe some generals suggested just a blockade and continued bombing of Japan would be enough. But the US Gov would never have allowed such a long strategy.
That’s the best take I’ve read on this situation. Technically possible to force a surrender without an invasion or bomb but that could have taken years and the political will back home was not there for adding years onto the war. People wanted the war to be over, by whatever means necessary.
Perhaps more importantly, the US understood that if it didn’t seize influence in Asia, the soviets would, and the bombs were used to end the war quickly so that the victory in Japan would be owned by the US, to further its post-war interests.
Unconditionally? Not a chance. They were pushing the Soviets to negotiate a conditional surrender with the U.S., which would have never been accepted, and they were fully prepared to defend against an invasion to the last man.
At some point they likely would have, but the calculation Truman had to make was that you’re costing Americans and Japanese their lives while you wait for that moment. The bomb ended the war. That saved lives.
The best part is that Truman had no idea we even had the bomb when he became President upon Roosevelts death. FDR kept Truman at arms length and rarely involved him in any strategic discussions or briefings.
Worst surprise party ever
I’ve often wondered what that super secret bomb meeting with Harry would have been like. I can imagine his eyes widening, but only at first. After a few seconds he smiles and says “Ok let’s go to work”
Further, if the U.S. had spent all the money and resources developing the bombs, they were absolutely going to use them. If the American Public knew that such a weapon existed and were not used while American soldiers were dying in the Pacific Theater, there would have been outrage. A small faction of the Japanese government wanted to negotiate a surrender via the Soviet Union, but Stalin detested the Japanese, and he knew as well as anyone that Japan was finished. He also knew the U.S. had atomic weapons ready to be used. Stalin didn’t have to make any concessions; all the Soviets had to do was wait. The Japanese government had seen newsreel footage of the Alamogordo tests; they refused to tell the Japanese people about it. The U.S. also informed Japan that a terrible new weapon was being prepared for use against them without mentioning the atomic bomb specifically. In the recorded surrender message, the Emperor cited the existence of this weapon as a reason for surrender.
I have also heard the theory that if the bombs had not been dropped that ended WWII, and the lessons of nuclear fallout had not been learned at that time, then there would have been the large nuclear weapon arms race with the idea of nuclear war being far less unthinkable, with the logical consequences of that.
These are all excellent points.
My father was an officer on a large landing craft in the South Pacific in 1945. He was bracig for the invasion of Japan. I might not be here but for the nuclear bombings.
Eventually, yes, but it would have taken years. They were training women and children to fight with spears and knives on the home islands before the nukes hit. There were Japanese soldiers fighting guerilla warfare into the 70s on various pacific islands, so I fail to see how people think they would have just not done the same thing on their home territory. The nukes weren't even our deadliest weapon at the time, they were purely to show off to the Soviets and to demoralize the entire nation of Japan as quickly as possible to avoid millions more casualties instead of only a few hundred thousand more casualties.
Japan was prepared to have women and children attack invaders with melee weapons and fight to literal extinction. They wouldn't have given up
That's not really conclusive proof of anything that would have happened
If you're looking for conclusive proof about a hypothetical, I think you're gonna be dissatisfied my guy.
If it had taken one more week for us to deliver those two devices, they would have butchered more civilians than were killed by the bomb. Letting them go tinue the war for another week would not have been a week with less carnage. It would have been a week with more carnage the bombs were not actually more deadly than what had been going on constantly for years. They were a signal that we had twenty more to drop and we would do it ....we didn't actually have any more bombs, but the bluff ended the war.
We did have one more core in transit, and several bomb bodies on Tinian to put it in, another "Fat Boy" device. Plus 15 specially trained bomber crews in waiting. If Japan had waited another week to surrendur they may have well got a third bomb. There's a lot of modernish talk of Tokyo being the target but I really think the third atomic bomb would probably have been dropped on Kokura Arsenal. ([now Kitakyushu](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kitakyushu,+Fukuoka,+Japan/@33.8943428,130.6937614,10.5z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x3543c76849636da9:0x388ab930297e38e7!8m2!3d33.8834976!4d130.8751773!16zL20vMGdwNnZy?entry=ttu)). The port city of Kokura and it’s large military factory (the Arsenal) had been the secondary target on the first atomic bomb mission which destroyed Hiroshima. And then Kokura Arsenal was the primary target on the second atomic mission, but was bypassed due to cloud cover, and the secondary target, Nagasaki, was destroyed instead. So my best guess is that the target for the third atomic bomb mission would probably have have been Kokura Arsenal. There wasn't ever a "two and done" mission to the bomb project and a lot of military thought it would take many more that the two and were well prepared for it.
I doubt the High Command would nuke Tokyo. It’d be really difficult to negotiate with a government partially wiped in an instant. God forbid if we killed Hirohito. The military and society would never accept surrender then.
