Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

newthinking

(3,982 posts)
14. It wasn't the bombings.
Thu May 12, 2016, 12:10 PM
May 2016


http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/

Excerpt:

Strategic Significance

If the Japanese were not concerned with city bombing in general or the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in particular, what were they concerned with? The answer
is simple: the Soviet Union.

The Japanese were in a relatively difficult strategic situation. They were nearing the end of a war they were losing. Conditions were bad. The Army, however, was still strong and well-supplied. Nearly 4 million men were under arms and 1.2 million of those were guarding Japan’s home islands.

Even the most hardline leaders in Japan’s government knew that the war could not go on. The question was not whether to continue, but how to bring the war to a close under the best terms possible. The Allies (the United States, Great Britain, and others — the Soviet Union, remember, was still neutral) were demanding “unconditional surrender.” Japan’s leaders hoped that they might be able to figure out a way to avoid war crimes trials, keep their form of government, and keep some of the territories they’d conquered: Korea, Vietnam, Burma, parts of Malaysia and Indonesia, a large portion of eastern China, and numerous islands in the Pacific.

They had two plans for getting better surrender terms; they had, in other words, two strategic options. The first was diplomatic. Japan had signed a five-year neutrality pact with the Soviets in April of 1941, which would expire in 1946. A group consisting mostly of civilian leaders and led by Foreign Minister Togo Shigenori hoped that Stalin might be convinced to mediate a settlement between the United States and its allies on the one hand, and Japan on the other. Even though this plan was a long shot, it reflected sound strategic thinking. After all, it would be in the Soviet Union’s interest to make sure that the terms of the settlement were not too favorable to the United States: any increase in U.S. influence and power in Asia would mean a decrease in Russian power and influence.

The second plan was military, and most of its proponents, led by the Army Minister Anami Korechika, were military men. They hoped to use Imperial Army ground troops to inflict high casualties on U.S. forces when they invaded. If they succeeded, they felt, they might be able to get the United States to offer better terms. This strategy was also a long shot. The United States seemed deeply committed to unconditional surrender. But since there was, in fact, concern in U.S. military circles that the casualties in an invasion would be prohibitive, the Japanese high command’s strategy was not entirely off the mark.

One way to gauge whether it was the bombing of Hiroshima or the invasion and declaration of war by the Soviet Union that caused Japan’s surrender is to compare the way in which these two events affected the strategic situation. After Hiroshima was bombed on August 8, both options were still alive. It would still have been possible to ask Stalin to mediate (and Takagi’s diary entries from August 8 show that at least some of Japan’s leaders were still thinking about the effort to get Stalin involved). It would also still have been possible to try to fight one last decisive battle and inflict heavy casualties. The destruction of Hiroshima had done nothing to reduce the preparedness of the troops dug in on the beaches of Japan’s home islands. There was now one fewer city behind them, but they were still dug in, they still had ammunition, and their military strength had not been diminished in any important way. Bombing Hiroshima did not foreclose either of Japan’s strategic options.

