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
Editorials & Other Articles
In reply to the discussion: We didn’t need to drop the bomb — and even our WW II military icons knew it [View all]newthinking
(3,982 posts)14. It wasn't the bombings.
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 Japans home islands.
Even the most hardline leaders in Japans 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. Japans 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 theyd 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 Unions 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 commands 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 Japans 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 Takagis diary entries from August 8 show that at least some of Japans 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 Japans 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 Japans 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 Japans best troops had been shifted to the southern part of the home islands. Japans 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 Japans 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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
98 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

We didn’t need to drop the bomb — and even our WW II military icons knew it [View all]
polly7
May 2016
OP
I agree. I think we could have dropped it on some deserted Island and said you are next, and gotten
Hoyt
May 2016
#1
Don't forget that Japan was still fighting, and people dying every day.
AtheistCrusader
May 2016
#50
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
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
The Japanese had shown no propensity for surrender in WWII prior to the bomb; why assume they would?
MadDAsHell
May 2016
#10
I know it sounds great to say you are/were against the A-bomb drops but...
bernie_is_truth
May 2016
#12
I disagree. Period. And, I get tired of being insulted for thinking differently. nt.
polly7
May 2016
#23
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
If US decision-makers believed The Bomb was not necessary, then they had a different motive
Martin Eden
May 2016
#56
People are missing the point: Should Obama on behalf of the U.S. apologize for using the bomb twice?
YOHABLO
May 2016
#80