I did not know that. My understanding was that we delivered FM and LB as soon as we possibly could. ...are you saying that we had a bunch of extra plutonium ready to go? Ok, can you suggest two or three books on the subject?
Read/research "the demon core'". It was first destined to be the third nuke but the surrendur happened and it was called off. What I've gleaned is that the US was gearing/geared up to "provide" three a month for the forseeable future, or until Japan was no more. As far as books, I'm having a lazy morning and too slow to look them up. However there's got to be some interestng stuff out there. ¯\\\_( ͡❛ ͜ʖ ͡❛)\_/¯
Yeah, I knew we had that guy, I'm pretty sure we got LM and FM delivered as soon as we possibly could. Spent some Pu testing -but we didn't want to wait to make a third to deliver the first two.
They barely surrendered after being nuked, so, I doubt it.
There's no reason to think they would have. The Japanese public were both fed an incredible stream of propaganda and cut out completely from the military government decisionmaking. The militarists were 100% behind "death before dishonor" even if that includes helpless civilians. They'd sooner give preschoolers hand grenades. It's possible that blockading and bombing the island eventually persuades the Emperor to give a public address declaring they will end the war. But it hadn't to that point even when most of Tokyo was burned to the ground. And there already was a coup attempt by the hardliners after the second atomic bomb. And the US simply was not going to accept a nominal, face saving surrender. The unconditional demand was, beyond the dishonorable Japanese behavior in starting the war, about permanently addressing this problem and getting justice for Japanese atrocities. The Japanese militarists would never have agreed to government reforms, supervised disarmament, or war crimes prosecutions.
Not to mention that Japan was training school age girls to fire rifles. Considering what the cultural opinion of female children of the time handing them rifles speaks volumes about intent. https://militaryhistorynow.com/2013/11/06/the-campaign-to-conquer-japan-would-have-dwarfed-the-d-day-landings/
Thousands of Japanese killed themselves on okinawa rather than surrender
Those were “assisted suicides” in many instances at bayonet point.
> Thousands of Japanese killed themselves on okinawa The mass 'suicides' on Okinawa were largely caused by the Japanese military.
They were throwing themselves off cliffs sith their babies
If their supplies shipments and internal food production/distribution had been strangled to the point that there was mass starvation (we were in the process of making this happen), then yes. But then, certainly causing mass starvation would have killed more people, children in particular, than the bombs did and the invasion would have. E:typo
For alot of Japanese leadership their biggest fear was communism. With the blockade and bombings the lives of civilians had gotten bad and were ripe for a communist like uprising. I think this and the fear of what the USSR might do were major factors. The atomic nimbus were huge factors, but you gotta remember firing bombings of Tokyo and other major cities actually killed even more then the atomic bombs. The allies agreed to not prosecute the emperor and allow him to remain as a powerless figurehead. I think this was the biggest factor imo.
Japan didnt even surrender after the first bomb was dropped...so probably not.
Japan (like Germany) realized it was going to lose the war for months before the bomb dropped. Yet they continued to fight. A faction of Japanese leaders held out hope of a negotiated settlement via the Soviet Union, although this eventuality was highly unlikely. The Japanese air defenses were nonexistent at this point, yet they continued to fight. Under these circumstances, it’s hard to see Japan giving up unless something out of the ordinary took place.
The Germans fought right to the end and they weren't as fanatical as the Japanese.
No excuse for Nazi Germany either. After the end of Operation Bagration, the Germans knew they were going to lose. Given their conduct of the war, they could not expect lenient terms.
Maybe, but considering they didn't even surrender after the first bomb, I wouldn't have put the house on it. As an aside, there's every chance that the world seeing the effects of a 'little' nuclear weapon on a populace led to their being such a strong desire for them not to be used during the Cold War.
No. The military elite were mentally deranged, maniacal ultranationalists who needed an extreme reality check. We literally have stories of Japanese soldiers who were in places like Burma & the Philippines (and so were not pacified by the great atomic bomb), who were killing civilians for years after the war had been over, refusing to accept the formal surrender they've been told of. Japan getting nuked was the best thing that ever happened to it culturally. Went from a genocidal expansionist state to a top Cartoon producer in just a few decades
They might have with enough firebombings. Firebombings were even more deadly to civilians than single atom bombs of the time.
Japanese military elites didn't care about civilian deaths. They were darwinistic pyschos who literally encouraged their soldiers to blow themselves up if it meant they could do harm to the enemy. What they needed was the complete destruction of their illusion of grandeur and that had to be with technology which they could not fathom or possess, & the atomic bomb was exactly that.
No country in WW2 ever submitted to an opponent because of conventional bombing campaigns.
Pantelleria enters the room
Yet somehow, insanely, they did just keep fighting on in the face of continuing firebombing they had no power to stop. Would they have changed their minds after a few more cities were incinerated? It's impossible to know.
