Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

What Really Ended the War in the Pacific?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? - 6/23/2020 12:18:37 AM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline
I don't know if this counts as politics but it seems like a historical question to me. If it is politics, I apologize and won't post anything more about it.

So we have a new game coming out called ICBM. On the topic of fighting nuclear wars; I had always been of the opinion that the war in the Pacific pretty clearly ended with the dropping of the two nuclear bombs. This article seems to make a pretty convincing case that it wasn't.

I know there are many very knowledgable people here (far more knowledgable on the topic than I am). Was it really the Soviet declaration of war against Japan that tipped the balance? What are others' thoughts on what ended the Second World War in the Pacific?

https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/

Thanks.

< Message edited by GaryChildress -- 6/23/2020 12:19:03 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? - 6/23/2020 12:25:23 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6712
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: online
I have a link to source documents from the US Government and the Captured Japanese Government. I can post it if you like. But basically even after 2 atomic Bombs and a Soviet Invasion the ruling Government in Japan ( run by the Army) voted NOT to surrender. The Emperor intervened and ended the war and the Army staged a failed coup to stop him. The last 10 to 20 years certain historians have made foolish claims that Japan offered to surrender before the bombs, they simply are not true. The reality is that ALL the Japanese Government offered was a ceasefire return to 41 start lines no concessions in China and no consequences to Japan.

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 2
RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? - 6/23/2020 12:33:59 AM   
demyansk


Posts: 2663
Joined: 2/20/2008
Status: offline
Hirohito had enough, called his last card and said "It's over".

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 3
RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? - 6/23/2020 12:49:34 AM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

I have a link to source documents from the US Government and the Captured Japanese Government. I can post it if you like. But basically even after 2 atomic Bombs and a Soviet Invasion the ruling Government in Japan ( run by the Army) voted NOT to surrender. The Emperor intervened and ended the war and the Army staged a failed coup to stop him. The last 10 to 20 years certain historians have made foolish claims that Japan offered to surrender before the bombs, they simply are not true. The reality is that ALL the Japanese Government offered was a ceasefire return to 41 start lines no concessions in China and no consequences to Japan.


But if it wasn't the 2 bombs that caused it and it wasn't the Soviet declaration of War, then what actually did cause the Japanese officials to surrender?

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 4
RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? - 6/23/2020 1:32:33 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6712
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: online
My personal opinion is that the bombs convinced the Emperor to surrender. At the time of surrender Japan had 700000 well armed troops facing the Soviets and the Army did not know its allies in China would surrender in mass. But yes the Invasion was part of that too. So both contributed.

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 5
RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? - 6/23/2020 2:07:56 AM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

My personal opinion is that the bombs convinced the Emperor to surrender. At the time of surrender Japan had 700000 well armed troops facing the Soviets and the Army did not know its allies in China would surrender in mass. But yes the Invasion was part of that too. So both contributed.


According to the article, Manchukuo was mostly depleted of its best fighting units, which were relocated in Southern Japan. Also it says the Soviets broke through the lines pretty easily once war was declared and could have surely conquered the home islands much easier than the US could. It also states that Japan was counting on continued Soviet neutrality in the hopes that they would broker a peace agreement with the US where Japan would make out more favorably but that when the Soviet declaration of war was made it basically undermined that hope.

From the article:

quote:

One way to gauge whether it was the bombing of Hiroshima or the invasion and declaration of war by the Soviet Union that caused Japan’s surrender is to compare the way in which these two events affected the strategic situation. After Hiroshima was bombed on Aug. 6, both options were still alive. It would still have been possible to ask Stalin to mediate (and Takagi’s diary entries from Aug. 8 show that at least some of Japan’s leaders were still thinking about the effort to get Stalin involved). It would also still have been possible to try to fight one last decisive battle and inflict heavy casualties. The destruction of Hiroshima had done nothing to reduce the preparedness of the troops dug in on the beaches of Japan’s home islands. There was now one fewer city behind them, but they were still dug in, they still had ammunition, and their military strength had not been diminished in any important way. Bombing Hiroshima did not foreclose either of Japan’s strategic options.

