Did the atomic bombings prevent many extra casualties in Japan because they avoided a ground war in mainland Japan, or is this just a myth? Some argue the Japanese government was about to surrender anyway.
>>496722
Japanese government minutes show that the shocking pace of the Soviet invasion of manchuria swung the government, and that the atomic bombardment was considered less important than the fire bombing of Tokyo.
Not that the Yank policy makers knew this.
>>496729
[citation needed]
>>496736
Not this time of night, also it is {{cn}} or [[wp:citation_needed]] IIRC
They were ready to surrender, if they get to keep the Emperor, have the trials done by their own government, etc. America wanted unconditional surrender so they're not having any of those bullshit so they dropped the nukes.
The Japanese government were in the process of training anyone who can stand and hold a weapon to fight so had the Allies landed, they would be fighting militias/conscripts/fanatics, etc. They barely have guns so some are instructed to run en masse towards the enemy and blow themselves up, and some are given bamboo spears to impale some American soldier with.
So yes.
>>496722
It's a myth
Japan had started negociations with the USSR to get a two way surrender (to both USA and USRR)
Americans didnt want to share victory so they nuked Japan into surrendering to them only and immediatly
>>497164
More like they nuked Japan into surrendering to them only to stop the spread of communism in the Pacific Rim.
in the end it was just so they could justify Project Manhattan
imagine all those millions of dollars and 3 scientist lives lost for nothing
>>496722
its a myth b/c they carpet bombed japan instead
http://tabublog.com/2015/04/21/no-nukes-were-dropped-on-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/
>inb4 blog
it does have genuinely good insight and uses official photos
>>496722
>the Japanese government was about to surrender anyway.
They had a lot of time to think it over to be honest before the bombs were dropped.
>>497877
>-Major Alexander Seversky
>>497895
the terms were too harsh on them
mess with USA, get fucked forever
>>497918
No harsher than the terms they themselves forced on other countries.
>>497842
More to show the world the capabilities of the bombs, I would think. Even now it would still be a question and maybe an empty boast.
>>496722
The reason the bomb was dropped was Iwo Jima.
The Japs pretty much knew they were going to lose the island but came up with this last try to win. They would basically go out with such a fight, that they would cause so many casualties that the US would go home in disgust.
I think they were told something like they werent allowed to die until they had killed at least 10 Americans. And it ended up being on of the bloodiest battles of the war. Theres veterans of it who said the ONLY reason they or others survived it was pure dumb luck and thats it.
If they fought that hard for a little pile of volcanic ash, how hard were they going to fight for their mainland? Thats why Truman dropped the bomb on them and never thought twice about it.
They didnt even want to surrender after the second bomb and there was a plot by the military to capture the emperor and contineu fighting the US.
also, more people died in the bombing of Tokyo than hiroshima and nagasakie combined
>>496729
>this is russianboos actually believe
>>497954
>And it ended up being on of the bloodiest battles of the war.
6k death for the US in 1 month, wow...
Compare it to the casualties of a single day at Borodino in 1812
>>497954
Iwo is a reason but obviously the decision to drop an atomic bomb was influenced by plenty of other reasons.
I think Okinawa would have had much more of an effect. They pulled the civilians into the mix with suicides showing the US what the actual civilians are capable/forced to do.
>>497975
There's more than one way of thinking of it
Like 20,000 US wounded which is equally bloody as deaths, 18,000 Japanese dead, some self suicides, suicide charges, gruesome combat and all confined to dark caves, near zero cover for troops on a island of 8 square miles.
Borodino was probably one of the most massive, expansive battles anyone had ever witnessed, in regards to technology, fire power, etc not just numbers.
You can't compare Borodino to a battle on an 8 square mile island.
>>497975
>Thats not one of the bloodiest battles of WW2 because this battle from the Napoleonic Wars had more casualties
I fucking hate /his/
>>498223
If he learned the difference and why they can't be compared then /his/ is a good place.
I always learn something or at the very least have been provoked into further reading from this board. I wish it had been around earlier.
>>497782
Soviets were unlikely to beat us to Northern Japan since we already were in SK by that time.
It didn't stop the spread of communism in the Pacific rim. Our forces surrounding Japan and invading Korea did.
>>496722
We didn't accept their conditional surrender to keep the Emperor.
So we nuked them twice and they surrendered unconditionally.
Then we let the Emperor stay in power.
>>496729
This is the closest to the truth. The Japanese government was shocked by their rapid losses in Manchuoko and essentially gave the US everything it wanted so they wouldn't get turned into commieland.
They didn't accept the Emperor stepping down from his "holiness" though. But it's odd that we let him remain after the unconditional surrender.
>>497129
If you read the book called downfall, a member of the council or a person under one suggested that. However that would me allied boots on home islands, an act that the military side would not stand for.
>>496722
>Some argue the Japanese government was about to surrender anyway.
They were even hesitating after the first bomb dropped is what I read.
>>500368
Even after the second one, there was a junior officer's coup to try and stop the emperor from surrendering.
>>500368
Since Japan did a terrible job calculating how much uranium they needed to make their own and gave up,they assumed it was our only one and went lol who cares for the most part.
Source is downfall by Richard frank. Will post books source material if thread is up in the next 24 hours.
I wonder, what would the world have looked like had the atomic bomb never been used at that time.
Would MAD have worked properly without a demonstration on a populated area or would someone on either side have actually risked it?
>>500405
MacAurther might have used it in Korean War if it still happened.
>>496722
The threat of invasion from the Soviet Union was what tipped them into surrendering after the Soviets steam-rolled through Manchuria.
Besides having the political will to sacrifice the casualties an invasion would've taken (Definitely more so than the Allies at least), everyone in the Japanese government, military etc. knew they would fare much better under Allied occupation than under Soviet occupation.
>>500433
even if that is true, then they'd still need a proper event that could justify the surrender or else civil war would have been almost guaranteed
Atomic bombings provided a perfect excuse if nothing else.
>>500433
>The threat of invasion from the Soviet Union was what tipped them into surrendering after the Soviets steam-rolled through Manchuria.
I wish people would stop spouting this meme
That's actually something I don't know. Yes the society were gonna take Japan's China and Korean holds, but did they have the sealift capabilities to preform an invasion effectively in the pacific fleet or overall?
>>500474
They have a bunch of ships like trawlers, minelayers, etc that can be used to land troops. The IJN basically ceased to exist at that point so they won't have much problems in transporting troops.
Landing them against a fortified enemy is another story though. Then again, the Soviets were used to just keep throwing bodies at the enemy till they drown in it so it may not matter much for them.