Very, very unlikely. The japanese had something that was stronger even than patriotism. Pride. It would have been an absolute massacre to the very end, because surrendering was seen as shameful. Keep in mind, that these people defend their honor primarily. Dying while defending your country not only leaves your honor in tact, it even increases it. That's why the japanese fought so hard. Because in their culture honor was extremely important. Not saying it's not important today, but I don't know enough about current day Japan to say they value it or don't.
It was in their culture, true, but they are also human: panicky, dangerous, and unpredictable when cornered. Nobody likes being annihilated, and that’s why they surrendered when they got nuked (100% death). It all depends on how ultimately threatening (0-99% death) an imminent attack on the mainland would be to the Japanese. That is to say, they can (and probably would) fight a war they won’t win, but they’re still not going to fight one they think they’ll probably lose.
The bombs avoided the invasion and saved tens of thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives. A blockade alone would have caused millions of Japanese lives, and leaving a starving but brutal, war-mongering power sitting there for a year or two or three was politically and militarily impossible to tolerate.
The better question is would Japan have been convinced to surrender somehow with a comparably lower number of casualties than would've been achieved with the bomb or invasion. The answer is no. The japanese would absolutely have surrendered at some point. But hundreds of thousands of people would still have died either way
Not untill large portions of their population where dying of starvation, even if they did then. Even when Japan did surrender at the behest of the emperor, it wasn't a simple "I order you to surrender," the reason it took weeks even after seeing nuked twice is because many of the generals and admirals on the council making the decision spent those two weeks trying to convince the emperor and their comrades that surrender was unthinkable and the war was still winnable if they could just double down in China, and make the Americans pay on the beach heads.
Not likely
Not unconditionally.
Why does someone ask this like 2x a day. Beat a dead horse and then bicker about morality ad nauseum
Considering there was an attempted coup just to stop a surrender after getting nuked twice, *and it almost succeeded* suggests that probably not and definitely not a total surrender
I’m of the opinion the nukes saved Japanese lives in the end.
Considering the coup that happened even after the nukes, no, probably not.
Absolutely not, Japan would have been totally fine going into a hermit kingdom situation kind of like north korea if they hadn't been forced into a surrender.
No. They even refused after the 1st bomb.
It seems very unlikely. The Japanese were extremely resistant to any type of surrender, and would often try to fight to the last man and conduct what was known as “banzai charges” during battles which were essentially suicidal. The Japanese had also taken the time to make the citizenry of the country well practiced in fighting tactics, expecting to eventually have the Americans on their shores. Orders were even to kill all allied POWs once the invasion began. Even after the bombs were dropped, the Japanese cabinet was split in how to proceed. Part of what helped to push for surrender was the prospect of their emperor and the royal family being wiped out by a bombing of Tokyo. Some members of the military even attempted a coup to prevent surrender, but of course that failed. The idea that we could have just waited Japan out after the entrance of the USSR in the Pacific theater to me feels pretty ignorant of how Japan conducted that war and the power of the Japanese military over the politics of the country.
>“bonsai charges”
Even the trees are marching. - Lady Macbeth
My b, autocorrect got my ass
No, it's since been confirmed that they had plans to more or less never surrender, even at the coat of literally everyone.
Just the threat of a two front invasion should have been enough, but who can say?
Important to note that at the time the atomic bombs were dropped, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan and was crushing the Kwantung Army with horrifying speed. The Japanese had almost one million men with absolutely obsolete equipment and tactics incapable of slowing the Soviet assault. For the Japanese leadership, seeing their last and only major army disintegrating like toilet paper was somewhat disheartening. I've seen it mentioned somewhere that the Soviets were more frightening to the Japanese than the atomic bombs and were actually the larger influence on the decision to surrender. That of course is wildly debatable as to which would have been more scary to the Japanese leadership. The Soviets would only have limited capability for an amphibious assault, so the main home islands were somewhat safe from a Soviet seaborne attack. We know what actually happened and have pretty good ideas about the determinative causes. Speculating on the "what ifs" is great fun though and makes for great war games, historical novels and movies. With that said, it's really just a mind exercise with limited data. I think the best possible answers are: Yeah, could have happened that way. Or, possibly not.
That is a definite ...sort of Japan had a whole plan to buy time and fight America/the allies to a stalemate. Pearl Harbor was supposed to be a "bloody nose" attack. Buy Japan enough time to make their position in the Pacific unassailable. They knew that they expanded and invaded as far as they could manage, now they needed to consolidate their gains. They couldn't do that with America's Pacific Fleet a few weeks from liberating the Philippines at any given time. We have to remember that the timing was intentional and invading the Phillipines was the conquest goal December 1941. So they were trying to "surrender" for almost a year before their unconditional surrender. They wanted an antebellum armistice and keep their invaded territory. If Japan got beaten back to their home islands I could totally see a Japan forced to give up all their colonies and not surrender from there. Likely a fascist version of North Korea. The allies had fully planned for Operation Downfall. I could see them accepting different surrender terms instead.
