If Putin were American, nuclear war would have already happened.
Let’s put the other side of the mountain in our perspective;
If Russia were America, Russia would have;
Sponsored a separatist movement and uprising in Canada*, it’s quite possible.
Then armed and trained the Canadian separatists for years.
Then-
Droned and missile bombed with conventional explosives;
* DC. And suburbs.
* Griffith Air Force Base- where we have our nuclear bombers, we did the equivalent to the Russian main bomber base.
* Taken out 2/3 of our missile early warning systems. (We did with missile strikes against Russia’s early warning radars, which are ground based.
We did that last year. we🇺🇸).
Routinely assassinated American Colonels and officials on American soil.
Assassinated Chelsea Clinton with a car bomb (I refer to Dugin’s daughter).
I can go on.
In fact the world owes an enormous debt to whoever taught Judo and so restraint to Putin.
I would have gone DEFCON ONE on any 2 of the above criteria.
The USSR would have launched by now by the way, as would have the USA.
Fortunately for the world, the present leadership of Russia rose through a hard school, and knows when it’s facing coward bluffers, and hysterical women.
So they’re gritting their teeth at the childish antics from “NATO.”
Of course they understand Communists don’t end well… either.
Putin is putting the fear of real consequences into the trembling remnants of the American government and its crazy girlfriends the Europeans.
As DC are physically afraid of the sight of their own American National Guard troops with guns (so why did they summon us?) the Evil Russian calculations … are so far correct.
But not to worry Dems, you still have 43 days to ruin as much as you can! Maybe you can even get the nuclear war at last.
But that’s really scary…. 😱
And you easily frighten.
Perhaps you should just let us transition.
Don’t be so Transphobic,
It’s Christmas.
*Western Canada would be quite happy to secede from Toronto.
“in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped.”
That may be so. But another few million Japanese would have died of starvation by then.
The Emperor's two speeches were to different audiences. In speaking to civilians, he emphasised civilian deaths. In speaking to the military, he emphasised defeats of the army. Civilians wouldn't care about army defeats as much as they did civilian deaths, and vice versa. Political leaders adjust their speeches to their audience, if they have any intelligence. Hirohito wasn't a Trump or Biden-style dotard who babbling whatever insane nonsense comes into their heads.
The Soviets were no threat to the Home Islands. The Soviets had very limited amphibious capability, and what they did invade was hotly contested and defended with inferior Japanese troops as economy of force.
The loss of Manchuria was however is the loss of resources…
… the point of the war for Japan.
Thank you for pointing out fear of domestic insurrection in Japan was decisive in their decision.
No thank you for spreading the myth the bombs were dropped just to scare the Soviets, er, no.
America was in a savage war of no mercy on either side to soldiers, although we were certainly better to civilians.
Anyone in a fight will use anything at hand. Anything. Restraint is a matter between the combatants, as Japanese policy towards the vanquished would have been repellent to the Mongols and their soldiers preferred death to captivity - we would have and should have used everything we had from knives to nukes to win.
…As would any man.
As unfortunately you may see here in America, now that democracy has been summoned to settle our internal matters.
You may not believe it, but really we never have summoned Pallas Athena on our soil for reasons that are about to manifest.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a proven sucker for Femme Fatales.
Excellent article and all-too-timely. Since taking up RFK Jr’s claim that his father and uncle were murdered by CIA, I have done a two year research project and concluded reluctantly that it’s true. This truth calls into question the entire official narrative of US political history between World War II and now. The truth is much darker than I ever imagined. I was aware that the atomic bombings of Japan were unnecessary to compel surrender, and also aware my dad (a military officer) lied to me about it. I haven’t thought through the Munich Conference of 1938 yet, and I can see from your persuasive analysis that, at the very least, using it as a template for framing current negotiations is a reckless and foolish idea.
Your position on Ukraine dovetails with mine, although we seem to have reached our conclusions from somewhat different starting points. I am persuaded by your analysis and will look further into your geopolitical ideas. Thank you for a timely and all-too-relevant analysis.
