Japan Was Already Beaten and Starving When We Dropped Nukes

What gets overlooked in these discussions is that in the Japanese militarist mentality, realizing that one is beaten does not equate to surrender or seeking an end to hostilities; it means one should fight to the death or commit suicide. That's what the Japanese were preparing to do, on a national scale. John Toland, who showed considerable sympathy for the Japanese in his Pulitzer Prize winning The Rising Sun, cites the propaganda slogan "One Hundred Million Die Together".

"Japan was beaten" does not mean there was no need for the bombs. As pointed out at the start of this thread, Japan's situation was hopeless by any conventional assessment. That is precisely why unconventional means were necessary.

 

And they'd just watched Hitler lead by example- Wagner writ large.

 

Maybe all it did was convince one man - Hirohito - but that's what was needed.

 

Are you serious? Do you intend these arguments to be taken seriously, or were you just having fun with sarcasm? I mean, just because an enemy continues to put up a weak fight does not prove he is not beaten, so it silly to argue that "gee, the Japanese were still fighting, and that proves they were not beaten."

You clearly do not understand how Japan's government worked at the time. The moderates had a strong majority in the cabinet but only had three members out of the six members of the Supreme War Council (the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War). The moderates had been trying every which way to surrender weeks before we nuked Hiroshima, and we knew it.

A 1946 War Department Operations Division study, discovered in 1989, conceded that “the Japanese leaders had decided to surrender and were merely looking for sufficient pretext to convince the die-hard Army Group that Japan had lost the war and must capitulate to the Allies.” The Soviet Union’s entry into the Pacific war in August, the study argued, would have provided that pretext, and we know from Japanese records that it was the Soviet invasion, not to atomic bomb, that led to Japan's surrender.

 

Conversely, according to this logic, it becomes: Oh, they are still fighting, and that proves that they were beaten.
And according to this "MTG logic" it is NOT silly.

It is truly staggering what the continued abuse of intoxicating substances does to the human mind

 

Are you serious?

The Japanese fight was not weak on Iwo Jima in February-March, 1945. Nor was the Japanese fight weak on Okinawa in April, 1945.

Quite odd how some folk are willing to say that the Japanese were going to surrender in November, 1945, when there is no evidence pointing to such a conclusion.

Where are the surrender offers made directly to the United States. Could you please post them. Pretty please with a Fat Man on top.

The problem is, Japan made no offers to directly or indirectly to the US to surrender.(STRIKE ONE) Nor was any moderate or hardliner willing to put his name to such offers.(STRIKE TWO) The Japanese moderates were not "trying" at all. They were making unofficial (remember no one was willing to put his name on it) "backdoor" appeals to the Soviet Union - The USSR is not the US. (STRIKE THREE! YOUR OUT!)

Huh?

When the Americans captured the Marianas, and even the Japanese military admitted Japan could not win the war...This was a pretext.

When the Japanese carrier fleet was utterly gutted in the Philippine Sea...This was a pretext.

When Operation Ichi-go failed to knock China out of the war...This was a pretext.

When the Japanese invasion of India utterly failed...This was a pretext.

When the Philippines were lost...This was a pretext.

When Iwo Jima was lost...This was a pretext.

When the major Japanese cities were burned to ash...This was a pretext.

When the Chinese began their 1945 offensive...This was a pretext.

When the British began their 1945 Burma offensive...This was a pretext.

When Okinawa(Japanese home island territory) fell...This was a pretext.

Hiroshima was a pretext.

Nagasaki was a pretext.

Simply pointing to the last piece of straw that broke the camel's back. Then going 'A-Ha!" Misses the haystack that has buried and already asphyxiated the camel.


Now on to something more intellectually challenging than MTG...Hero Wars!

 

And whenever you are ready, Mikey, you can show us that report . . . not what you have snipped from it, but the whole thing in its entirety..

 

Actually, Gar Alperovitz said it...Mikey does not have an original thought in his body.

 

Yeah nah...It doesn't seem like you have any military experience. A country that is beaten does not fight back...it surrenders. Civilian fighters can be devastating if trained well enough...they have the lay of the land and every window and pit to shoot from. The fighting becomes guerrilla war...sometimes not too difficult to mop up, sometimes an absolute thorn in the enemy's side. If the defenders think the alternative is death, then they will fight to the death. Japanese are very loyal to each other and their country (emperor). I have no doubt the Japanese would have fought - regardless of the weapons at hand or hunger...I would too if Australia was invaded...Perhaps you wouldn't, there are always people like that, but always in the minority.