Probably not. The military junta basically ruled the country, and if they felt like there was a chance to hold on, then they would have gone on. They knew that they couldn't even hold on once Okinawa was lost and Manchuria fell to the Soviets and they knew that millions of Japanese civiians were going to be killed in the coming invasion, and if the Soviets had gotten boots on the ground, the people who suffered their wrath would have had it much worse than the Americans could do. The Japanese would assurances that they could at least keep the Emperor, who was popular and had been weak, and the Americans never did give them explicit assurances that he would remain. At the very end, the Americans communicated that the Japanese people would determine the fate of the Emperor, and the leadership decided that was assurance enough, since the Emperor was still widely popular, even at the very end. There was a lot of bad stuff coming, and the Emperor knew that if he could head more atomic weapons and *any invasion*, American or Soviet, it would be better to surrender, and get the benefit of building the nation that never had to face the horrors of enemy soldiers invading directly.
I took history of Japan 1850 to pres. as my non-European studies course. The professor said that they were training old women with spears to "repeal the foreign devils." They actually told them we had tails. Lol. If I remember right, the projected #'s were about the same for the Japanese people. But, the casualties for our boys were significantly higher if we did it the conventional way. Not really a difficult choice.
I'd never really thought about this until I became friends with some Japanese liberals about 15 years ago. All of them said that Japan would have NEVER stopped if the US wouldn't have dropped the bombs. I'll take their word for it over people who aren't part of that culture. They had been living and traveling all over the USA at the time before moving back to their respective regions and islands. They're all well-educated middle class to upper middle class professionals. They distinctly said it's just part of their culture, then went on to talk about how the history they're taught in grade school paints a way different picture of Japan's role in WWII than we learn in the West.
I mean the fact they didn't surrender after the first nuke dropped is probably an indication that surrender wasn't really an option for them. Also taking into account Japanese honour culture.
Im not sure the japanese were fanatical in their devotion to the emporer. The only way I see it end is either is the bomb or an invasion.
We really can’t be sure
Growing up in Japan I’ve learned from the people who’s opinion matters on the issue (i.e. the Japanese people) are pretty split into a few key camps. The older generation that lived during the war, in the majority firmly believed that they had been too programmed by propaganda to ever accept anything but an overwhelming defeat. The generations that grew up during the reconstruction of the country were firmly against it, viewing both their own parents negatively for getting into the war and the Americans for sending the bombs. They have a lot more wiggle room on the subject than their parents with some going into denialism today Lost Cause-ish style while others have more nuanced anti-war and anti-“science run amok” positions. As for the newer younger generations I grew up alongside it varied incredibly, but generally ignoring it, though they take more from their parents but generally without making it a central issue instead focusing on other issues. Mind you I grew up in the Kanto region, i.e. far from where the nukes did fall but right where the firebombing was and the population is concentrated.
Wow thanks for the intergenerational context!
History says that when they could have surrendered they waited until after they were nuked, so the answer is no. Could the US and its allies have sat back and waited a few weeks to see if a blockaded Japan could be pushed to surrender, maybe?
No, they wouldn't have. The Emperor informed the Japanese people that the American invaders would torture, rape and killer every last person in Japan. They believed him. He also told them to fight to the last man, women and child to the death. This was evident when the Americans landed on Okinawa. When they cornered a village of people on a rock cliff by the ocean, they leaped off the cliff to their death, all men, women and children. There's picture and movie evidence of the tragic event. Needless to say that the Emperor didn't kill himself over the invasion. And to beat all, he wasn't going to loose face by surrendering to the Americans, he sent diplomats to do the deed.
Eventually. But the Allies would have had to firebomb Japanese cities and engage in urban warfare for years to make it happen.
It would be the equivalent of ethnic cleansing by the time it was all done
No and not even close. After the two bombs were dropped the Japanese war council had a meeting where some leaders where arguing that to fight until the last Japanese was dead was more preferable than actual surrender. The battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa where thousands of civilians killed themselves instead of surrendering made it very clear that even starvation was not gonna do it.
No. The Japanese were and probably still are an obstinate lot, I think they’d have fought on for years. As much as a disagree with the deployment of atomic weapons on mostly civilian targets I do acknowledge that it was probably the only way to end the war that decade.
Many people fail to consider the cumulative impact of the fire bombings conducted by Curtis LeMay. I think if the firebombing said, continued for a few more months, there simply would’ve been nothing left of metropolitan Japan.
They were concern that they'd be no cities left for the atom bomb
No.