I think this misses an important point. Of course the Bomb did not impress the Japanese militarists; they were a genocidal death cult who fully intended to fight to the last Japanese. But it did impress Hirohito, who was the only person who could actually push the country over the brink into surrender. Just because you can make a logical narrative post hoc that concludes that the Japanese would surrender because surely they must see that they had to, doesn’t make the case that they actually would have done so. In any case, the Bomb was a crapshoot, a chance to get the war over with before having to go to not only invasion but also blockade, which is to say mass starvation. The Japanese couldn’t feed themselves, the US Navy was preventing food coming from Manchuria, and Stalin would be in possession of Manchuria anyway. If the Americans didn’t have the stomach to starve millions of people to death, Stalin would not have had that difficulty.
I largely agree with all of your points re Japanese military leadership, and would add that in my opinion, leadership was fully prepared to spend the lives of the common Japanese like grocery coupons about to expire.
I also think that there was a unique status dynamic in play among the vast bulk of the leadership cadre that *required* Hirohito to put forth the idea of surrender. It provided a fig leaf so that they could save face.
Churchill didn't have that difficulty in Bengal either, and the real fear wasn't just Stalin or the Soviet Army all the soldiers were done with 10yrs of Brutal Destruction in 31yrs including 2 World Wars.
What the West really feared was another Kiel rebellion, the idea that the Serfs would get ideas above their station.
Stalin was not a communist, just like Hitler wasn't a National Socialist any more than Trump or Obama are Patriots, but when the dust settles the worst thing that can happen for the ruling class is a power vacuum, the use of the Atomic Bomb, Korea, Vietnam and everything since has been to ensure Socialism in any form filled any vacuum anywhere, just ask Mossadegh, Lumumba, Allende or Cadwell
Excellent points, one and all. I’ve read much about the end of WW II, but you have laid it out nicely. The application to the current situation in the Ukraine if frighteningly applicable. Good article.
“resources for the War in the Pacific were relatively scarce” - very wrong. Read Phillips o Brien new book for example. Between a third and half of manufactured resources went to pacific year on year, especially considering that majority of the fleet was in Pacific and those are large expensive items.
The fact that Japanese generals didnt care about the impact of nukes can also be spun to the other side - enemy who doesnt care that a new weapon can kill 100k people at once is also one that is hard to defeat and unwilling to surrender and therefore requires use of new weapons.
On Japanese being “model enemies”. For who and when? In terms of behaviour on attack, they were often worse than Germans (see Nanking). On defense, we have no idea, majority of their losses happened on small islands where they fought till last man. We have no idea how they would fight for their homeland.
On bombing in general. A lot of it was unnecessary. A lot of it also was just accepting that to hit factories you will hit civilians too. There was no bomber harris among americans and this one quote of LeMay is a vicious attempt to discredit a man who often sparred with Harris to focus on actual industry in germany.
Finally on the use of the bomb. I am of the “all of the above” persuasion. It was used because it was helpful to end the war more quickly AND to scare russians AND to not waste taxpayer money (stupid reason). But the idea that Americans should have just “known” that Japanese will surrender, after everything they have seen from Japanese for 4 years (literally throwing themselves of cliffs not to be captured, like in Saipan), is ridiculous.
I am of that opinion, too; its use fulfilled many US goals. And while it provides a sense of completeness to list "not waste tax-payer money", I think that this was by far the least persuasive consideration, don't you?
Some of both what Roman writes and what i have read goes in that direction but its clearly less relevant than other reasonings. Maybe 45% each for “prevent losses” and “show Russia” and 10% for taxpayer money? One can play with those ratios depending on interpretation ofc. Point is, anyone who presents just one reason as THE reason for a complex decision like that is just a propagandist, not a historian.
