Hacker News Reader

This is an excellent point. This is why it was necessary to beat the Germans first - so the Russians could invade or at least threaten Japan.

Even so, a land conquest of Japan would have cost vast numbers of lives - far more than the nukes.

When people die one by one in war, the emotional impact is blunted. But when a million die in one bomb, it seems much worse, even if the overall body count is lower.

> This is why it was necessary to beat the Germans first - so the Russians could invade or at least threaten Japan.

That was the strategy that FDR and Churchill agreed to, but the primary person driving it was Stalin, because he didn't want the US and Britain to defeat Japan before he got a chance to attack them, and he knew he would not be able to attack them until Germany was defeated. (He wanted to attack them so he would have a pretext for taking over territory that Russia had lost in the Russo-Japanese war in 1904-1905.) As events proved, the US and Britain did not need any help from the USSR to defeat Japan militarily, and with different diplomatic choices they probably could have gotten Japan to surrender before the USSR attacked.

Once FDR died and Truman took office, btw, it was no longer clear that having the USSR enter the war against Japan was a US objective. Truman, unlike FDR, was not a fan of Stalin and viewed him as a geopolitical threat, not an ally. Which, historically speaking, was a sounder view.

> with different diplomatic choices they probably could have gotten Japan to surrender before the USSR attacked.

Such as?

Clarifying the status of the Emperor if Japan surrendered. I have posted about that elsewhere in this discussion.

I recently rewatched Band of Brothers and this scene hit me really hard (starting at about 1:50):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y43-p3xLDyo

This is from the final episode of the series. Easy Company have fought their way from Normandy to Germany, losing hundreds of their friends and brothers in battle after brutal battle. Now the Nazis have surrendered and they finally have some respite - but their celebrations are shortlived. Their commanding officer informs them that they're to be redeployed to the Pacific. The war isn't over, and the expression on Malarkey's face at 2:09 says it all.

Whatever anyone says about the atomic bombings, I bet those men were damn happy to hear about Japan's surrender. Imagine if they'd been sent to invade Japan, in another brutal campaign that would have taken months if not years, costing hundreds of thousands more Allied lives.

Then imagine telling them that the government had secretly developed a powerful new weapon that could have ended the war earlier and avoided all this bloodshed - but they hadn't used it because they were worried about the moral implications. I don't think they'd have agreed it was the right choice.

Soviet Union were preparing to invade Hokkaido. My grandfather was staged near Vladivostok and everybody in Soviet military there in summer 1945 expected there would be invasion of Japan.

Japanese knew that Soviet rulers did not care if another million of soldiers died and Soviet occupation was considered much worse outcome. That contributed to their surrender to US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito_surrender_broadcast

The emperor directly mentions the atomic bomb in his address; "Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."

He only tacitly mentions the battle situation; "But now the war has lasted for nearly four years. Despite the best that has been done by everyone – the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of our servants of the state, and the devoted service of our one hundred million people – the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest."

> The emperor directly mentions the atomic bomb in his address...He only tacitly mentions the battle situation

I know that. And I said why: to save face. He didn't want to tell the Japanese people that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria was the reason. The atomic bomb made a much better reason for public consumption. That doesn't mean it was the actual reason that drove the decision, which was made in private.

So without the atomic bomb, the emperor and the peace faction did not have a way out and the fighting would have continued.

> without the atomic bomb, the emperor and the peace faction did not have a way out

That's not clear either. Without the atomic bomb they might well have found another way to save face.

If the argument is that "We can't say that the atomic bombs were the catalyst for Japan surrendering because the surrender happened after a bombing and Soviet war declaration therefor they are confounding factors" then the same holds true for the argument that the Soviet invasion was the catalyst for surrender.

Now I will say that I have not read Hasegawa's book but Wikipedia says that it is "challenging the widely accepted orthodox view that the atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the most decisive factor in Japan's decision to surrender ending the war against Japan."

It will be interesting to read but it looks like that it is not the accepted theory and that primary sources from the era were destroyed on all sides.

Hmm, the books I’ve read in Japan make it seem more like the emperor was just tired of an unwinnable war. The nuclear bombs and soviet invasion were simply a catalyst. They just got a surrender note from the US at the proper time for that to be the topic under consideration (aside from, you know, surrendering to the people that tricked you being a generally bad idea).

I like how they ultimately accepted the unconditional surrender, but still tacked on a condition that the emperor was not to be blamed.

> the emperor was not to be blamed.

Even though he should have been:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/hirohito-the-war-crimina...

Maybe. He was pretty young at the time, and surrounded by old guys telling him what to think.

Contrary to what this article says, I’m absolutely convinced that not prosecuting the emperor was the right call. The country would have more or less literally exploded overnight.

The fact the man himself told everyone to surrender was of more importance than almost anything else done, both at government and civilian levels. Most of the internal efforts to stop the surrender were around stopping him from declaring as such.