This in Ukraine now...




And my favourite...Former Russian Colonel "In the case of a Russian attack, I will go with my hunting rifle to protect people." - And i bet he would take dozens down before being neutralised.


Your assertions about Japan being beaten is naive at best...stupid at worst.

 

It might help to present some facts about Japan's surrender that Truman apologists usually ignore or minimize (usually ignore):

* Although the moderates enjoyed a substantial majority in the cabinet (about 80% of the cabinet supported surrender), they enjoyed no such majority on the most important government body: the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (aka the Supreme War Council). Any surrender proposal would have to be approved by the Supreme War Council. The cabinet alone could not approve any such measure.

* The Supreme War Council consisted of three moderates and three militarists (aka hardliners). Two of the hardliners, Umezu and Toyoda, bordered on being fanatical. The third militarist was Anami. The three moderates were Suzuki, Yonai, and Togo.

* The Supreme War Council could not even meet unless *all* six members agreed to meet. If the council did not meet, no decision could be made on surrender. Even the emperor could not convene the council on his own authority.

* When the hardliners learned about Hiroshima, they saw no need to convene the Supreme War Council, even though the moderates wanted to convene the council. However, when the hardliners learned about the Soviet invasion, they immediately agreed to convene the council. This is clear, crucial proof that it was the Soviet invasion, not the atomic bomb, that led to Japan's surrender.

* This should not surprise anyone. In the three weeks before Hiroshima, we bombed 26 Japanese cities, and eight of those cities suffered a larger percentage of destruction than Hiroshima suffered. In fact, if you graph the destruction of the cities destroyed, Hiroshima ranks 17th--yes, just 17th. We had been terror bombing Japan's cities for months, bombing over 60 cities. This is just one reason it is illogical to argue that Japan's leaders, especially the militarists, caved in because of one or two more bombed cities that were not even destroyed as much as 16 previous cities had been destroyed.

* The militarists actually agreed to the peace feeler to the Soviet Union. They agreed to see if the Soviets would mediate a peace deal with the U.S. because they were fully aware of the Soviet military buildup on the Manchurian border.

* At the Supreme War Council meeting on August 9, i.e., the meeting where Hirohito broke the deadlock and ordered a surrender, he said nothing about Hiroshima or the atomic bomb in his remarks at the meeting--not one word (Kawamura, Emperor Hirohito and the Pacific War, Kindle Edition, locs. 3287-3314; see also Robert Butow, Japan's Decision to Surrender, p. 175).

* Secretary of State James Byrnes, the most anti-Japanese member of Truman's cabinet and a staunch advocate of nuking Japan, admitted after the war that the atomic bombs did not force Japan to surrender, that Japan was already beaten before they were nuked, and that this was evidenced by Japan’s peace feelers and Russian intelligence.

Here's how it happened: Some Japanese officials were claiming that they had had no choice but to surrender once they saw that America had nukes, and they implied that in a “fair” fight (i.e., a conventional fight), Japan would have defeated an American invasion of the home islands and forced America to sue for a negotiated peace.

When Byrnes heard these claims, he held a press conference on August 29 to refute them. He told reporters that Japan was already beaten before we nuked them, and as proof he cited Japan’s peace feelers and Russian intelligence that the Japanese knew they were beaten before Hiroshima. The next day, August 30, the New York Times printed a story on Byrnes’ remarks—the story was titled “Japan Beaten Before Atom Bomb, Byrnes Says, Citing Peace Bids.”

 

The "Peace Feelers" that Japan put out did not adhere to the terms and conditions issued from the Potsdam Declaration of unconditional surrender. The Japanese offered terms along the lines of 1) Japan would disarm her own forces; 2) Japan would conduct any “so-called” war crimes trials of her own nationals; and 3) there would be no occupation of Japan. This last term would assure the continuance of the Imperial system and Hirohito’s seat on the throne. These demands were in addition to Japan keeping Korea, Manchuria and Taiwan.

 

Wasn't there after Hitler the Göbbels government who tried to Make peace with the Soviets at least although they knew the Allied had made a pact of unconditional peace?? From " Downfall".