American Heritage went into Japanese cabinet meetings records; they weren’t going to surrender without the invasion as they had good reason to believe they could defeat it or exhaust the allies. Nor was their government capable of decisive executive decision, it required a consensus difficult or impossible to reach. The Japanese had no answer to Blockade over time, but the US Navy doubted their ability to maintain a blockade.
Thank you Ivan for the Defense of LeMay. Who by the way- at the time thought the use of the Atom Bombs unnecessary.
And who unlike his detractors, led literally from the front on the air raids over Europe.
Low level incendiaries were used in Japan because high altitude bombing was failing because;
1) The Jet Stream wasn’t known
2) The Japanese didn’t have huge Fordist Factories like Detroit, or Germany. They had very distributed small home office factories.
3) The Japanese were quite vulnerable to low level incendiaries, high level concentration explosion bombing wasn’t hitting the targets because they weren’t there-
When he realized it was failing, LeMay sat in his office all night, thinking. In the morning he came out and announced the radical shift. At first the crews protested, as LeMay explained they cheered.
As for McNamara putting words in LeMay’s mouth- McNamara was the system engineer on the B29.
And apparently miffed it failed as designed - until LeMay changed the application to the situation.
The author gets almost every point dead wrong. Delusional, wishful thinking. The battle of Okinawa was an exact preview on what was going to happen to Japan if invaded by allied forces. Horrific casualties to allied forces, the Japanese military and the civilian population. When had Japan ever surrendered in the previous 2000 years? Does anyone think Tokyo was going to be different than Berlin?
A moment; The Japanese Cabinet deliberations are available. Potsdam July 26 offer to not condemn and depose the Emperor were rejected.
The Japanese quite rationally wanted the best deal, which would be if and after an invasion failed. It was likely that it would fail or be so costly that it wouldn’t be pursued until the end.
The Japanese had no answer to blockade, although that would have been a difficult proposition for the Allies to maintain (Japan didn’t know that).
The Japanese had no answer to blockade- but then they have no answer to the Atomic Bomb.
Of VITAL importance however is understanding the Japanese had a Constitutionally deadlocked cabinet where the Emperor exercised formally only veto, although if used sparingly he had great moral weight. When 2 cities disappeared AND the economic crisis and hunger loomed, he used it. The next bomb was delivered on the 17th of August and planned to be dropped the 24th.
Manchuria wasn’t a factor in their decision, per their records.
Link below.
So you have valid points, but that Japan was going to surrender by November….
The Bombing survey -
It’s rather important to consider the future revealed preferences and actions of Robert McNamara and for that matter George Ball.
LeMay is a tad more nuanced than he is caricatured, he for example led every raid (McNamara and Ball had better things to do) and his decision to switch to low altitude incendiaries was based on analyzing the Japanese economy- which had a lot of distributed small shops in houses and small buildings. The B29 was the supreme system of the USAAC of WW2, the systems engineer Robert McNamara, who did the math in his head. Great for calculations , McNamara.
However they didn’t know about the Jet Stream, and the Japanese economy was not the German or American one. LOW LEVEL incendiaries of course exposed the crews to ground fires , which is why when LeMay explained concept to crews they loudly protested, until he explained why… then they started cheering.
No one ever cheered McNamara.
Then again, LeMay was always Lead Plane in Europe and Japan, and McNamara stayed home…
Of course McNamara puts words in LeMay’s mouth. He put words in really Daniel Ellsbergs mouth over Vietnam decades later- which Ellsberg resented.
A resentful Ellsberg had his revenge…
On Kissinger.
I don’t think we take McNamara’s word on LeMay… and the Japanese deliberations and analysis by American Heritage below.
It seems to me you are broadly arguing that nuclear weapons are primarily a political, not military, tool. For example, medium range tactical nukes may be useful against large concentrations (like Soviet-era anticipated armoured formations in a Soviet-NATO conflict in Europe), but there would be non-nuclear alternatives on today’s battlefield.
Malofeyev refers to “… a radiation zone nobody will ever go into in our lifetime … .” This begs the question: “Are the zones in Ukraine or Russia or both?” Is Putin mostly trying to terrorize Russians, while giving his apologists in the West some rhetorical ammunition?