The impact of the Soviet declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria and Sakhalin Island was quite different, however. Once the Soviet Union had declared war, Stalin could no longer act as a mediator — he was now a belligerent. So the diplomatic option was wiped out by the Soviet move. The effect on the military situation was equally dramatic. Most of Japan’s best troops had been shifted to the southern part of the home islands. Japan’s military had correctly guessed that the likely first target of an American invasion would be the southernmost island of Kyushu. The once proud Kwangtung army in Manchuria, for example, was a shell of its former self because its best units had been shifted away to defend Japan itself. When the Russians invaded Manchuria, they sliced through what had once been an elite army and many Russian units only stopped when they ran out of gas. The Soviet 16th Army — 100,000 strong — launched an invasion of the southern half of Sakhalin Island. Their orders were to mop up Japanese resistance there, and then — within 10 to 14 days — be prepared to invade Hokkaido, the northernmost of Japan’s home islands. The Japanese force tasked with defending Hokkaido, the 5th Area Army, was under strength at two divisions and two brigades, and was in fortified positions on the east side of the island. The Soviet plan of attack called for an invasion of Hokkaido from the west.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I agree. I think we could have dropped it on some deserted Island and said you are next, and gotten Hoyt May 2016 #1
small problem with your scenario SCantiGOP May 2016 #28
Don't forget that Japan was still fighting, and people dying every day. AtheistCrusader May 2016 #50
No, it did not need to be. deathrind May 2016 #2
Those fire bombings killed 10's of thousands with each mission packman May 2016 #34
The Tokyo raid killed far more people than either atomic warhead. Short and long term. AtheistCrusader May 2016 #53
But, but millions of American lives were saved by avoiding a ground invasion! RufusTFirefly May 2016 #3
The brainwashing was successful. Scruffy1 May 2016 #35
It's a fascinating and scary phenomenon RufusTFirefly May 2016 #55
There were several. Igel May 2016 #75
Not millions of American's, but millions of Japanese civilians. denbot May 2016 #49
This message was self-deleted by its author longship May 2016 #94
The whole thing hinges on whether Japan actually was "ready to surrender". BillZBubb May 2016 #4
Did you even read the article? RufusTFirefly May 2016 #13
And you know more than Harry S. Truman--even more impressive! BillZBubb May 2016 #44
Haha! I'm afraid you're confusing politics with facts RufusTFirefly May 2016 #54
I'm not confusing anything. Truman's decision was based on facts he knew. BillZBubb May 2016 #58
Rest easy. Only the Bad Guys are war criminals. n/t RufusTFirefly May 2016 #63
Well, duh, good guys aren't war criminals by definition. BillZBubb May 2016 #65
It wasn't the bombings. newthinking May 2016 #14
You are mistaken . . FairWinds May 2016 #16
So, Truman was a war criminal? He just wanted to incinerate Japanese? BillZBubb May 2016 #38
Yes, Truman was a war criminal . . FairWinds May 2016 #61
Well, you are wrong. Truman was no war criminal. BillZBubb May 2016 #64
Jeez Bill, you got the name calling thing down pat . . FairWinds May 2016 #69
Ohhhhh, the "disgusting" card!! FairWinds May 2016 #70
You can demonstrate... zentrum May 2016 #40
They had to test it, no? Helen Borg May 2016 #5
Little Boy was simple, the knew it would work. longship May 2016 #52
I was taught this in middle school (1975). I'm surprised it's a revelation and not common knowledge! TheBlackAdder May 2016 #6
I've always been heartbroken over this and never for one second believed it was necessary. polly7 May 2016 #8
I've always been heartbroken over this and do think it was necessary. Igel May 2016 #77
We had to show the world that there was a new king of the world. LiberalArkie May 2016 #7
Disagree. They were monsters, and they picked a fight with Goliath. closeupready May 2016 #9
The Japanese had shown no propensity for surrender in WWII prior to the bomb; why assume they would? MadDAsHell May 2016 #10
Hiroshima was just one more city totally annihilated... TomVilmer May 2016 #57
I wasn't there and neither were you perdita9 May 2016 #11