The impact of the Soviet declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria and Sakhalin Island was quite different, however. Once the Soviet Union had declared war, Stalin could no longer act as a mediator — he was now a belligerent. So the diplomatic option was wiped out by the Soviet move. The effect on the military situation was equally dramatic. Most of Japan’s best troops had been shifted to the southern part of the home islands.

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 6
RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? - 6/23/2020 3:25:45 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6712
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: online
And YET when faced with that the Government CHOSE not to surrender. And staged a coup to stop the Emperor their living God from surrendering. I am telling you it is all part of a desire to by modern revision historians to cast doubt on the bombs and their use. Japan never offered to surrender.

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 7
RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? - 6/23/2020 6:16:18 AM   
Orm


Posts: 19732
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

And YET when faced with that the Government CHOSE not to surrender. And staged a coup to stop the Emperor their living God from surrendering. I am telling you it is all part of a desire to by modern revision historians to cast doubt on the bombs and their use. Japan never offered to surrender.

And the 'government', as you say, didn't surrender by the dropping of the two bombs. So I fail to see why you make a point of that the 'goverment' didn't surrender because other reasons.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 8
RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? - 6/23/2020 6:16:30 AM   
Simulacra53


Posts: 520
Joined: 5/16/2015
Status: online
Nothing modern or even revisionist about it - read John Toland’s Rising Sun, originally written in 1971.

It was the demand of UNCONDITIONAL surrender that protracted WW2.
The atom bombs forced the Japanese government to accept UNCONDITIONAL surrender.

You seldom convince everyone to accept defeat.
Germany was basically defeated in WW1, but many did not accept it.
When Germany was completely defeated in WW2, some still did not accept it.

You see the same today, albeit in a more complex setting.


< Message edited by Simulacra53 -- 6/23/2020 6:17:24 AM >

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 9
RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? - 6/23/2020 6:24:10 AM   
Orm


Posts: 19732
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

My personal opinion is that the bombs convinced the Emperor to surrender. At the time of surrender Japan had 700000 well armed troops facing the Soviets and the Army did not know its allies in China would surrender in mass. But yes the Invasion was part of that too. So both contributed.

We do not know why the Emperor decided to 'order' a surrender. It is merely your guess that it was the bombs. It could have been the Soviet invasion. It could have been the burning of the Japanese cities. It could have been all of this. Or it could have been something else entirely.

I object to the description of the troops in Manchuria as well armed. They were rather poorly armed.

Cut from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War#Japanese

The Kwantung Army had less than eight hundred thousand (800,000) men in twenty-five divisions (including two tank divisions) and six Independent Mixed Brigades. These contained over 1,215 armored vehicles (mostly armored cars and light tanks), 6,700 artillery pieces (mostly light), and 1,800 aircraft (mostly trainers and obsolete types).

In addition to the Japanese, there was the forty-thousand-strong Manchukuo Defense Force, composed of eight under-strength, poorly equipped, poorly trained Manchukuoan divisions.


_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 10
RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? - 6/23/2020 6:27:53 AM   
Orm


Posts: 19732
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Simulacra53

The atom bombs forced the Japanese government to accept UNCONDITIONAL surrender.


So what is the main evidence to support this statement?

"Forced" is a rather strong word, so I suppose that the evidence for this must be overwhelming.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to Simulacra53)
Post #: 11
RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? - 6/23/2020 7:53:05 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6712
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

And YET when faced with that the Government CHOSE not to surrender. And staged a coup to stop the Emperor their living God from surrendering. I am telling you it is all part of a desire to by modern revision historians to cast doubt on the bombs and their use. Japan never offered to surrender.

And the 'government', as you say, didn't surrender by the dropping of the two bombs. So I fail to see why you make a point of that the 'goverment' didn't surrender because other reasons.

The Emperor did IN FACT surrender after the atomic bombs.

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 12
RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? - 6/23/2020 8:06:39 AM   
Simulacra53


Posts: 520
Joined: 5/16/2015
Status: online
Again, key is accepting unconditional defeat.
When the Soviets crushed the Japanese army in China the Japanese knew they were defeated.

