Why is the idea that the US dropped the Atomic bombs on Japan not to get them to surrender but to intimidate the Soviets so prevalent in our society
- Thread starter Bellacinos
- Start date
marathag
Banned
Hirohito's surrender speech
To our good and loyal subjects: After pondering deeply the general trends of the world and the actual conditions obtaining in our empire today, we have decided to effect a settlement of the present situation by resorting to an extraordinary measure.
We have ordered our Government to communicate to the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union that our empire accepts the provisions of their joint declaration.
To strive for the common prosperity and happiness of all nations as well as the security and well-being of our subjects is the solemn obligation which has been handed down by our imperial ancestors and which we lay close to the heart.
Indeed, we declared war on America and Britain out of our sincere desire to insure Japan's self-preservation and the stabilization of East Asia, it being far from our thought either to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandizement.
But now the war has lasted for nearly four years. Despite the best that has been done by everyone--the gallant fighting of our military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of out servants of the State and the devoted service of our 100,000,000 people--the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest.
Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.
Such being the case, how are we to save the millions of our subjects, nor to atone ourselves before the hallowed spirits of our imperial ancestors? This is the reason why we have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the joint declaration of the powers.
We cannot but express the deepest sense of regret to our allied nations of East Asia, who have consistently cooperated with the Empire toward the emancipation of East Asia.
The thought of those officers and men as well as others who have fallen in the fields of battle, those who died at their posts of duty, or those who met death [otherwise] and all their bereaved families, pains our heart night and day.
The welfare of the wounded and the war sufferers and of those who lost their homes and livelihood is the object of our profound solicitude. The hardships and sufferings to which our nation is to be subjected hereafter will be certainly great.
We are keenly aware of the inmost feelings of all of you, our subjects. However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that we have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the [unavoidable] and suffering what is unsufferable. Having been able to save *** and maintain the structure of the Imperial State, we are always with you, our good and loyal subjects, relying upon your sincerity and integrity.
Beware most strictly of any outbursts of emotion that may engender needless complications, of any fraternal contention and strife that may create confusion, lead you astray and cause you to lose the confidence of the world.
Let the entire nation continue as one family from generation to generation, ever firm in its faith of the imperishableness of its divine land, and mindful of its heavy burden of responsibilities, and the long road before it. Unite your total strength to be devoted to the construction for the future. Cultivate the ways of rectitude, nobility of spirit, and work with resolution so that you may enhance the innate glory of the Imperial State and keep pace with the progress of the world.
August 14 1945
Note the parts I put into Bold
SDI was never intended to eliminate an entire mass attacking force. It was meant to put doubt in the minds of the attacker that they could never know just how effective SDI would be and the likelihood that a sufficient residual force would survive any conceivable First Strike.
Bonus Point: Just the research alone would likely lead to unanticipated, and highly useful spinoffs, like a REAL space economy.
I assume he also left out the 123,000 Allies POWs set to be executed, the 5-10 million Japanese civilians projected to die in an upcoming famine or the fact that once word got out that Truman allowed an invasion that killed 500,000-1,000,000 Americans while holding a war ending weapon his goose was cooked?
This is valid for Venezuela also my teacher in a workshop of Japanese culture said about that the bad and cowardly United States
Last edited:
I wasn't aware it's only conspiracy theorists who try to understand multifaceted decisions these days by actually examining some of those factors in relation to the decisions.
Obviously a particular historical viewpoint would be identified with it's most notable proponent wherever that be in Russian or American literature. I have only read Alperovitz's The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth which is very well researched but falls short in it's analysis.
There is nothing wrong with historical revisionism, both the "traditionalist" and "revisionist" positions are deeply flawed as reviewed in Recent Literature on Truman's Atomic Bomb Decision: A Search for Middle Ground by J. Samuel Walker.
I will say that I know at least one guy who condemns with the utmost vehemence the use of the atomic bombs on Japan, but tries to rationalize the rape of German women by Soviet troops with "But ya gotta understand, they had just witnessed a lot of Nazi atrocities."
(And while I am not overly fond of ideological stereotypes in political debate, this particular guy is pretty much central-casting for "Tankie".)
I'm never sure why it can't be both?
The primary reason was to bring Japan to the table with the knock on benefit of ending the need for a home island invasion first. But it's also perfectly obvious that the world would be watching and would instantly have to rejig their thinking with this new information in mind, and equally the US would have known that. That doesn't make it it the primary or even in the top three reasons to do it, but they would have known it would have been a result of dropping the bombs We were at the time already looking at how the post war world would look especially vis-a-vis the west and the soviets.
However yeah I've seen a range of opinions on this, some more influenced by the post war context than the wartime context
right but unless you are claiming that everyone criticising the US is that guy (and I don't think you are), that's not what GJMalaguti was reacting too
The primary reason was to bring Japan to the table with the knock on benefit of ending the need for a home island invasion first. But it's also perfectly obvious that the world would be watching and would instantly have to rejig their thinking with this new information in mind, and equally the US would have known that. That doesn't make it it the primary or even in the top three reasons to do it, but they would have known it would have been a result of dropping the bombs We were at the time already looking at how the post war world would look especially vis-a-vis the west and the soviets.
