The Soviet invasion definitely was a major factor in Japan's surrender, and the fact that the bombs followed right on its heels just helped even more. It was a brutal 1-2 punch to a collapsing country.
The Soviet declaration of war came after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. It occured the same day as the Nagasaki attack.
The Soviet invasion definitely was a major factor in Japan's surrender, and the fact that the bombs followed right on its heels just helped even more. It was a brutal 1-2 punch to a collapsing country.
It took Hirohito stepping in to end it. Period. Many of the Imperial Command would have fought on no matter what. The Soviets and A-Bombs simply took it to a new level where, thank God, the Emperor saw that the madness had to end. Only he had the power to make it happen and even then it might not have occurred...
Would really like to read Downfall. It is on my to buy list but I haven't had the chance yet. What are other's opinions on this book?
Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
It really isn't worth the bandwidth. He's just re-hashing stuff that anybody who knows 0.5% more about WWII than the ever-shrinking standard has known forever.
Ok Termiwuzz thanks for your opinion, now be quiet please.
Interesting factoid: The Japanese people weren't generally aware they had been hit by atomic weapons until after the nation surrendered. Knowledge of what had actually occured was limited to government officials.
Not sure that this is true. I read Hiroshima Diary many years ago. As I recall, the doctor recorded in his diary that Japanese officials announced that Hiroshima was destroyed by an atomic bomb a few days after the bombing. The officials also said that Japan had long had an atomic bomb of their own, and that they had destroyed San Francisco in retaliation.
People in the area of the actual attacks may have been aware. I'm in a hotel right now and I'm not sure which book I pulled it from, but I remember reading that the emperor's radio broadcast was the first time that most civilians had heard that there was anything different about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks.
If the Japanese Ambassador to Berlin had not fled to Bavaria when the Russians showed up, he MIGHT have been able to to get a message to Tokyo that the outcome was very bad.
On the other hand, an 80,000 foot high mushroom cloud from a single B-29 could sacrcely have been noticed.
Well, I have said this all along. Nice to finally see a representative from a US university drawing the same conclusions as i said for 2 years ago on this very forums.
The Soviet Union won WW2, not the Allies. Claiming other just proves your a victim to Western Propaganda.
Soviet Union Defeated the German's, the Land Leace did indeed help them (despite that research done in the 2000's scale down its effect a bit) and the Soviets entry into the Pacific scared the shit out of the Japs.
The Soviets got their nation terrorized, but comed out of it as a unified and strong nation with greater industrial potential then ever before, its political strength in 1946+ can't Evan be compared to its pre war political influence.
I'd have to disagree with this statement, as the Soviet Union was one of the "Allies". And without the parcipatation of the Western Allies, a Soviet victory over Germany was far from assured. The most correct way of stating it would be to say that the Soviet Union was the major factor in defeating Germany. Of course, the Nazi-Soviet Pact was also a major cause of the War in Europe..., and only England dared to stand up to Hitler alone. There's enough "credit" to go around.
Well, I have said this all along. Nice to finally see a representative from a US university drawing the same conclusions as i said for 2 years ago on this very forums.
The Soviet Union won WW2, not the Allies. Claiming other just proves your a victim to Western Propaganda.
Soviet Union Defeated the German's, the Land Leace did indeed help them (despite that research done in the 2000's scale down its effect a bit) and the Soviets entry into the Pacific scared the shit out of the Japs.
The Soviets got their nation terrorized, but comed out of it as a unified and strong nation with greater industrial potential then ever before, its political strength in 1946+ can't Evan be compared to its pre war political influence.
I'd have to disagree with this statement, as the Soviet Union was one of the "Allies". And without the parcipatation of the Western Allies, a Soviet victory over Germany was far from assured. The most correct way of stating it would be to say that the Soviet Union was the major factor in defeating Germany. Of course, the Nazi-Soviet Pact was also a major cause of the War in Europe..., and only England dared to stand up to Hitler alone. There's enough "credit" to go around.
Mike, didn't France stand up as well? Sure, she got knocked out pretty fast, but she and England both declared war when Germany invaded Poland, right? (Pacific is my expertise, not Europe)
Mike, didn't France stand up as well? Sure, she got knocked out pretty fast, but she and England both declared war when Germany invaded Poland, right? (Pacific is my expertise, not Europe)
You are correct..., both France and England went to war over the German invasion of Poland (which the Nazi-Soviet Pact made possible). But when France fell, England stood as the ONLY nation at war with Hitler for almost a full year (until the Nazis attacked the Soviets).
Well, I have said this all along. Nice to finally see a representative from a US university drawing the same conclusions as i said for 2 years ago on this very forums.
The Soviet Union won WW2, not the Allies. Claiming other just proves your a victim to Western Propaganda.
Soviet Union Defeated the German's, the Land Leace did indeed help them (despite that research done in the 2000's scale down its effect a bit) and the Soviets entry into the Pacific scared the shit out of the Japs.
The Soviets got their nation terrorized, but comed out of it as a unified and strong nation with greater industrial potential then ever before, its political strength in 1946+ can't Evan be compared to its pre war political influence.
