
Historians rethink key Soviet role in Japan defeat - MikeCapone
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gTT2JIVvexygxWpYnKyDO-JVbUBAD9HJMCUG2
======
philwelch
Sun Tzu advocated never completely encircling one's enemy, but rather leaving
them a clear cut opportunity to retreat, so that instead of fighting for their
lives the enemy will instead fold under pressure and choose to retreat.

In a sense, this was a vital part of the strategy of the Western allies. The
US and UK were little different from Japan or Germany or Russia in their
pursuit of total war (okay, Russia was arguably more brutal even there), but
in its treatment of defeated enemies, either as prisoners of war or as
occupied territory, the Western allies were consistently magnanimous and
benevolent compared to the Soviets or the Axis. That's a great way to get
high-value individuals (the German rocket scientists like Von Braun) or even
entire countries to prefer to surrender to you.

Of course, as the article illustrates, it helps when you have brutal allies
like the Soviets prone to rape and plunder everything they conquer for
magnanimous treatment of one's enemies to really encourage surrender. As the
Mongols discovered, it also helps to be absolutely ruthless with enemies who
resist while benevolent towards enemies who surrender quickly.

~~~
zeteo
I don't think that was a conscious decision of the Western Allies, but rather
a consequence of the freedom of the press. Gruesome stuff was quickly exposed
to public reaction:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_mutilation_of_Japanese...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_mutilation_of_Japanese_war_dead)

~~~
philwelch
Using aircraft carriers to win naval battles wasn't a conscious decision
either (the US was just completely out of battleships), but it sure worked out
nicely.

Still, the press in WWII was not interested in making the government look bad.
They were active participants in keeping many secrets throughout the war,
including the fact that FDR was crippled from polio. "Total war", which is
unknown to this country since WWII, means the entire civilization participates
in the war effort, and while the press had the legal freedom to criticize the
government and reveal their secrets, it would have been unconscionable at the
time for them to do anything that could impede the war effort.

Even more importantly, it's hard to imagine the US matching the degree of
Japanese, German and Soviet atrocities against POW's and occupied territories
during the war. Souvenir taking against policy is one thing--deliberate
plundering, torture, murder, and rape _as_ policy is quite another.

~~~
sedachv
"Even more importantly, it's hard to imagine the US matching the degree of
Japanese, German and Soviet atrocities against POW's and occupied territories
during the war. Souvenir taking against policy is one thing--deliberate
plundering, torture, murder, and rape as policy is quite another."

Care to point out any instance of any order to do any of the things listed
issued in any branch of the military in any of the countries you mention? I
mean I know most Americans view everyone else as drooling, barbaric apes, but
you seem to be an expert on the US media in WWII
([https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-
intellig...](https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-
intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol46no3/article10.html)),
so I assume you can point out some specifics of why they are drooling,
barbaric apes.

~~~
lionhearted
Soviet sergeants and officers were often ordered to shoot their own men if
they attempted to retreat - Soviet infantry was instructed to advance at all
cost. Also, since Stalin executed his highly ranked officers frequently due to
paranoia, the average Soviet officer was something like 12 years younger than
the average Nazi officer.

These two factors combined meant utter brutality and massacre for Soviet
forces and contribute to them having overwhelmingly the highest number of
causalities in the war. With a culture like that against their own soldiers,
is it any surprise they loot, raid, pillage, and rape? That's all fairly well
documented among Soviet forces, there's plenty of memoirs of the gulags (which
had a lower survival rate than even Nazi concentration camps), and there's
plenty of memoirs of the horrors the Soviet troops committed in occupied
cities. German women would often offer themselves to Soviet officers so as to
be protected from the brutality of the enlisted men.

> so I assume you can point out some specifics of why they are drooling,
> barbaric apes.

Utter brutality, a win at all costs mentality more than anyone else, and very
inexperienced leadership. Much of this is directly attributable to Stalin, but
really all the Socialist Soviet Republics and People's Democratic Republics
went similarly (USSR, cultural revolution, Khmer Rouge, etc). For whatever
reason, it doesn't seem to be governmental model conducive to high morale,
dignity, and respect in their armed forces.

~~~
sedachv
Wow, way to take my trolling seriously. I didn't ask you to regurgitate your
reagan zombie history "facts," I asked for some references that have some
references that might have some other references to army orders/policy
documents to "kill, rape, pillage" etc.

