My impression of the issue of using the atomic bomb on Hiroshima is that (1) the Supreme War Council of Japan was not unanimous in bringing a peace proposal to the Emperor. [It could not bring such a proposal unless it was unanimous].
[The military had a few aces up their sleeves: new technology and advanced planes and biological weapon facilities. So four of the ministers wanted to continue the war. Two wanted peace. Tojo, the prime minister wanted peace, I seem to recall.] (The Supreme Council had six people. The prime minister, foreign minister, chief of staff of the army and minister of the army, chief of staff for the navy and minister of the navy.]
(2) The idea of giving a demonstration I always thought was ridiculous because in fact the USA gave a demonstration, and that certainly was not enough to bring a surrender.
(3) The war consul did not convene after Hiroshima. Tojo [foreign minister] sent a special message to get in contact immediately with Molotov to press the idea of being a go between between Japan and the USA. That is --the previous proposal of keeping the Emperor in place and in charge of everything. But this proposal would never have been accepted since the emperor was in fact in charge of the military. That was the very thing the USA blamed the war on.
(4) What caused the War Council to convene? Not Hiroshima. Not Nagasaki. It was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. [They convened immediately after the news of the Soviet invasion came in.] The news of Nagasaki came only during the time the consul was meeting.
So what caused the consul to send a surrender proposal to the Emperor? Certainly not Hiroshima. Maybe a combination of Nagasaki with Hiroshima, plus the Soviet invasion, plus the obvious fact at that point that the Soviets were not going to be bringing any peace proposals to the Americans. Just the opposite. The Soviets at that point wanted their own piece of the pie. So that is what caused Japan to surrender--not even the fact of the Soviet invasion, but the fact that Molotov was not going to be a go between. Soviet intentions became crystal clear after a millions troops crossed Japaneses borders.
[I might add here that but continuing the war with Japan would certainly have meant the USA army being transferred to the Far East. If we think in terms of Iwo Jima or Okinawa, every square mile of Japanese territory claimed 1,000 American lives. But Iwo Jima is a tiny coral island. Can you even begin to guess the casualties of an invasion Japanese soil? [Just count up the square miles and multiply by 1,000. That is American lives. Japanese lives that would have been lost you have to multiply by a factor of many times more. And they were certainly getting a warm welcome ready for the Americans with massive military build ups in the area (Kyushu) they expected the American would come into.]
[Of course none of the above have anything to do with why people condemn the USA for fighting back. The reason people mention ''Hiroshima'' is to see if you are a good person. If you say it was OK, then you are evil. The same issue with slavery. It is not to decide the issue. The issue is to decide if your a decent person. If you defend it by lets say self determination then you are still thought to be evil. After all, no nation except England and the USA outlawed slavery. It was a part of the legal arrangements of every nation. It is all about "virtue signaling".
They always approach Hiroshima as if it was just out of the blue that Truman decided to use the bomb.
[The military had a few aces up their sleeves: new technology and advanced planes and biological weapon facilities. So four of the ministers wanted to continue the war. Two wanted peace. Tojo, the prime minister wanted peace, I seem to recall.] (The Supreme Council had six people. The prime minister, foreign minister, chief of staff of the army and minister of the army, chief of staff for the navy and minister of the navy.]
(2) The idea of giving a demonstration I always thought was ridiculous because in fact the USA gave a demonstration, and that certainly was not enough to bring a surrender.
(3) The war consul did not convene after Hiroshima. Tojo [foreign minister] sent a special message to get in contact immediately with Molotov to press the idea of being a go between between Japan and the USA. That is --the previous proposal of keeping the Emperor in place and in charge of everything. But this proposal would never have been accepted since the emperor was in fact in charge of the military. That was the very thing the USA blamed the war on.
(4) What caused the War Council to convene? Not Hiroshima. Not Nagasaki. It was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. [They convened immediately after the news of the Soviet invasion came in.] The news of Nagasaki came only during the time the consul was meeting.
So what caused the consul to send a surrender proposal to the Emperor? Certainly not Hiroshima. Maybe a combination of Nagasaki with Hiroshima, plus the Soviet invasion, plus the obvious fact at that point that the Soviets were not going to be bringing any peace proposals to the Americans. Just the opposite. The Soviets at that point wanted their own piece of the pie. So that is what caused Japan to surrender--not even the fact of the Soviet invasion, but the fact that Molotov was not going to be a go between. Soviet intentions became crystal clear after a millions troops crossed Japaneses borders.
[I might add here that but continuing the war with Japan would certainly have meant the USA army being transferred to the Far East. If we think in terms of Iwo Jima or Okinawa, every square mile of Japanese territory claimed 1,000 American lives. But Iwo Jima is a tiny coral island. Can you even begin to guess the casualties of an invasion Japanese soil? [Just count up the square miles and multiply by 1,000. That is American lives. Japanese lives that would have been lost you have to multiply by a factor of many times more. And they were certainly getting a warm welcome ready for the Americans with massive military build ups in the area (Kyushu) they expected the American would come into.]
[Of course none of the above have anything to do with why people condemn the USA for fighting back. The reason people mention ''Hiroshima'' is to see if you are a good person. If you say it was OK, then you are evil. The same issue with slavery. It is not to decide the issue. The issue is to decide if your a decent person. If you defend it by lets say self determination then you are still thought to be evil. After all, no nation except England and the USA outlawed slavery. It was a part of the legal arrangements of every nation. It is all about "virtue signaling".
They always approach Hiroshima as if it was just out of the blue that Truman decided to use the bomb.