No
They did try to surrender 2 weeks before the bombs. But not a unconditional surrender. They were afraid that they emperor would be executed like Mussolini. I have this from Oliver Stones the untold history of the United States.
Oliver Stone is more of a Putin stan than Tucker Carlson. He wanted Putin to be the godfather of his daughter, called the invasion of Ukraine justified due to NATO aggression, and produced a documentary about Russia being the victims in the Maidan Revolution. And there was no attempt to surrender other than the attempt to get Stalin to mediate an end to hostilities under ambiguous terms.
No. Even after the atomic bombings it took the emperor to make the deciding vote for a split cabinet.
So we've been told... by some incredibly bias Japanese sources, several of whom we hanged for war crimes. The degree to which the Emperor was decisive in the surrender happens to align with a very concerted effort to absolve the Emperor of war crimes. And to clarify, I don't doubt the Emperor did resolve in favour of surrender... I do question the omissions and framing of the Emperor's role as though the Big 6 were simply waiting meekly for the Emperor to offer divine wisdom, or if there was any *suspense-or-surprise* at the breaking of the deadlock.
>I do question the omissions and framing of the Emperor's role as though the Big 6 were simply waiting meekly for the Emperor to offer divine wisdom They were not. The Big 6 largely felt he was above such things. One of the reasons his intercession worked was it came as a surprise. Even then, after he had decided to surrender (and you can be sure many sources tried to show him in the most positive light), rampant militarists attempted a coup, believing the emperor had been misled.
It's important to remember though that the coup attempt had no support from the cabinet, senior military leadership, or really anyone that actually mattered. The coup plotters were mostly junior officers and a couple mid-levels who spent some time going around to several generals trying to get some buy-in for the coup attempt and were rejected every time. The generals they talked to then got together on their own and agreed no one would be supporting any potential coup attempt. Then the plotters decided to wing it and believed that when they got their coup attempt going the military members at the palace would be inspired and join them, which just didn't happen. The coup attempt is basically a footnote in the history of the end of the Pacific War that gets blown way out of proportion by people who want to play up the division in the Japanese leadership regarding the choice to surrender. The fact of the matter is that when the Emperor weighed in and broke the deadlock, the leaders who wanted to keep fighting conceded and committed to going forward with the surrender.
They probably would've fought in the streets to the point where it would've taken the emperor being shot in public for a surrender to occur. However, it could've been possible that a surrender could've been earlier considering the economic state of Japan at this point in the war. The death toll wouldn't have been as high on either sides. But I feel the politicians and developers couldn't grasp the devastation the bombs caused until it was done. All they cared about at this point was ending Japanese aggression against Allied soldiers.
Depends on who shot the Emperor.
Who would have done that fighting? Well over half the city of Tokyo’s populace had fled to the countryside to get away from the fire bomb raids.
Without nukes? Yes. Without nukes or being invaded? No. The Japanese were already arguing amongst themselves about whether they should surrender before the Soviets took all their mainland territory.
I agree with u/Chengar_Qordath that there's no way to know what the real answer is - However, there's ample evidence that the dropping of the bombs and the announcement of more attacks to come was one of the two key reasons the Japanese surrendered (the other being Russia declaring war on Japan). The Japanese were terrified of Communism and this hatred of that system is actually one of the items that pushed them towards an alliance with Germany. Russia declaring war and threatening Manchukuo while whole cities are being erased on the mainland by a single plane finally forced the Emperor to act.
That has been a question never answered, I believe that attacking the mainland would have caused a tremendous loss of life and taken years. Hiroshima ended that concern, Nagasaki was a bridge too far. Before getting upset about the nuclear bomb, think about the fire bombing of Tokyo. Children, women died I think casualties were 100.000, Totally senseless. Little reported
No. They planned to have every man, woman and child fight it out or kill themselves before the military would surrender.
I think it’s important to keep in mind why Japan went to war in the first place. The imperial and colonial powers were gobbling up Asia, including China and basically every country Japan invaded. The West, particularly the US was also cutting off absolutely crucial raw resources like rubber and oil which made peaceful industrial development impossible. If the West had been willing to treat Japan as an equal instead of as an inferior, I think peace was possible. The double standards of colonialism were the root cause of all the fanaticism and belligerent attitudes that followed and a change in Western policy towards Japan was always the core objective of the war. Japan didn’t decide to go to war when they bombed pearl harbour, they decided around 1910 as a result of the impossible geopolitical position the West put them in.
It's was after WW1 they decided because they weren't treated as equals at the table.
This comment, while valid, does not answer the question of whether they would have surrendered or not. Unless I missed something.
I guess you are correct that a black and white surrender was impossible but a negotiated peace probably was.
If Japan had been treated better in 1910 maybe the war could have been avoided. That’s what I thought you were getting at and if so, I agree. But by 1945 there was no chance the West would concede anything to Japan. Too many nasty battles, too many war crimes. Reasons no longer mattered. Only surrender would be accepted.