Even if the Trump Administration allows Putin to subsume eastern Ukraine, western Ukraine will become a buffer, and behind that buffer is Poland, which is an implacable foe of Russia and a NATO member. Chamberlain, you will recall, also put in place the military tools that frustrated Germany’s attempts at neutralizing Britain in WW2.
Moreover, the “Finlandization” of Ukraine is a suspicious metaphor. That is not a good longer term strategy for Russia, given where Finland is today. It simply highlights the fact that Putin’s current strategy is self-defeating.
I’m dubious of your “Russo-Chinese alliance.” Russia is very much a militarily and economically weak junior partner. It is an irritant to the West, which is useful to China. However, China will not allow Russia to damage Chinese economic interests or markets in the West, at least not too much. I assume the use of nuclear weapons will seriously damage markets; China is not ready for that — yet.
"In the end, it wasn’t the atomic bombs or even the more dangerous Soviet invasion that made up the mind of the Japanese leaders, but fear of civil insurrection if a war with no prospect of victory whatsoever and massive loss of lives was to be continued."
I read this and also mention of the "domestic situation". These are related, but separate concerns, I think, and not to be viewed as describing the same phenomenon.
I read the footnote for clarification but am still not comfortable with the idea of the populace rising against leadership in any fashion that would be of concern.
Can you offer any clarification on this concern with insurrection?
Given the stress everyone in Japan put on the emperor’s role and its protection, the underlying concern was a Socialist takeover/uprising right after a forced armistice, much like happened in Germany in 1918-1919
Like all such narratives I read in this vein the simplifications and elisions make the analysis rather meaningless. Just like no situation is Munich '38, neither is it Hiroshima/Nagasaki. And even those bombings have vastly different contextualizations. Decision trees are complex and even moreso in war with so many unknowns.
The fact that the Japanese thought the US didn't have any more bombs affected their thinking. When they discovered we had ~5 nuclear bombs ready to go and more on the way that surely affected their decision to unconditionally surrender to the US - along with many other factors and considerations. Such decisions are manifold and complex. Deploying linear analysis of such decisions always oversimplifies and proves meaningless.
Nukes and MAD kept us from WWIII for 80 years and brought about a relatively peaceful end to the Cold war. Does anyone really think NATO and the Soviets would not have initiated another world war without them? Part of that is the fact that the politicians and generals making the decisions were no longer safe far behind the lines. Part of it is the unthinkable horror of global nuclear war.
Russia will not use nukes in Ukraine for a variety of reasons whatever one particular mouthpiece says. They are winning and will continue to do so. It isn't just nukes that have kept NATO from sending troops into Ukraine. NATO is totally unprepared for a ground war across a 2000km line in Europe. We don't have the soldiers or the industrial base to sustain a war of attrition. That said the potential for nuclear exchange and destruction of Europe and the world is another factor holding the west back.
The use of nukes in Japan did help end the Pacific War while also sustaining other justificaitons and effects. The fact that Japan surrendered six days after Nagasaki and nine after Hiroshima is no mere coincidence.
Great review of the much misunderstood reality of Japan’s surrender. But the analogy to Ukraine is a massive stretch. Why would Russia use nukes when Ukraine poses no existential threat to them, and the Russians are crushing them on the battlefield?
That’s not all we can do.
We can understand what 🇺🇸WE have done.
If Putin were American, nuclear war would have already happened.
Let’s put the other side of the mountain in our perspective;
If Russia were America, Russia would have;
Sponsored a separatist movement and uprising in Canada*, it’s quite possible.
Then armed and trained the Canadian separatists for years.
Then-
Droned and missile bombed with conventional explosives;
* DC. And suburbs.
* Griffith Air Force Base- where we have our nuclear bombers, we did the equivalent to the Russian main bomber base.
* Taken out 2/3 of our missile early warning systems. (We did with missile strikes against Russia’s early warning radars, which are ground based.
