I have read detailed accounts of the Japanese surrender process, and whether or not to surrender was hanging by a thread, even after (1) The fire bombing of Tokyo had killed more people than nuclear weapons would, (2) Two fission bombs were dropped with the threat of continuing city by city until surrender, and (3) T…
I have read detailed accounts of the Japanese surrender process, and whether or not to surrender was hanging by a thread, even after (1) The fire bombing of Tokyo had killed more people than nuclear weapons would, (2) Two fission bombs were dropped with the threat of continuing city by city until surrender, and (3) The USSR had declared war on Japan.
This makes me doubt those who think that a surrender outcome would have obviously happened anyway without the nuclear bombing; I think that's based more on wishful thinking (or desire to support a pre-determined narrative). Was there some talk of it within parts of the government? Yes, the later examination of records reveal that it was discussed in some quarters. Were the advocates of surrender in control of the government? No, they were not, and even after the bombings they barely managed to get their way in the end.
Would the Japanese people have fared worse by not surrendering, and instead fighting it out (leaving out nuclear bombs)? I believe so. Read more about what happened in Okinawa (and other Japanese held islands). Very few surrendered and survived. I think the estimates of well over a million Japanese deaths from resisting a mainland invasion (or from conventional bombs etc along with possible starvation) are well justified; even leaving aside hundreds of thousands of deaths among the Allied soldiers and sailors.
And I think that the American public might have been less motivated to be generous in victory, if the total American deaths from WWII had been increased by 50-100% by the invasion of mainland Japan.
Obviously, we can at best estimate counterfactual history, and cannot run the experiment both ways and compare. But I find the proposition that the fission bombs spared a huge number of Japanese lives as well as those of the Allies to be very credible, even if not certain. Trying to optimize for the immediate ends (avoid the deaths from the atomic bombs) can potentially lead to worse outcomes in the long run (even more deaths from other means).
There are opinions in both directions which cannot be proven. My own take is based on my reading of the arguments on both sides, with no narrative of my own to support (eg: love whatever America does, hate whatever America does). Others are free to hold and defend their own opinions.
As to Japan and WWII.
I have read detailed accounts of the Japanese surrender process, and whether or not to surrender was hanging by a thread, even after (1) The fire bombing of Tokyo had killed more people than nuclear weapons would, (2) Two fission bombs were dropped with the threat of continuing city by city until surrender, and (3) The USSR had declared war on Japan.
This makes me doubt those who think that a surrender outcome would have obviously happened anyway without the nuclear bombing; I think that's based more on wishful thinking (or desire to support a pre-determined narrative). Was there some talk of it within parts of the government? Yes, the later examination of records reveal that it was discussed in some quarters. Were the advocates of surrender in control of the government? No, they were not, and even after the bombings they barely managed to get their way in the end.
Would the Japanese people have fared worse by not surrendering, and instead fighting it out (leaving out nuclear bombs)? I believe so. Read more about what happened in Okinawa (and other Japanese held islands). Very few surrendered and survived. I think the estimates of well over a million Japanese deaths from resisting a mainland invasion (or from conventional bombs etc along with possible starvation) are well justified; even leaving aside hundreds of thousands of deaths among the Allied soldiers and sailors.
And I think that the American public might have been less motivated to be generous in victory, if the total American deaths from WWII had been increased by 50-100% by the invasion of mainland Japan.
Obviously, we can at best estimate counterfactual history, and cannot run the experiment both ways and compare. But I find the proposition that the fission bombs spared a huge number of Japanese lives as well as those of the Allies to be very credible, even if not certain. Trying to optimize for the immediate ends (avoid the deaths from the atomic bombs) can potentially lead to worse outcomes in the long run (even more deaths from other means).
There are opinions in both directions which cannot be proven. My own take is based on my reading of the arguments on both sides, with no narrative of my own to support (eg: love whatever America does, hate whatever America does). Others are free to hold and defend their own opinions.