
The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan, Stalin Did (2013) - Thevet
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/
======
AnimalMuppet
It took the "twin shocks" (both the atomic bomb and the Soviet invasion of
Manchuria) to convince Japan to surrender. Even then, the supreme council was
split 3-3, and the emperor had to decide. And even after the emperor decided,
there was a coup attempt to with intent to prevent surrender. (Source:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan)).

Either the bomb or the Soviet attack, by itself, arguably would not have been
enough.

------
mcphage
He seems to be arguing against himself, probably hoping that the reader only
notices one half of each argument.

First he argues that the nuclear bombs weren't that important, or different
from our other bombs. Okay, fine. Then he argues that we persist the myth that
the bombings ended the war because it helps us feel better about having
dropped them. But if they weren't that different from our other bombings, why
would we even need the lie to feel better about them?

Similarly with his timing. August 6th -> 9th was (he feels) both too long a
wait to deal with the crisis, but also too quick, since the preliminary report
about the bombings didn't arrive until the 10th.

And invasions: they didn't surrender at the threat of a possible US invasion,
but a possible soviet invasion caused an immediate surrender?

As an argument that the Japanese surrender was more complicated than "we
dropped a bomb, they surrendered"—well, obviously that's true. History is
never that simple outside of textbooks for children. But in his arguments that
it was irrelevant, he spends too much time contradicting himself.

------
justin_vanw
This article is full of sophistry. That doesn't mean the theory is wrong, but
this article gives no evidence in favor of it!

For example, it claims that they couldn't have surrendered because of the
destructive power of the bomb, because there had been worse bombing raids.
First of all, the Japanese could have considered those bombing raids to have
been lucky. It is also possible that the raids that caused more damage were in
much larger cities, such as Tokyo. It is also possible that the psychological
effect was greater for nuclear weapons. The Japanese had no idea how many
nuclear weapons we had. They may have thought that the first two were
warnings, and if they didn't surrender we would start dropping 30 every hour
until they were obliterated. If, as the article says, bombing raids were
carried out by 500 bombers at a time, why didn't the Japanese have every
reason to believe the next major raid would drop 500 nuclear weapons?

The article also contradicts itself. It says that the bomb couldn't have
swayed the supreme council, since news only arrived after they had met and the
vote to surrender was deadlocked... I mean, what? Only if they had already
surrendered before they got the news would the bomb be proved irrelevant. They
voted and did not surrender, and yet after news of the bomb arrived they in
fact met again and then did vote to surrender.

There is no doubt that the bomb would have a huge psychological impact beyond
merely the measurements of the damage it did.

Thought experiment: A boxer is set to fight the Champ. Which of these
situations is more likely to cause the boxer to back out of the match?

1\. The boxer learns that the Champ once beat another boxer for round after
round, and in the 12th round the boxer finally died from his cumulative
injuries.

2\. The boxer learns that the Champ always carries a gun to the ring and
shoots his opponent in the face before the fight even starts.

In one scenario you may think you are going to lose, but at least you'll go
down swinging and maybe you'll get lucky somehow. In the other, he is going to
murder you with a bullet and all you have is boxing gloves and no shirt.

------
tosseraccount
US industrial production beat Japan.

108 U.S. Aircraft Carriers bearing down on the Main Islands had a little bit
to do with surrender.

~~~
cromulent
108?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_co...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country#Numbers_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country)

~~~
tosseraccount
See header. Table doesn't include "escort carriers". U.S. was producing 1
escort carrier per week; and escort carriers did engage in combat:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_off_Samar](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_off_Samar)
(6 very surprised US escort carriers take on Imperial Japanese Navy Center
Force)

British Pacific Fleet had 8 additional carriers:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Pacific_Fleet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Pacific_Fleet)

~~~
AnimalMuppet
OK, but you made the claim for 108 carriers. Source?

~~~
mikeash
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_in_World_War...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_in_World_War_II)
claims 99 carriers at the end of the war, counting both types. I'm not sure
where 108 comes from, but it's close.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Well, tosseraccount said that the US was building one escort carrier a week.
If the invasion would have taken place 9 weeks after the actual end date of
the war (plausible), the US could have had exactly 108 carriers at that time.