Your evidence is the actual turn of events after Nagasaki and the role of Hirohito played.

We can discuss the necessity of using the atom bombs, we can discuss the role of the Soviets or the price of a US invasion of mainland Japan, but that’s a different discussion.

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 13
RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? - 6/23/2020 8:28:15 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6712
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: online
When the Emperor surrendered the Soviets had NOT crushed the Japanese. The Japanese still had 700000 men in the field.

(in reply to Simulacra53)
Post #: 14
RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? - 6/23/2020 8:57:52 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 42182
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GaryChildress

I don't know if this counts as politics but it seems like a historical question to me.

warspite1

Well so long as the discussion stays around the dropping of the two bombs and doesn’t move into the present day then it’s a history discussion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GaryChildress

What are others' thoughts on what ended the Second World War in the Pacific?

warspite1

Well the Japanese agreed to surrender after the two bombs were dropped and the Soviets had attacked.

Was one of these the specific reason for the surrender? Or was it a culmination of everything that was hitting Japan from all sides?

I’ve always thought those that stated it was the Soviet action that was responsible, were doing so because a) they didn’t want to give America credit and b) they wanted to show America up as badly as possible for having dropped the bombs when (according to their argument) there was no need.

Meanwhile those that only gave credit to the dropping of the bombs, were a) keen to ensure that America was seen as having won the Pacific War (which they did) and b) didn’t want to give the USSR any acknowledgement – certainly not during the cold war.

Ultimately what does it really matter? Will we ever know if one thing and one thing only was the deciding factor? Probably not, because it was not likely to have been. It is interesting though that one of the arguments raised for the Soviet attack being the reason for the Japanese surrender – is because the Japanese thought the Soviets would act as an intermediary to get surrender on conditional terms. So in other words, the Japanese knew the Americans had beaten them – and it was all about getting the best deal.

It’s a bit like an endless argument over Bismarck – was she scuttled or did she sink because of RN torpedoes? Well it was probably both that contributed – but the fires raging around the blackened hulk of twisted metal meant that it really didn’t matter – she was finished anyway.

Did the Soviet attack that overran Manchuria and threatened the home islands or the Atomic bombs that laid waste to cities end Japanese resistance? It doesn’t matter because she was finished anyway. Talk of 700,000 well-armed troops facing the Soviets is faintly absurd. Her navy was at the bottom of the sea and she had little fuel for whatever aircraft and tanks she had left.

Unlike the Bismarck which could no longer fire back, although Japan was effectively finished, her populace could still choose to fight to the death and inflict heavy casualties on any invaders. So regardless of what it was that actually ended that unpleasant proposition, let’s just be thankful it did. Because remember (and this is particularly pertinent to all those who believe the US were wrong to drop the bombs) – if the Japanese military had won the argument and refused to end the war – just how many of their own civilians would they be condemning to death whether by invasion, conventional bombs or nuclear bombs?

The US thought they needed the USSR in the war to help finish off Japan, and encouraged Stalin to help. Towards the end of the war they regretted that decision but isn’t hindsight wonderful?

Bottom line is this; the Japanese started the Pacific War – remember they had a choice - and, with the greatest respect to those from the Commonwealth, the USSR, China and Holland that fought the Japanese, it was the USA that won it – regardless of what actually finally decided the Japanese to drop their weapons.




< Message edited by warspite1 -- 6/23/2020 8:59:22 AM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 15
RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? - 6/23/2020 9:33:16 AM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5374
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline
None imo (Manchuria and the bombs).

Technically the war was over after the US operations in autumn, winter '44 aka capture of the Philipines. Manchuria and the MOABs were just a convenient excuse. The loss of the archipelago meant the japanese army [a light army, never forget it] could not wage a modern war, a bit like Hitler's rational objective in '42, when he assumed the loss of the oil fields would do the same to the Red Army. Or a bit like the Chinese armies of the time: numerous but harmless

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 16
RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? - 6/23/2020 10:42:10 AM   
Simulacra53


Posts: 520
Joined: 5/16/2015
Status: online
Losing a war, accepting defeat and surrender, especially unconditional surrender, are not the same.