I know it sounds great to say you are/were against the A-bomb drops but... bernie_is_truth May 2016 #12
Again, plainly wrong . . FairWinds May 2016 #19
Maybe you could explain your 'plainly' word bernie_is_truth May 2016 #36
"Stats" ? You have no stats. FairWinds May 2016 #60
I listed several stats bernie_is_truth May 2016 #91
See Barton Bernstein, bulletin of the atomic scientists . . FairWinds May 2016 #92
Here's a good read on the topic. longship May 2016 #29
It likely saved my father's life. PADemD May 2016 #73
It also likely save my father's life. TexasTowelie May 2016 #82
My father was a supply ship gunner. PADemD May 2016 #83
The army tried to overthrow the emperor to avoid surrender after Hiroshima Omaha Steve May 2016 #15
Crap, Steve? Really??? polly7 May 2016 #17
Yes really Omaha Steve May 2016 #22
I disagree. Period. And, I get tired of being insulted for thinking differently. nt. polly7 May 2016 #23
It wan't meant as an insult Omaha Steve May 2016 #27
No, It's ok and I'm sorry. Just a bit tired and grumpy, not your fault! polly7 May 2016 #31
war is by definition barbaric, no matter the weapons used bernie_is_truth May 2016 #43
War is barbaric. No shit. nt. polly7 May 2016 #47
i notice you didn't make a choice bernie_is_truth May 2016 #51
We didn’t need to drop the bomb — and even our WW II military icons knew it polly7 May 2016 #59
so many opinions, so many what if's bernie_is_truth May 2016 #62
I'm not a youngster OmahaSteve NoMoreRepugs May 2016 #21
Exactly. nt. polly7 May 2016 #26
Operation Downfall Omaha Steve May 2016 #39
Why should we have treated Japan any different than Nazi Germany gladium et scutum May 2016 #79
I'll agree that 1 million was very unlikely Travis_0004 May 2016 #81
I think our relationship today says it all. yallerdawg May 2016 #18
Indeed, there is some evidence that it was a test on human targets. JohnnyRingo May 2016 #20
Thank you, excellent points!! nt. polly7 May 2016 #24
Exactly. A pre-bomb surrender was never an option, for US. arcane1 May 2016 #32
you're right bernie_is_truth May 2016 #48
I don't know if I'd go that far. JohnnyRingo May 2016 #66
Absolute rubbish! longship May 2016 #45
I used to believe that JohnnyRingo May 2016 #67
Read the fucking history. longship May 2016 #68
Believe me, I have studied the history of WWII all my life. JohnnyRingo May 2016 #71
It was not used to test it on humans!!! longship May 2016 #95
I guess you misunderstood JohnnyRingo May 2016 #97
We used the two different bombs because they were the only two we had. longship May 2016 #98
The Japanese did not immediately surrender after the first bomb was dropped. LS_Editor May 2016 #25
I love the lie that the only time it's ever OK to use a nuke was the two times we happened to do it. arcane1 May 2016 #30
"Bombs save lives." johnp3907 May 2016 #33
The Bomb rlpincus May 2016 #37
It's easy to look back and second guess what should have been done struggle4progress May 2016 #41
One unknown ... Kablooie May 2016 #42
Which begs the question: chknltl May 2016 #46
If US decision-makers believed The Bomb was not necessary, then they had a different motive Martin Eden May 2016 #56
Where was the surrender of the Japanese after the first bomb? LS_Editor May 2016 #84
I wasn't making the argument you are apparently responding to Martin Eden May 2016 #85
About half the posts here must be from Neo-cons . . FairWinds May 2016 #72
Japan's only condition for surrender was keeping the emperor yurbud May 2016 #74
Even after the nukings, the Japanese Government . . FairWinds May 2016 #88
The Russians were getting ready to invade Japan. Gomez163 May 2016 #76
Truth. LS_Editor May 2016 #86
But dropping two, not one, but two nuclear devices showed the word that... guillaumeb May 2016 #78
People are missing the point: Should Obama on behalf of the U.S. apologize for using the bomb twice? YOHABLO May 2016 #80
He has nothing to apologize for. So no. nt hack89 May 2016 #93
heck, atomic histories have found it was used mostly because Groves didn't want to get the MisterP May 2016 #87
So from Omaha Steve we get that Japanese children . . FairWinds May 2016 #89
Damned right. Unbearable. n/t Judi Lynn May 2016 #90
This will not be resolved until way after it happened and the historians weigh the evidence CTyankee May 2016 #96
Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»We didn’t need to drop th...»Reply #14