Zhukov
VIP Member
Don't misunderstand this post. I'm in full agreement with Truman's actions. If I were alive at the time, I would have urged a third and fourth, all the while yelling. "what? what, i can't hear you?"
There is some indication that they at least tried. Certain more moderate members of the Japanese ruling clique attempted to surrender after the first one, but the military hard-liners would have none of it. I've read articles indicating even the Emperor was in favor of a surrender after the first one, but that could be revision.
Here you're absolutely right. An invasion of the mainland was a given. It was assumed even with the first wartime use of tactical nukes to aid with the landings, we would suffer about 1 million additional casualties. The Japanese population would have been decimated. Every major city would have been bombed, and tens of millions of citizen-soldiers doubtlessly would have died in futile kamikaze mass surges against U.S. troops with machine guns.
Don't think for a second Stalin didn't notice. He saw proof positive that we had it (tho it's likely he already knew that thru his intelligence) but more than that he saw unequivocal proof that we had the will to use it. During the war it was necessary to co-operate with the Soviets, but nobody had any illusions about the post-war peace. Many in the U.S. military and civilian leadership assumed we'd be at war with the Soviets before too long. The demonstration to the Soviets of our super weapon, tho not a deciding factor in it's use, was certainly a plus in that it likely served to intimidate the Soviet's from pursuing an overly agressive course of action.
Originally posted by tim_duncan2000
Regardless of what people have said about what we know now and all the stuff about how Japan was going to surrender, there are still some things I don't understand.
1) Why didn't they surrender after the first one was dropped?
There is some indication that they at least tried. Certain more moderate members of the Japanese ruling clique attempted to surrender after the first one, but the military hard-liners would have none of it. I've read articles indicating even the Emperor was in favor of a surrender after the first one, but that could be revision.
2) With all that we heard about how hard they fought and how they often fought to the death (as well as those stories about Japanese soldiers who didn't believe the war was over and did not want to get out of their caves), they were just going to surrender? That doesn't sound right.
Here you're absolutely right. An invasion of the mainland was a given. It was assumed even with the first wartime use of tactical nukes to aid with the landings, we would suffer about 1 million additional casualties. The Japanese population would have been decimated. Every major city would have been bombed, and tens of millions of citizen-soldiers doubtlessly would have died in futile kamikaze mass surges against U.S. troops with machine guns.
3) What would a demonstration of the A-bomb do? I just don't see what that accomplishes.
Don't think for a second Stalin didn't notice. He saw proof positive that we had it (tho it's likely he already knew that thru his intelligence) but more than that he saw unequivocal proof that we had the will to use it. During the war it was necessary to co-operate with the Soviets, but nobody had any illusions about the post-war peace. Many in the U.S. military and civilian leadership assumed we'd be at war with the Soviets before too long. The demonstration to the Soviets of our super weapon, tho not a deciding factor in it's use, was certainly a plus in that it likely served to intimidate the Soviet's from pursuing an overly agressive course of action.