Interesting quick insight into the Japanese acceptance of defeat.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito

It would be safe to say that Hiroshima, the Soviet declaration of war and Nagasaki in quick succession convinced Hirohito and his cabinet that further resistance was useless.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 17
RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? - 6/23/2020 10:53:09 AM   
Simulacra53


Posts: 520
Joined: 5/16/2015
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Bottom line is this; the Japanese started the Pacific War – remember they had a choice - and, with the greatest respect to those from the Commonwealth, the USSR, China and Holland that fought the Japanese, it was the USA that won it – regardless of what actually finally decided the Japanese to drop their weapons.


It was a poor choice in terms of diplomacy.
Japan was given a choice between humiliation, accepting surrender without a fight, or war.
...and The US was planning to enter that war anyway via China, the Flying Tigers were part of that process.

Daniel Ford “Flying Tigers”.
https://www.amazon.com/Flying-Tigers-Chennault-American-Volunteer/dp/1560985410

On a high level you are right.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 18
RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? - 6/23/2020 11:02:28 AM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5374
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Simulacra53

Losing a war, accepting defeat and surrender, especially unconditional surrender, are not the same.


Yes, but after the capture of the Philipines this ceases to be a military problem and becomes a purely political issue. Clearly, the Japanese ruling clique tried everything to hold what they had grabbed when they went on the rob, looting, raping and massacring. It didn't work obviously. These pesky allies would have none of this


_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to Simulacra53)
Post #: 19
RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? - 6/23/2020 1:29:24 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 3912
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline
The Emperor never said surrender nor defeat in his speech telling the nation the war was over. He did mention the A bomb in his speech but not the Soviets explicitly. And MacArthur became an emperor.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/08/emperor-hirohito-surrender-japan-hiroshima/400328/

< Message edited by Lobster -- 6/23/2020 1:30:16 PM >


_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

(in reply to Simulacra53)
Post #: 20
RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? - 6/23/2020 3:24:38 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 42182
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Simulacra53


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Bottom line is this; the Japanese started the Pacific War – remember they had a choice - and, with the greatest respect to those from the Commonwealth, the USSR, China and Holland that fought the Japanese, it was the USA that won it – regardless of what actually finally decided the Japanese to drop their weapons.


It was a poor choice in terms of diplomacy.

warspite1

I think we'll have to agree to disagree there. I always find the events leading up to the war in Europe and the Pacific to be interesting from the point of view of "dammed if you do and dammed if you don't".

So Chamberlain and Daladier get blamed for not going in hard on Germany..... while Roosevelt gets blamed for going in hard on Japan..... right, well that's fair.

Odd that both get criticised - often by the same people - for doing the opposites. (Not suggesting you do, I am not referring to you specifically here).

The British and French are blamed because, apparently, they should have told Hitler in 1938 that you either back off from Czechoslovakia or we will declare war - so plunging Europe into another war that may or may not have turned out every bit as bad as WWII actually proved to be. Because let's face it we know from everything that happened that Hitler could not walk away, he could not lose face.

But when the US gave Japan the same choice - back out of China or we cut off oil (effectively giving them the choice of war of lose face) the US were wrong despite doing what the British and French get pilloried for not doing.....?

So what should Roosevelt have done? It's 1941, all considered military opinion says Germany are about to kick Stalin out of the war, the Germans will then have control of Europe - the oil of the Caucasus, the wheat from the Ukraine, the minerals and resources from the rest of the country. Britain, North Africa and the Middle East will be next in the firing line. Spain and Turkey suddenly feel emboldened. The US are running out of Allies. Seriously, what was FDR supposed to do? Allow the Japanese to continue free reign in China?

Poor diplomacy? No. I don't think Roosevelt had much choice.





< Message edited by warspite1 -- 6/23/2020 3:33:13 PM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Simulacra53)
Post #: 21
RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? - 6/23/2020 4:42:56 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 42182
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Technically the war was over after the US operations in autumn, winter '44 aka capture of the Philipines.
warspite1

I'm sure that was of great technical comfort to those killed during 1945...


