The Japanese were well aware of the Soviet threat as well, and would have surely preferred to surrender to the Americans than the Communist Russians. I can't help but think there must have been some way to convince the Japanese leadership to just end the war. But the problem was that, psychologically, they were very determined. It would have been very difficult for them to backtrack at that point, very uncomfortably awkward and embarrassing, the war time propaganda had almost built up the state like a religious cult, and all the lives that had been honorably sacrificed in suicide missions, which would ultimately turn out to be for nothing. The Japanese leadership at that time was very aristocratic and had a lot of personal wealth and power to lose in the event of a defeat. Then there was also the issue of pride. The Japanese wanted to prove they were on equal or superior footing with the European peoples. Defeat was a humiliating unthinkable thing in the culture, especially the Samurai-inspired warrior culture they cultivated for the sake of the war. Traditionally defeat involved ritual suicide. For the US to have diplomatically made the war quickly come to an end, they would have had to give away quite a few concessions.
Too bad Japan didn't surrender days before and thankfully we had then weapons to stop the bloodshed and end the war.
That makes no sense. If it was not necessary they it was not justifiable. But of course it was necessary. Soldiers and sailors do not make such decisions but you left out "'we can end the war right now by killing a hundred thousand civilians, including women and children, or you can keep fighting their military for an indeterminant amount of time and kill millions of women and children along with hundreds of thousands of allied lives, and maybe you die' what do you think would've been their response?" What would have been yours?
They didn't need a wholesale, they just need some occupying forces in order to have a seat at the table and a military presence.
It was not necessary because we would have beat them either way. It was justified because they attacked us, and thus it was up to us to determine how best to win. I don't believe we needed to kill any of their women and children to beat them. BUT fighting only their military in conventional warfare would have cost a lot more of our own military's lives, and they are no less valuable than the enemy's civilians. They're arguably far more valuable to us. That being said, I like to think that if it had been up to me, I would've chosen to keep fighting their military and not bomb their civilians. But I wasn't there, so the best I can do is suppose.
I get so tired of these debates. Drop the bombs - 130,000 to 220,000 people die. Don't drop the bombs and invade - allied casualties in the range of 400,000 to 800,000 deaths and upwards of 5-7 million deaths including civilians. Don't invade and continue the blockade letting the war continue, potentially on into late 1946? A similar number of Japanese casualties, this time mostly from starvation and approximate 6000-7000 US casualties every month until the war ends. And none of the above includes potential casualties across the entire South East Asian theater amongst civilians due to starvation and disease because the continuation of the war meant (real world) allied relief could not be distributed and crops could not be raised. Some people just don't get that there were no 'good' options on the table and that's even with the benefit of eagle eyed hind sight! Fact: whatever decision was made at the time about the bomb tens of thousands of people were going to die anyway. Use it/don't use it, the only outcome was more deaths. The only really 'good' option other than Japan surrendering was not fighting the damn war in the first place! Same as is the case with every war in history.
You’re assuming that the Soviets just could have occupied Japanese soil just like that? The Japanese fought fanatically for every inch of ground on little islands in the middle of the Pacific, and some how they’d just lay down, and let the Russian’s take a beachhead without a fight? Every landing operation conducted by the USA/USN/USMC used massive naval bombardment, close naval air support from carriers, and the ability to provide the the logistics to support such operations. Too the Soviets credit, they did conduct two landings operations in the Manchuria campaign. I just think their Pacific Fleet was equipped to tackle any of the Japanese home Islands.
Yes at that point the Russian's could have occupied parts of Japan and would have had no qualms sacrificing the troops to do so.
So millions of lives didn't matter? Even if a million of those were unnecessary allied lives, US lives? And thankfully it wasn't you else the war would have continued for YEARS will MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of more deaths mostly women and children just because the word "atomic" before the last two bombs we dropped.
So, what part of "I don't believe we needed to kill any of their women and children to beat them. BUT fighting only their military in conventional warfare would have cost a lot more of our own military's lives, and they are no less valuable than the enemy's civilians. They're arguably far more valuable to us" indicates to you that I think 'millions of lives didn't matter'?
What part of continuing the war don't you get? They were fully preparing to sacrifice their civilian forces against us. WW2 was a strategic war not just a conventional tactical one. Had the war continued there would have been MILLIONS more death and destruction.
The Soviets never had any qualms sacrificing soldiers. I just doubt they had the logistical capacity.
I don't think they needed much logistical capacity. Just look at how quickly they were able to overrun Manchuria and North Korea. It is true they mostly used train lines to do this, so establishing supply lines into Japan would have been a little bit of a different situation. The only thing I can imagine, it is possible they might have been overstretched in resources and number of soldiers, and less able to move around reinforcements since it would be harder to transport soldiers and equipment between Japan and the mainland.
The Soviets probably would not have needed carriers. Their territory was close enough to Japan, longer range planes could have reached Japan from airstrips. It is true the Soviets did not have many planes, especially not in the Far East. The Japanese military forces would have been completely exhausted if the war had gone on, and most of these forces were more concentrated in the South and East parts of the country or in territories occupied further South fighting against the US. Opening a second front from the opposite direction in the North and West would have put tremendous strain on Japanese military resources. Probably most of the resistance the Soviets would have found would be from civilians, which were mostly women, children and old men, since all the men had been sent off to fight elsewhere. Especially from the rural areas of the North and West of the country. The North and West parts of the Japanese main island are much less densely inhabited, mostly rural. I think it would not have been too difficult for the Soviets to establish a foothold if they had landed, though it might have been difficult to supply that foothold.
Soviets had done paratroop and amphibious landings and they were in the process of overunning the Manchuria area where we were supporting Chiang Kai-shek and the Russians the communist. Russia was a factor in our Asian policy and conduct of the war.
The Soviets could have landed troops there just as they did in other places. "That was the rough battle plan drawn up by the commander of the Soviet Pacific Fleet, Adm. Ivan Yumashev, at the end of World War II for occupying Hokkaido. Troops were on standby. Submarines were ordered to the Hokkaido coast for reconnaissance in preparation for land invasion, and had even started sinking Japanese ships (tragically, just refugee boats fleeing Soviet operations on nearby Sakhalin Island). The Soviets had by then occupied southern Sakhalin and were mopping up the remnants of the Japanese along the Kuril island chain that stretched from Hokkaido to the Kamchatka Peninsula, in Russia’s far northeast. Although the Red Army was not as experienced as the Americans with landing operations, this Soviet “D-Day” in Hokkaido would’ve been a walkover — the Japanese army was in shambles, and Emperor Hirohito had recently proclaimed defeat." https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/05/stalin_japan_hiroshima_occupation_hokkaido/ The fact remains we needed to end the war and using the two atomic bombs did just that.
The war in the west was over. They had all those men and equipment and production they could shift to the eastern front for them.
Soviet capabilities were so poor that the US gave them 150 vessels and lengthy training in 1945. The proposed Hokkaido landing was after Japan's surrender announcement -- hardly a test. An attempt to land against a determined enemy would have been a disaster. I agree the bombs were needed to win.