We did that last year. we🇺🇸).
Routinely assassinated American Colonels and officials on American soil.
Assassinated Chelsea Clinton with a car bomb (I refer to Dugin’s daughter).
I can go on.
In fact the world owes an enormous debt to whoever taught Judo and so restraint to Putin.
I would have gone DEFCON ONE on any 2 of the above criteria.
The USSR would have launched by now by the way, as would have the USA.
Fortunately for the world, the present leadership of Russia rose through a hard school, and knows when it’s facing coward bluffers, and hysterical women.
So they’re gritting their teeth at the childish antics from “NATO.”
Of course they understand Communists don’t end well… either.
Putin is putting the fear of real consequences into the trembling remnants of the American government and its crazy girlfriends the Europeans.
As DC are physically afraid of the sight of their own American National Guard troops with guns (so why did they summon us?) the Evil Russian calculations … are so far correct.
But not to worry Dems, you still have 43 days to ruin as much as you can! Maybe you can even get the nuclear war at last.
But that’s really scary…. 😱
And you easily frighten.
Perhaps you should just let us transition.
Don’t be so Transphobic,
It’s Christmas.
*Western Canada would be quite happy to secede from Toronto.
And Montreal.
See, they reached out…
“in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped.”
That may be so. But another few million Japanese would have died of starvation by then.
The Emperor's two speeches were to different audiences. In speaking to civilians, he emphasised civilian deaths. In speaking to the military, he emphasised defeats of the army. Civilians wouldn't care about army defeats as much as they did civilian deaths, and vice versa. Political leaders adjust their speeches to their audience, if they have any intelligence. Hirohito wasn't a Trump or Biden-style dotard who babbling whatever insane nonsense comes into their heads.
When did the atomic bomb become the national nightmare of Japan? Why did Godzilla become a uniquely Japanese creature?
The Soviets were no threat to the Home Islands. The Soviets had very limited amphibious capability, and what they did invade was hotly contested and defended with inferior Japanese troops as economy of force.
The loss of Manchuria was however is the loss of resources…
… the point of the war for Japan.
Thank you for pointing out fear of domestic insurrection in Japan was decisive in their decision.
No thank you for spreading the myth the bombs were dropped just to scare the Soviets, er, no.
America was in a savage war of no mercy on either side to soldiers, although we were certainly better to civilians.
Anyone in a fight will use anything at hand. Anything. Restraint is a matter between the combatants, as Japanese policy towards the vanquished would have been repellent to the Mongols and their soldiers preferred death to captivity - we would have and should have used everything we had from knives to nukes to win.
…As would any man.
As unfortunately you may see here in America, now that democracy has been summoned to settle our internal matters.
You may not believe it, but really we never have summoned Pallas Athena on our soil for reasons that are about to manifest.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a proven sucker for Femme Fatales.
The rest of you might not care for her… 🩸🗽❤️
Excellent article and all-too-timely. Since taking up RFK Jr’s claim that his father and uncle were murdered by CIA, I have done a two year research project and concluded reluctantly that it’s true. This truth calls into question the entire official narrative of US political history between World War II and now. The truth is much darker than I ever imagined. I was aware that the atomic bombings of Japan were unnecessary to compel surrender, and also aware my dad (a military officer) lied to me about it. I haven’t thought through the Munich Conference of 1938 yet, and I can see from your persuasive analysis that, at the very least, using it as a template for framing current negotiations is a reckless and foolish idea.
Your position on Ukraine dovetails with mine, although we seem to have reached our conclusions from somewhat different starting points. I am persuaded by your analysis and will look further into your geopolitical ideas. Thank you for a timely and all-too-relevant analysis.
Dona nobis pace.