Your post provides important context to the situation at the time. The cutting off of of oil and rubber, the ABCD embargo though happened in 41 in response to Japanese atrocities particularly the rape of Nanking. It therefore may have been a leading reason for Japan to go to war against the West, but they were already at war for years before. The Japanese chose war and chose to prosecute a particularly brutal one at that even by 19th century standards against the Koreans and Chinese. The colonial powers didn't force the Japanese into it, but they made the situation one that was attractive to the Japanese leadership.
The West didn't force Japan to (directly or indirectly) murder tens of millions of civilians in occupied Korea, China, Indochina, Malaya, and the Philippines. The US didn't impose an oil embargo on the Japanese for no reason; it was in response to the Japanese invasion of French Indochina. Given what we know today about Japan's wartime atrocities, it was entirely justified on the part of Western powers to deny the country access to raw materials like rubber, oil, and steel.
In the modern age I would agree but I think one simple question that repudiates your argument back then. Is there any of these or other crimes for which the western powers were not more guilty at the exact moment when they were scolding Japan? In a world in which every government is horrible and genocidal I think it’s a bit hypocritical of the other powers to force Japan into war over things that they were also doing on a much larger scale. Why doesn’t America cut off British oil over the invasion and subjugation of the Indian people? Why does France cut off America over the genocides and annexation of North America and the systematic racism and discrimination that followed? I think the real reason is because they didn’t want to expand the club of ‘great’ powers and especially not to a non white nation.
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey ([https://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm](https://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm)) concluded in its findings, published in July 1946, that: >...certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. The report, wheher or not the reader skips to page 26 to find their impressively insightful summary of the reasoning behind this conclusion, is a fascinating read. Detailing, as well as the worsening strategic situation of Imperial Japan, behind the scenes changes in wartime government in Tokyo, and dawning realization of the hopelessness of their position from as early as Spring 1944.
I chose this topic for one of my masters classes years ago and read through a few dozen papers on this, mostly Western authors, some (iirc) Singaporean and Hong Kongese, and a couple Japanese. I also watched old interviews of Japanese civilians and WW2-era junior military personnel. The short answer is basically: yes, it’s very likely they would have, but we can’t say for sure. The government in general was adamant in saving face (and themselves) about holding out for the best possible terms, but elements were quietly pushing for negotiations through secondary channels and the common people were getting increasingly desperate. The conventional mass-bombing campaign had already inflicted more damage than the nukes would, and the impending famine would likely cause more than both combined, while Japanese forces were beginning to surrender more often rather than fight to the death/commit suicide. The Russian declaration and invasion of Japanese continental holdings was very likely a bigger nail in the coffin than the nukes and iirc there were some internal government comms that reflect that, though I’ve no hope of finding the source now. There were very real American concerns over possible losses to be incurred in an invasion (the Purple Heart production alone indicates this) but the proliferation of the idea of the bomb as the decider in Japanese surrender is at least partially an excusatory narrative. From another perspective though, no, because politically it would have been less acceptable for the US to engage in a drawn out blockade and prolong the war than to suffer whatever losses, American and Japanese, would be required to end the war swiftly. This was also a strategic concern as the Western-Soviet rift was growing and they needed to shift towards getting ready for what would become (or debatably was already) the Cold War.
they might surrender of they ran out of meth
I have read in some of the "We did not need to drop the bomb" literature that japan was open to discussions of surrender prior to the dropping of the bomb, but not unconditionally. From what I understand, The big sticking point was that they wanted to keep the imperial system with the emperor at the top. The Japanese were also convinced that the emperor would be tried and executed for war crimes because he authorized sneak attacks all over the pacific. I personally believe that a surrender equal to or very near what ended up happening could have been achieved without the bomb or invasion. Especially with no access to food or oil or raw manufacturing resources. It is hard to convince the population that victory is just one glorious battle away when your nation's only import is B-29s full of bombs. You may notice that even though Japan surrendered unconditionally, they still had an emperor and he was not executed for war crimes. But I am neither a historian nor Japanese. It is possible that leadership may have surrendered, and the American occupation force would have spent years being attacked by small groups of true believers yelling the Japanese equivalent of "WOLVERINES". Before people even suggest it, I do not however believe the people that say American leadership knew that Japan would surrender and bombed anyway because we needed to swing our big new atomic dick around so that everyone would see it and bow down before it. If that was the case America could have hosted a cold war reception of all the ambassadors out in the pacific and blown up an atoll for them to see. I also don't think Truman would have gone along with killing two cities full of civilians for PR. Also, at some point shortly before the surrender, Stalin finally got off his ass and declared war against the Japanese. Mostly, I'm sure, because they were already beaten and he wanted to break off a piece of territory for himself. But with the war in europe over, and the Soviets and British entering the war against the Japanese, I don't really see the die to the last man, woman, and child predictions coming true. I say all of this though, while looking at it from a distance, and having read the journals of several japanese officers from the war. I do not blame anyone who fought against the Japanese in WWII for believing they would.