I'd have to disagree with this statement, as the Soviet Union was one of the "Allies". And without the parcipatation of the Western Allies, a Soviet victory over Germany was far from assured. The most correct way of stating it would be to say that the Soviet Union was the major factor in defeating Germany. Of course, the Nazi-Soviet Pact was also a major cause of the War in Europe..., and only England dared to stand up to Hitler alone. There's enough "credit" to go around.
I agree with you. Mike. The Soviet Union did inlfict more casualties on the European Axis than did the Anglos during the war but without the Anglos tying down large formations of German troops in the west, the Soviet Union might well have been overrun before they could move their industry east of the Urals. Plus, massive amounts of Lend Lease equipment from the US helped stabilize their desparate shortage of weapons, aircraft and trucks the Soviets experienced after the initial onslaughts.
Chez
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
Not sure I agree with the other assorted conclusions though. The implication of an atomic bomb being equal to fire bombing is ludicrous, not matter what the "profs" say. They overlook a critical fact: fire bombing requires the accurate and coordinated delivery of tens of thousands of pieces of ordnance, an atomic bomb requires a single delivery system. Then and now, this one fact is the fundamental difference and is what creates all the concern.
Probably didn't appear that ludicrous from the Japanese viewpoint. The logistics of the delivery of 1 bomb or thousands probably didn't concern them much. They couldn't stop delivery either way.
Chez
Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98
I think Hasegawa's thesis is most relevant to how the historiography of WW2 was harnessed to serve the political needs of the Cold War. The idea of a Japanese surrender primarily motivated by US military might in the form of the atomic bomb was useful post-war:
- the US and its allies were engaged in a world wide struggle for influence with the Soviet Union and its allies; we did not want to give Stalin and his murderous system any more than the most grudging credit for the defeat of either Nazi Germany and/or Japan
- Hence, the story in most US public school textbooks focused almost exclusively on Midway, D-Day and the dropping of the atomic bomb as key events in WW2; this wasn't just the usual national pride - textbooks had only passing mention of the Eastern Front and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria was treated as an afterthought since the war had already been won by US might
- Japan went along with the US version to appease their new US conquerors and also to save face; it was easier to accept surrender was due to an elemental force of nature (the bomb) as opposed to a military collapse at the hands of the Allies and Soviets; the Germans evolved a similar fantasy to explain the end of WW1, namely that it was a political collapse at home as opposed to the very real disintegration of German military resistance under the hammer blows of the Foch offensives. No military likes to admit it was defeated by conventional force of arms and the Japanese military apologists are no different
- for their part, the Soviets also massaged history to their own end; talk to any Russian today who grew up under the Soviet school system and they will tell you how they learned that Allied aid to the Soviet Union during WW2 was negligible and the Red Army saved the world almost single-handed
- furthermore, the Atom Bomb uber alles version helped fuel public support for the linchpin of post-war US nuclear deterrence strategy and fueled the Cold War military buildup based almost exclusively on this theory; certainly atomic bombs are destructive on a scale never before imagined, but it helped immensely to secure public support for their building if we could make a clean example of how they had ended Japanese resistance; the role of the Soviet invasion muddied things up uncomfortably and was better banished
Often times it takes many decades before historians can parse out what really happened. And sometimes we will never truly know. But this tale of the end of WW2 doesn't just speak to those events, but also to the way historiography adapts to pressing political needs, in this instance the Cold War. It is a sobering thought, since interpretation of such events still drives national policy. In some cases, the current theories, military and political, are based on mistaken premises of what actually happened in the past.
Other areas where I suspect there will be revision some day is the theory that British and French Governments prior to Churchill and De Gaulle were all feckless appeasers and that Roosevelt gave up the whole show at Yalta. In the former case, too little weight is given to the horrendous toll of WW1 on both societies and also the fact that, when it came to it, both governments did indeed declare war on Nazi Germany (while the US stayed neutral). In the latter case, Roosevelt was dealing with the realities of a massive Soviet military presence and a US public with no stomach for another new war (Patton notwithstanding).
History is written by the victors. In the pacific, that was the United States. Perhaps it is correct, perhaps not, but that is the way it will be remembered. Sometimes enough rigorous intellectual re-examination of the facts will change the way history is understood (Shattered Sword anyone?)by the well informed (that might be us), but most people will recall the popular memory.
Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly
All I saw was another "US bad, Japanese noble victims" post. Hell, my wife's 30 year old niece thinks we were evil for dropping the bomb and we should have talked to the Nips. And yes, I said Nips.
The Japanese Military were a cruel, sadistic, and vicious people that were just as cruel to their own people as well as their prisoners. Okinawa was a sign that they were prepared to fight on. The bomb was a shock value that saved a ton of lives on both sides.
The Soviets did not win WW2 single handed like that dude says. I bet you dollars to donuts Stalin would have never declared war if we werent at Japans doorstep with the largest fleet the world had ever seen. They were nothing but Johnny Come Latelys to the Pacific Theater.
Sorry for misspellings, I'm on my phone.
After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!
People in the area of the actual attacks may have been aware. I'm in a hotel right now and I'm not sure which book I pulled it from, but I remember reading that the emperor's radio broadcast was the first time that most civilians had heard that there was anything different about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks.
I believe it was also the first time the Japanese had actually heard the voice of the Emperor.