I think this misses an important point. Of course the Bomb did not impress the Japanese militarists; they were a genocidal death cult who fully intended to fight to the last Japanese. But it did impress Hirohito, who was the only person who could actually push the country over the brink into surrender. Just because you can make a logical narrative post hoc that concludes that the Japanese would surrender because surely they must see that they had to, doesn’t make the case that they actually would have done so. In any case, the Bomb was a crapshoot, a chance to get the war over with before having to go to not only invasion but also blockade, which is to say mass starvation. The Japanese couldn’t feed themselves, the US Navy was preventing food coming from Manchuria, and Stalin would be in possession of Manchuria anyway. If the Americans didn’t have the stomach to starve millions of people to death, Stalin would not have had that difficulty.
I largely agree with all of your points re Japanese military leadership, and would add that in my opinion, leadership was fully prepared to spend the lives of the common Japanese like grocery coupons about to expire.
I also think that there was a unique status dynamic in play among the vast bulk of the leadership cadre that *required* Hirohito to put forth the idea of surrender. It provided a fig leaf so that they could save face.
Churchill didn't have that difficulty in Bengal either, and the real fear wasn't just Stalin or the Soviet Army all the soldiers were done with 10yrs of Brutal Destruction in 31yrs including 2 World Wars.
What the West really feared was another Kiel rebellion, the idea that the Serfs would get ideas above their station.
Stalin was not a communist, just like Hitler wasn't a National Socialist any more than Trump or Obama are Patriots, but when the dust settles the worst thing that can happen for the ruling class is a power vacuum, the use of the Atomic Bomb, Korea, Vietnam and everything since has been to ensure Socialism in any form filled any vacuum anywhere, just ask Mossadegh, Lumumba, Allende or Cadwell
Excellent points, one and all. I’ve read much about the end of WW II, but you have laid it out nicely. The application to the current situation in the Ukraine if frighteningly applicable. Good article.
Interesting piece. Thanks David!
Richard Overy's new book is well worth reading on this: https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/462543/rain-of-ruin-by-overy-richard/9780241700693
I reviewed it for one of the UK papers (may or may not be currently behind a pay wall): https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/non-fiction/review-rain-ruin-richard-overy-japan-bombing-hiroshima/
Again so much wrong.
“resources for the War in the Pacific were relatively scarce” - very wrong. Read Phillips o Brien new book for example. Between a third and half of manufactured resources went to pacific year on year, especially considering that majority of the fleet was in Pacific and those are large expensive items.
The fact that Japanese generals didnt care about the impact of nukes can also be spun to the other side - enemy who doesnt care that a new weapon can kill 100k people at once is also one that is hard to defeat and unwilling to surrender and therefore requires use of new weapons.
On Japanese being “model enemies”. For who and when? In terms of behaviour on attack, they were often worse than Germans (see Nanking). On defense, we have no idea, majority of their losses happened on small islands where they fought till last man. We have no idea how they would fight for their homeland.
On bombing in general. A lot of it was unnecessary. A lot of it also was just accepting that to hit factories you will hit civilians too. There was no bomber harris among americans and this one quote of LeMay is a vicious attempt to discredit a man who often sparred with Harris to focus on actual industry in germany.
Finally on the use of the bomb. I am of the “all of the above” persuasion. It was used because it was helpful to end the war more quickly AND to scare russians AND to not waste taxpayer money (stupid reason). But the idea that Americans should have just “known” that Japanese will surrender, after everything they have seen from Japanese for 4 years (literally throwing themselves of cliffs not to be captured, like in Saipan), is ridiculous.
"I am of the “all of the above” persuasion. "
I am of that opinion, too; its use fulfilled many US goals. And while it provides a sense of completeness to list "not waste tax-payer money", I think that this was by far the least persuasive consideration, don't you?
Some of both what Roman writes and what i have read goes in that direction but its clearly less relevant than other reasonings. Maybe 45% each for “prevent losses” and “show Russia” and 10% for taxpayer money? One can play with those ratios depending on interpretation ofc. Point is, anyone who presents just one reason as THE reason for a complex decision like that is just a propagandist, not a historian.