However yeah I've seen a range of opinions on this, some more influenced by the post war context than the wartime context
right but unless you are claiming that everyone criticising the US is that guy (and I don't think you are), that's not what GJMalaguti was reacting too
Last edited:
Until I read the title I'd never heard of this. Dropping the bombs was to , and did, end the war. It had the bonus of letting Uncle Joe know what the US could do if pushed.
As others pointed out.
The prevalence of the "Intimidate the Soviet" over the "Force Japan" version is probably correlated to anti-US feelings.
I was taught the same version two times (Don't know how it works in other places. In my country we re-study all of History in highschool.) by two teachers, both of which were slightly into the "America & Russia bad. Europe stronk!" camp.
The prevalence of the "Intimidate the Soviet" over the "Force Japan" version is probably correlated to anti-US feelings.
I was taught the same version two times (Don't know how it works in other places. In my country we re-study all of History in highschool.) by two teachers, both of which were slightly into the "America & Russia bad. Europe stronk!" camp.
Like people said above, and I sign under, it is a manipulation for anti US feelings
On the case of Brazil the atomic bombings are shoved by some partial people all the time while the japanese war crimes are either not mentioned at all, or even worse, I once saw it being shown as a anti imperialist fight exactly like people like Tojo wanted it to be seen
I edited because I only saw one person really saying it was a anti imperialist fight, as such I changed my words to better fit that
Last edited:
I do believe the US played a part in why Japanese war crimes are not more well known as they helped cover it up during restriction. It wasn’t the best moral decision at the time but was most pragmatic decision.
I think it had less to do with Communism and a lot to do with post-war fear of the possible use of the bomb in future wars on the basis that it was "so easy" to default to them in Japan when they weren't 'necessary'. More below.
I'm on the fence on the idea it originally came from the USSR because there WAS a good number of American's that came out publicly against the bombings as being needed. After the war several prominent people (Eisenhower is a big example) came out publicly stating that they now and at the time felt the bombings weren't needed. And though that's meant more towards using starvation and internal chaos tear Japan apart with a blockade and continued bombardment it was an opening to question the motives of their use.
Again the problem is that more often than not the general context of the discussion isn't taken into account nor the context of the time and place of the argument. And the argument also ignores the conditions in Japan, their continued will to fight and more importantly (and tellingly since it's so often overlooked in such arguments) what the projected outcome for Japan and her people would be should options like blockade, bombing and other methods be used to subdue Japan without the bombs or invasion.
Frankly one of the things that I don't see addressed all that much is who WAS greatly impressed by the bomb, so much so he essentially set out to gut the US military because the bomb was so powerful! President Truman : ) (But not so powerful that he would authorize the development of the Super-Atomic or Hydrogen type bombs)
Randy
Ah, it absolutely did it
Heck, not hanging Kishi, who was basically the japanese version of Albert Speer, who led a massive slave labour industry in Manchuria were 5 of each 8 slave labourer died early during 13 years and allowed him to become the post war PM surely helped it a lot
And in another hand you have people who claim to be anti imperialist that could use that card, but somehow misses it and use the atomic bomb instead
The US and Allies never pushed publishing the war-crimes and 'allowed' Japan to not accept responsibility by placing all the blame on those executed after the war. This did NOT go over well with several Allied nations that had suffered due to those crimes. Worse this worked out so that in Japan there is a majority that feels they were the 'victims' due to the atomic bombs and refuse to acknowledge or accept that Japan actually committed any war crimes at all. The quickest way to still to kill a political career, (and receive death threats if not actual attempts) is to suggest that Japan apologize for ANYTHING that happened during the war. Note that every US President who's visited Japan or had direct meetings with Japanese leaders will be asked the question if they will apologize for using the bombs whereas the Japanese leaders have only been asked a VERY few times if they will apologize for Japan's behaviour in WWII.
De-Nazification "worked" to an extent since even the Nazi's that went back into positions of power had to deal with some pretty in-your-face evidence and condemnation over wht the party had done in Europe. Japan hasn't had that much push-back though China is using it's power to get more of the story told. There were of course "good reasons" for the policies but I've always felt that we let up on Japan a bit too soon because there is still an undercurrent of the Imperial culture left even this long after the war. Much like how the rush to reunification and reconciliation left far to much 'baggage' in the American South for revisionist element to cling to.
Randy
I’d be curious if the KMT won the Chinese civil war and a more friendly American government was set up if there may have been more information about Japanese war crimes released since the US wouldn’t be as worried about making sure we had a pro western buffer in Japan. (Point for clarification I recognize the KMT wasn’t as pro American as a lot of people think but I’d be certainly more Pro American then the CCP especially when Mao was alive.)
Gilbert and Sullivan's Lord High Executioner got it right.
The world (and especially the Western world) is infested with the kind of "idiot wh praises with enthusiastic tone All centuries but this and every country but his own". Intellectuals (including schoolteachers) are very susceptible to this mental illness which makes them predisposed to believe any badmouthing of their own country.