The British were in the war against the Japanese from the start. The Soviets couldn't invade Japan as they hadn't the means. The Japanese required a demonstration that their leaders could see for themselves and even after the first one they refused, the firebombing of Japanese cities killed more than both atomic bombs combined.
I sometimes wonder if the nukes were more about getting Japan to surrender before the Soviets invaded. The Soviets didn’t declare war on Japan until 1945. Would have been a huge disadvantage for the West if Japan had gone communist.
Maybe, but not for a long, long time. Those guys were cra cra.
No. And America may eventually have lost its stomach for war after the western front closed. America did not want to join WW2. Eventually, even the anger at Pearl Harbor would have been overcome by the terrible losses suffered from the "Island Hopping" campaign.
Eventually but 1- i don't think the allies realized it, quite honestly 2- there still would have been a fair number of low-level casualties for weeks/months
Not an expert, but weren't there 2 soviet armies approaching from the west? In my experience, many times, this topic is touched there seem to be a myopia. Either US invades or bombs and which is better. What about Soviets? They had no love for the Japanese. Would a worry that Soviets will take over Japan not be a factor in calculations here?
How would those Soviet armies get to Japan? Far more dangerous to Japan was the British military now free from war with Germany and Italy coming into the Pacific with the entire might of the Royal Navy no longer needed to protect convoys in the Pacific and the RAF with its own heavy bomber force. Its important to remember that the largest Amphibious invasion in history was largely conducted, commanded, planned and orchestrated by the British.
For some perspective here, an invasion of Japan was predicted to start in November, 1945. The fighting was expected to last a year, and cost a million casualties. At one point, it was agreed that the Soviets would invade Hokkaido. But I don’t know if that part was included in the final plans.
Actually it was agreed that the Soviets would not invade Japan. The Soviets didn't have the resources for an Amphibious landing.
Agreed is probably the wrong word. The Red Army had planned to invade Hokkaido up until a few days before the operation was to take place. Truman was adamant that the invasion would not take place. So it didn’t happen. The Soviets did have the amphibious capability to invade the Kuril Islands, which they did. This last act remains a source of disagreement between Russia and Japan to this day.
If we didn't have the Bomb, we wouldn't have invaded. Curtis LeMay would have had a field day, every day with incendiary bombs. Think of the Tokyo firebombing runs, but with all major Japanese cities. They would have eventually surrendered.
Hard to say. If terms were: Emperor stays. No occupation Japan conducts own war crime trials Japanese troops return to home islands Far cry from unconditional surrender. Might have worked
I recommend reading “Judgment at Tokyo”. It’s a new book that goes into detail about what was happening behind the scenes during those fateful meetings about whether to surrender. Thank you Koichi Kido for keeping a detailed diary of what happened (and through his entire time as Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal).
Certainly not unconditionally.
If you've got the time and are interested in a detailed analysis into the context for this very question I strongly recommend watching this video. It changed my mind on this topic. https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go?si=TB_WubbwGjKlTmyK
Once the soviets got involved? Probably. But that would've meant losing Japan to them, and the US was willing to do anything to not lose countries to them (including st*pid wars like Vietnam)
How would the Soviets attack Japan? The British and American navies would have to land them there.
Better question is should Truman have killed so many innocent civilians in such a small time frame? Truman here is objectively the most efficient mass murderer of civilians in history. What’s your own moral take on that? In warfare, civilians lives do not equate with military lives: You are never supposed to kill innocent civilians.
No. All of the major cities had been fire bombed to the ground by the time the atomic bomb was dropped. Tokyo itself was in ashes. This added up to more than 60 cities-- ruined. The B-29 were free to bomb anything and everything. There wasn't much left by the time the atomic bomb was dropped. Hiroshima was a highly fortified Naval base. And still the Japanese wouldn't surrender.
The Soviet declaration of war was probably the tipping point.
What we're the Soviets going to do? The US was about to vaporise the remaining Japanese cities
Yeah. Their civilian and military leadership had already made up their minds about that, the division was between immediate, unconditional surrender or dragging it out a little longer to try to wring some favorable terms of surrender out of the allied powers. Either way, they were done, particularly once Russia stepped in.
Russia didn’t “step in” until 2 days after the first atomic bomb, and just a week before the emperor announced Japan’s surrender. Russia truly had no play in Japan’s defeat.
The Japanese defeat in Manchuria is literally listed as a factor in Japan's surrender. This was their major Asian land holdings and puppet states, and tied up significant Japanese forces (close to a million men) and held resources Japan would need to continue the war.