American Heritage went into Japanese cabinet meetings records; they weren’t going to surrender without the invasion as they had good reason to believe they could defeat it or exhaust the allies. Nor was their government capable of decisive executive decision, it required a consensus difficult or impossible to reach. The Japanese had no answer to Blockade over time, but the US Navy doubted their ability to maintain a blockade.
The Japanese government’s thinking below.
https://www.americanheritage.com/what-were-japanese-thinking
Thank you Ivan for the Defense of LeMay. Who by the way- at the time thought the use of the Atom Bombs unnecessary.
And who unlike his detractors, led literally from the front on the air raids over Europe.
Low level incendiaries were used in Japan because high altitude bombing was failing because;
1) The Jet Stream wasn’t known
2) The Japanese didn’t have huge Fordist Factories like Detroit, or Germany. They had very distributed small home office factories.
3) The Japanese were quite vulnerable to low level incendiaries, high level concentration explosion bombing wasn’t hitting the targets because they weren’t there-
When he realized it was failing, LeMay sat in his office all night, thinking. In the morning he came out and announced the radical shift. At first the crews protested, as LeMay explained they cheered.
As for McNamara putting words in LeMay’s mouth- McNamara was the system engineer on the B29.
And apparently miffed it failed as designed - until LeMay changed the application to the situation.
McNamara calling anyone a Mad Bomber …
The author gets almost every point dead wrong. Delusional, wishful thinking. The battle of Okinawa was an exact preview on what was going to happen to Japan if invaded by allied forces. Horrific casualties to allied forces, the Japanese military and the civilian population. When had Japan ever surrendered in the previous 2000 years? Does anyone think Tokyo was going to be different than Berlin?
A moment; The Japanese Cabinet deliberations are available. Potsdam July 26 offer to not condemn and depose the Emperor were rejected.
The Japanese quite rationally wanted the best deal, which would be if and after an invasion failed. It was likely that it would fail or be so costly that it wouldn’t be pursued until the end.
The Japanese had no answer to blockade, although that would have been a difficult proposition for the Allies to maintain (Japan didn’t know that).
The Japanese had no answer to blockade- but then they have no answer to the Atomic Bomb.
Of VITAL importance however is understanding the Japanese had a Constitutionally deadlocked cabinet where the Emperor exercised formally only veto, although if used sparingly he had great moral weight. When 2 cities disappeared AND the economic crisis and hunger loomed, he used it. The next bomb was delivered on the 17th of August and planned to be dropped the 24th.
Manchuria wasn’t a factor in their decision, per their records.
Link below.
So you have valid points, but that Japan was going to surrender by November….
The Bombing survey -
It’s rather important to consider the future revealed preferences and actions of Robert McNamara and for that matter George Ball.
LeMay is a tad more nuanced than he is caricatured, he for example led every raid (McNamara and Ball had better things to do) and his decision to switch to low altitude incendiaries was based on analyzing the Japanese economy- which had a lot of distributed small shops in houses and small buildings. The B29 was the supreme system of the USAAC of WW2, the systems engineer Robert McNamara, who did the math in his head. Great for calculations , McNamara.
However they didn’t know about the Jet Stream, and the Japanese economy was not the German or American one. LOW LEVEL incendiaries of course exposed the crews to ground fires , which is why when LeMay explained concept to crews they loudly protested, until he explained why… then they started cheering.
No one ever cheered McNamara.
Then again, LeMay was always Lead Plane in Europe and Japan, and McNamara stayed home…
Of course McNamara puts words in LeMay’s mouth. He put words in really Daniel Ellsbergs mouth over Vietnam decades later- which Ellsberg resented.
A resentful Ellsberg had his revenge…
On Kissinger.
I don’t think we take McNamara’s word on LeMay… and the Japanese deliberations and analysis by American Heritage below.
https://www.americanheritage.com/what-were-japanese-thinking
It seems to me you are broadly arguing that nuclear weapons are primarily a political, not military, tool. For example, medium range tactical nukes may be useful against large concentrations (like Soviet-era anticipated armoured formations in a Soviet-NATO conflict in Europe), but there would be non-nuclear alternatives on today’s battlefield.