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 22
RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? - 6/23/2020 5:07:59 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25202
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GaryChildress


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

I have a link to source documents from the US Government and the Captured Japanese Government. I can post it if you like. But basically even after 2 atomic Bombs and a Soviet Invasion the ruling Government in Japan ( run by the Army) voted NOT to surrender. The Emperor intervened and ended the war and the Army staged a failed coup to stop him. The last 10 to 20 years certain historians have made foolish claims that Japan offered to surrender before the bombs, they simply are not true. The reality is that ALL the Japanese Government offered was a ceasefire return to 41 start lines no concessions in China and no consequences to Japan.


But if it wasn't the 2 bombs that caused it and it wasn't the Soviet declaration of War, then what actually did cause the Japanese officials to surrender?


The Emperor saying, "You will surrender" seemed to do the trick.

_____________________________


(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 23
RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? - 6/23/2020 5:13:48 PM   
MrRoadrunner


Posts: 1237
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

The Emperor saying, "You will surrender" seemed to do the trick.


Works for me CB.

RR

_____________________________

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 24
RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? - 6/23/2020 5:23:37 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25202
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Simulacra53


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Bottom line is this; the Japanese started the Pacific War – remember they had a choice - and, with the greatest respect to those from the Commonwealth, the USSR, China and Holland that fought the Japanese, it was the USA that won it – regardless of what actually finally decided the Japanese to drop their weapons.


It was a poor choice in terms of diplomacy.

warspite1

I think we'll have to agree to disagree there. I always find the events leading up to the war in Europe and the Pacific to be interesting from the point of view of "dammed if you do and dammed if you don't".

So Chamberlain and Daladier get blamed for not going in hard on Germany..... while Roosevelt gets blamed for going in hard on Japan..... right, well that's fair.

Odd that both get criticised - often by the same people - for doing the opposites. (Not suggesting you do, I am not referring to you specifically here).

The British and French are blamed because, apparently, they should have told Hitler in 1938 that you either back off from Czechoslovakia or we will declare war - so plunging Europe into another war that may or may not have turned out every bit as bad as WWII actually proved to be. Because let's face it we know from everything that happened that Hitler could not walk away, he could not lose face.

But when the US gave Japan the same choice - back out of China or we cut off oil (effectively giving them the choice of war of lose face) the US were wrong despite doing what the British and French get pilloried for not doing.....?

So what should Roosevelt have done? It's 1941, all considered military opinion says Germany are about to kick Stalin out of the war, the Germans will then have control of Europe - the oil of the Caucasus, the wheat from the Ukraine, the minerals and resources from the rest of the country. Britain, North Africa and the Middle East will be next in the firing line. Spain and Turkey suddenly feel emboldened. The US are running out of Allies. Seriously, what was FDR supposed to do? Allow the Japanese to continue free reign in China?

Poor diplomacy? No. I don't think Roosevelt had much choice.






Much of the American decision to force the Japanese hand was to keep China in the war. Without Japanese troops being occupied by the Chinese, there was grave concern (and ample evidence) that Japan would coordinate efforts with Germany and turn north into Siberia and Eastern Russia. Such a move, at the ebb of Soviet strength (late 1941-early 1942), would have surely impacted the Soviet ability wage war against Nazi Germany as well as Japan.

In order to keep Germany at bay, then, the Chinese needed to stay in the war. That was the predominant thinking just prior to December 1941. Lightening up on the request / demand that the Japanese quit the Sino campaign *couldn't* happen, as it would have been detrimental to the Allied cause. The Japanese would not / could not have accepted this condition anyways, as many months of fruitless diplomacy demonstrated.

Ultimately, it was more of a question of two mutually unacceptable world views colliding. Not poor diplomacy on the American side. It was pre-ordained.

_____________________________


(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 25
RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? - 6/23/2020 5:57:22 PM   
Gilmer


Posts: 1375
Joined: 7/1/2011
Status: offline
Is it really so hard to think those bombs got them to surrender? It caused destruction never before seen. And yeah I get the firebombs did a lot of damage, but this was new and horrifying.