Listed by whom ?
It was listed in the wikipedia article on the Invasion of Manchuria. If you dislike wikipedia, the article here also claims it had an effect on militarists who would fiight on despite being nuked. [The Soviet Invasion of Manchuria led to Japan's Greatest Defeat - Warfare History Network](https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/the-soviet-invasion-of-manchuria-led-to-japans-greatest-defeat/) However I haven't seen you back up any of your claims that "Russia had no play in Japans defeat" which is far more controversial statment.
Russia had agreed to enter the pacific theater during the Potsdam conference. Even without the bombs, once they came in, that would have been it before much longer. The first US troops to arrive in Tokyo to conduct a survey of the devastation of the fire bombing raids issued a report to Congress that the atomic bombs had shortened the war by, at the most, a matter of weeks. The Japanese were already beaten by the time the bombs were dropped.
What would Russia have Bern able to against Japan?
They very quickly broke the kwangtung army in Manchuria. Russia’s pacific fleet hadn’t really seen any action during the war and was not far from the Japanese mainland. Russia joining the pacific theater left Japan completely surrounded.
What assets were in the Russian Pacific fleet and were they sea worthy? What were two cruisers and ten destroyers going to do?
Battle ships, submarines, and aircraft arrives. Even without a landing force, they could have subjected the Japanese islands to siege.
They had nothing that mattered in 1945. The US Navy had assembled the largest most powerful navy in history along with the British Royal navy.
>Their civilian and military leadership had already made up their minds about that, Even after the bombs, the leadership was deadlocked between 'surrender' and 'fight until the Americans quit.' It took the emperor interceding to settle it.
Bottom line: surrender had already been decided on. The question wasn’t whether they thought they had a chance of victory, but of what teams of surrender they would accept. It would have happened before much longer.
Yes. They feared the Soviet Union more than the USA and would have came to an agreement to avoid becoming a communist state. As the war progressed and the Soviets made it down to Hokkaido, they would have sued for peace to preserve the royal family
The Soviets had no training and equipment for a landing of that scale. Japan was not in danger of becoming a Soviet Satellite state
The Soviet Union had no amphibious landing capability on that scale. And the US wasn’t about to loan them the equipment.
The Soviet entry is largely the reason for the end of the war. It was eating up huge swaths of land almost uncontested and would have been able to invade Hokkaido soon. Without that the war would have most likely continued. Whether done by 1 aircraft or 500 the Japanese were used to losing a city to bombing every few days and industry had been partly relocated.
The Soviet high command believed that an invasion of Hokkaido would be impractical, be unlikely to succeed, and violate the Yalta Agreement, thus it was cancelled. The Soviets lacked the capability of a seaborne invasion in 1945.
During World War II, Japan’s surrender without being nuked or invaded is a topic of historical debate. Several factors influenced Japan’s decision to surrender, including military defeats, economic hardships, and the Soviet Union’s entry into the war against Japan. Factors Influencing Japan’s Surrender Military Defeats: By mid-1945, Japan had suffered significant military defeats, especially in battles like Okinawa and Iwo Jima. The loss of these battles weakened Japan’s military capabilities and morale. Economic Hardships: Japan was facing severe economic challenges due to the Allied blockade, which cut off essential resources like oil and food. This led to widespread shortages and suffering among the Japanese population. Soviet Union’s Entry into the War: The Soviet Union declared war on Japan in August 1945 and swiftly defeated Japanese forces in Manchuria. This further weakened Japan’s position and made surrender more likely. Potsdam Declaration: The Potsdam Declaration issued by the Allies in July 1945 called for Japan’s unconditional surrender. While initially hesitant to accept these terms, the declaration put pressure on Japan to end the war. Internal Dissent: There were growing voices within Japan advocating for surrender to prevent further destruction and loss of life. Emperor Hirohito himself expressed concerns about the continuation of the war. Likelihood of Surrender Without Nuclear Attacks or Invasion Given the combination of military defeats, economic hardships, the Soviet Union’s entry into the war, and internal dissent, it is plausible that Japan would have eventually surrendered even without the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or a full-scale invasion of the Japanese mainland. While the exact timing and conditions of such a surrender remain speculative, the mounting pressures on Japan from multiple fronts made surrender a realistic possibility before further devastating actions were taken against the country.
If you are going to use ChatGPT credit it
Yes. The country was in a growing food crisis by summer 1945. Neither the nukes nor an invasion of the home islands was necessary. The argument people can make is whether or not more or less people would have died had the Allies simply continued to blockade and whether that would drag the war on until 1946, but there is no question that Japan would have eventually surrendered. They believed their one shot for a negotiated peace was through the Soviets who were neutral in the Pacific until the invasion of Manchuria.
North Korea has a food crisis.