Malofeyev refers to “… a radiation zone nobody will ever go into in our lifetime … .” This begs the question: “Are the zones in Ukraine or Russia or both?” Is Putin mostly trying to terrorize Russians, while giving his apologists in the West some rhetorical ammunition?
Even if the Trump Administration allows Putin to subsume eastern Ukraine, western Ukraine will become a buffer, and behind that buffer is Poland, which is an implacable foe of Russia and a NATO member. Chamberlain, you will recall, also put in place the military tools that frustrated Germany’s attempts at neutralizing Britain in WW2.
Moreover, the “Finlandization” of Ukraine is a suspicious metaphor. That is not a good longer term strategy for Russia, given where Finland is today. It simply highlights the fact that Putin’s current strategy is self-defeating.
I’m dubious of your “Russo-Chinese alliance.” Russia is very much a militarily and economically weak junior partner. It is an irritant to the West, which is useful to China. However, China will not allow Russia to damage Chinese economic interests or markets in the West, at least not too much. I assume the use of nuclear weapons will seriously damage markets; China is not ready for that — yet.
Yes, to assume that the Russian-Chinese axis is due to anything but momentary convenience is questionable.
"In the end, it wasn’t the atomic bombs or even the more dangerous Soviet invasion that made up the mind of the Japanese leaders, but fear of civil insurrection if a war with no prospect of victory whatsoever and massive loss of lives was to be continued."
I read this and also mention of the "domestic situation". These are related, but separate concerns, I think, and not to be viewed as describing the same phenomenon.
I read the footnote for clarification but am still not comfortable with the idea of the populace rising against leadership in any fashion that would be of concern.
Can you offer any clarification on this concern with insurrection?
Thanks.
Given the stress everyone in Japan put on the emperor’s role and its protection, the underlying concern was a Socialist takeover/uprising right after a forced armistice, much like happened in Germany in 1918-1919
Great Post with Refs.
Lord, have mercy..... ☢️💀⚰️🪦⏰
Like all such narratives I read in this vein the simplifications and elisions make the analysis rather meaningless. Just like no situation is Munich '38, neither is it Hiroshima/Nagasaki. And even those bombings have vastly different contextualizations. Decision trees are complex and even moreso in war with so many unknowns.
The fact that the Japanese thought the US didn't have any more bombs affected their thinking. When they discovered we had ~5 nuclear bombs ready to go and more on the way that surely affected their decision to unconditionally surrender to the US - along with many other factors and considerations. Such decisions are manifold and complex. Deploying linear analysis of such decisions always oversimplifies and proves meaningless.
Nukes and MAD kept us from WWIII for 80 years and brought about a relatively peaceful end to the Cold war. Does anyone really think NATO and the Soviets would not have initiated another world war without them? Part of that is the fact that the politicians and generals making the decisions were no longer safe far behind the lines. Part of it is the unthinkable horror of global nuclear war.
Russia will not use nukes in Ukraine for a variety of reasons whatever one particular mouthpiece says. They are winning and will continue to do so. It isn't just nukes that have kept NATO from sending troops into Ukraine. NATO is totally unprepared for a ground war across a 2000km line in Europe. We don't have the soldiers or the industrial base to sustain a war of attrition. That said the potential for nuclear exchange and destruction of Europe and the world is another factor holding the west back.
The use of nukes in Japan did help end the Pacific War while also sustaining other justificaitons and effects. The fact that Japan surrendered six days after Nagasaki and nine after Hiroshima is no mere coincidence.
Great review of the much misunderstood reality of Japan’s surrender. But the analogy to Ukraine is a massive stretch. Why would Russia use nukes when Ukraine poses no existential threat to them, and the Russians are crushing them on the battlefield?
I agree. One just hopes cooler minds will prevail regardless of what Zelensky & co come up with next.