They probably even had some experience of who towns burning down, but one bomb doing it? I'd have surrendered, if it happened to me.

Oh and in before the lock.

_____________________________

He that has a mind to fight, let him fight, for now is the time. - Anacreon
My youtube channel link is under my profile. About 90% of it is Ageod.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 26
RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? - 6/23/2020 7:22:24 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 6583
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline
If I recall correctly, the cabinet vote was 3 to 3 as far as continuing the war or surrendering. Even though the Emperor was just a figurehead, he spoke up for surrender so that is what had happened. Yes, there was an attempted coup by young officers but it failed. Previously, he had kept most of the US Marines captured at Wake from being murdered right after their surrender. In late 1944, Japan was sending peace feelers out through neutral countries as far as surrender but keeping the Emperor.

Japanese school girls with bamboo spears would not have worked against modern weapons and tanks. Maybe the US soldiers would have spanked them, maybe not.

The USA was greatly assisted by the Allies. The Australians were liberating Borneo and the DEI. Mexico had a fighter unit in the Philippines. The British fleet did good work assisting the US Fleet.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Gilmer)
Post #: 27
RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? - 6/23/2020 7:42:20 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25202
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
The USA was greatly assisted by the Allies. The Australians were liberating Borneo and the DEI. Mexico had a fighter unit in the Philippines. The British fleet did good work assisting the US Fleet.


I'm rereading the excellent, "Fire in the Sky". The author (Bergurand) rightly points out the outsized contributions of the Australians and the EnZeds in particular. For the latter, with a population the size of the US city of Chicago, they hit well above their weight, particularly with the RNZAF. Australians were instrumental in much of liberating SoPac and the DEI, and deserve a commendation for putting up with MacArthur for the whole war.

And don't forget the role the Chinese played! Their tying up of most of Japan's IJA ground force and a sizeable portion of the IJAAF was an absolute necessity for the island hopping campaign in CENTPAC and SOPAC.

Could we have done it without them? Maybe, maybe not. But the issue would be in doubt. And it would have taken a LOT longer and cost many more American lives. It was a team effort and I'm grateful that they were on our side fighting shoulder to shoulder with us.

_____________________________


(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 28
RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? - 6/23/2020 8:58:20 PM   
Simulacra53


Posts: 520
Joined: 5/16/2015
Status: online
Japan is an island, once the USN won at Midway they only needed anchorage to move the ever growing fleet forward. The most efficient weapon from that point onward, to strangle Japan, was the submarine.

A lot of peripheral fighting was a steady drain on Japan - iirc Bergerud equals the whole Solomons campaign to Japan’s Stalingrad - but it was not the main show. The main show was cutting off Japan from its supplies and cutting off Japanese forces from Japan.

Once the USAAC was able to raid Japan with their very heavy bombers from the Marianas (and if the war had lasted longer from Okinawa) the fate of Japan was sealed. Not only cut off from any resources, its industry and cities being laid to waste, like the fire bombing of Tokyo.

In the end it does not matter, the US dropped two atomic bombs for a number of reasons and the Japanese surrendered shortly thereafter.

< Message edited by Simulacra53 -- 6/24/2020 6:29:31 AM >

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 29
RE: What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? - 6/24/2020 12:16:27 AM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gilmer

Is it really so hard to think those bombs got them to surrender? It caused destruction never before seen. And yeah I get the firebombs did a lot of damage, but this was new and horrifying.

They probably even had some experience of who towns burning down, but one bomb doing it? I'd have surrendered, if it happened to me.

Oh and in before the lock.


Well, it's how scholars become famous, by proposing things that no one had proposed before (no matter how seemingly absurd).

It could have been a combination of factors but I would certainly think that seeing one bomb do the destruction of an entire bomber wing, surely must have gotten them to thinking twice about continuing the war. But maybe the Japanese high command was just that sadistic at the time. I don't know.

In any case, it sounds like the Emporer was the one who made the difference, so I would think it doesn't really matter what the Army commanders wrote or thought at the time. What ended the war must have been whatever motivated the Emporer to throw his hat in the ring.

(in reply to Gilmer)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> What Really Ended the War in the Pacific? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.211