1

I read another article asserting that the US needlessly dropped the atomic bombs on Japan, but this one had a different spin: the Soviets had already defeated the Japanese. It basically lays out the US had destroyed some 80% of the country and that all the bombings were considered the same at that point. As supporting evidence it offers this:

If Japan’s leaders were going to surrender because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you would expect to find that they cared about the bombing of cities in general, that the city attacks put pressure on them to surrender. But this doesn’t appear to be so. Two days after the bombing of Tokyo, retired Foreign Minister Shidehara Kijuro expressed a sentiment that was apparently widely held among Japanese high-ranking officials at the time. Shidehara opined that “the people would gradually get used to being bombed daily. In time their unity and resolve would grow stronger.” In a letter to a friend he said it was important for citizens to endure the suffering because “even if hundreds of thousands of noncombatants are killed, injured, or starved, even if millions of buildings are destroyed or burned,” additional time was needed for diplomacy. It is worth remembering that Shidehara was a moderate.

At the highest levels of government — in the Supreme Council — attitudes were apparently the same. Although the Supreme Council discussed the importance of the Soviet Union remaining neutral, they didn’t have a full-dress discussion about the impact of city bombing. In the records that have been preserved, city bombing doesn’t even get mentioned during Supreme Council discussions except on two occasions: once in passing in May 1945 and once during the wide-ranging discussion on the night of Aug. 9. Based on the evidence, it is difficult to make a case that Japan’s leaders thought that city bombing — compared to the other pressing matters involved in running a war — had much significance at all.

Gen. Anami on Aug. 13 remarked that the atomic bombings were no more menacing than the fire-bombing that Japan had endured for months. If Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no worse than the fire bombings, and if Japan’s leaders did not consider them important enough to discuss in depth, how can Hiroshima and Nagasaki have coerced them to surrender?

This seems inconceivable, but the article also holds that the Japanese took days to get reports from the affected areas, and as such could not have surrendered on the basis of the nuclear bombs that were used (in other words, the cities were destroyed either way). Is there anything historically to back this up or disprove it?

9
  • 3
    As a native speaker, I can offer you a direct answer even now, but, what would you mean by "but this one had a different spin: the Soviets had already defeated the Japanese." ahm the date of the drop of the nuclear bombs by the U.S:6th Aug Hiroshima, 9th Aug Nagasaki, but the start of the Soviet invasion into Japan' territory then was 9th Aug??
    – user12387
    Apr 6, 2020 at 23:55
  • 6
    This question was asked before, here, even down to the source article.
    – justCal
    Apr 7, 2020 at 0:02
  • 1
    There were quite recently a rather lot of political flunkies invested in the status quo trying to claim that Covid-19 is no worse than the flu (and no few idiots, including perhaps yours truly). It doesn't mean they were right, or that in the end their views could hold the day against reality.
    – T.E.D.
    Apr 7, 2020 at 0:03
  • @T.E.D. What on earth are you talking about?:)
    – user12387
    Apr 7, 2020 at 0:06
  • 1
    @justCal Yes. There are so many Americans who still believe the atomic bombs became the final blow to the Japanese surrender. The answer is actually No.
    – user12387
    Apr 7, 2020 at 0:10

0