~~~
lionhearted
A decent place to start:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes>

Slightly earlier than WWII, but some precious quotes by Lenin and other early
leaders here, it pretty much set the tone for the USSR:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_terror>

"We will turn our hearts into steel, which we will temper in the fire of
suffering and the blood of fighters for freedom. We will make our hearts
cruel, hard, and immovable, so that no mercy will enter them, and so that they
will not quiver at the sight of a sea of enemy blood. We will let loose the
floodgates of that sea [...] For the blood of Lenin and Uritsky, Zinoviev and
Volodarski, let there be floods of the blood of the bourgeois - more blood, as
much as possible." – Announcement of the start of the Red Terror on 1
September 1918, to the Bolshevik newspaper, Krasnaya Gazeta

> Wow, way to take my trolling seriously. I didn't ask you to regurgitate your
> reagan zombie history "facts,"

I might take this a little more seriously than most people since seeing the
Killing Fields and Security Center 21 in Cambodia shook me to the core.
Collectivism of any stripe - whether under a banner of socialism, communism,
nationalism, whatever - produces really fucking evil results. Reagan was a
decent American President in some ways, did a poor job in others, but that's
besides the point. Playing down or ignoring or marginalizing the utter fucking
atrocities that happened under National Socialism, Bolshevism, the Cultural
Revolution, the Khmer Rouge, etc, etc - nothing else even comes close. Some
people like to play a really backwards moral relativism card here - _no_ ,
nothing else comes close. I've walked through the jails where they tortured
people. Tons of real photos, the Khmer Rouge documented the hell out of it. I
saw the metal plate that they cracked the the heads of the children of the
"bourgeois" into as an inexpensive execution technique. These aren't Reagan
zombie facts. This is reality. When people stop being individuals and give
themselves over to a collective, all hell and madness breaks loose. If we
forget this, we'll suffer for it.

~~~
sedachv
"shook me to the core"

Any other worn hollywood cliches happen to you while you were vacationing
there?

"When people stop being individuals and give themselves over to a collective,
all hell and madness breaks loose."

I bet you were really angry at healthcare reform.

This is why I love trolling HN political topics. Your responses are so
predictable and thoughtless. Reagan zombie really is the right description. It
has nothing to do with what happened or didn't happen in history - it's the
way people like you interpret everything through your own narcissism and then
filter it out through the viewpoints of some idiotic popular news cliches to
support ideas you don't even care about to make yourself feel good for
"standing up for justice."

~~~
Ardit20
I do not quite understand what is your point, even with the "let me help you"
comment below.

Are you suggesting that the article is wrong in stating that the Japanese
believed that the Americans would treat them better if they surrendered to
them rather than the Russians? If so, perhaps you can provide some authority.

~~~
sedachv
Let me explain:

Do you know how if you read any article on the United States online today,
there are people who comment "OMG Obama is causing the downfall of America"?
Anytime a political topic comes up on Hacker News, someone will come out and
say "OMG totalitarianism is evil." No original thought, and nothing even
remotely relevant to the core issues of the topic. These morons are the same,
their views come from Fox news or equivalent tripe.

This particular one was really amusing to troll; I enjoyed his Pol Pot
Disneyland story. There is nothing cynical or cruel in that remark - I really
do believe that (for some reasons why, this is a good place to start:
<http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/forget.html>).

"Are you suggesting that the article is wrong in stating that the Japanese
believed that the Americans would treat them better if they surrendered to
them rather than the Russians?"

This is exactly why these Reagan zombies are so annoying. They've managed to
shift the topic of discussion from Japan's plan for a USSR-mediated peace
treaty (which is actually the novel point of the article), to "OMG EVIL
RUSKIES" idiocy turned "fact" turned bad cliche paid for by the CIA
([http://www.amazon.com/Who-Paid-Piper-Cultural-
Cold/dp/186207...](http://www.amazon.com/Who-Paid-Piper-Cultural-
Cold/dp/1862070296)). Even the topic of American vs Soviet occupation is
completely bypassed - right away the discussion shifts to "collectives are
evil, and fuck and downmod you if you say different". They're very effective
at re-framing the discussion into something superficially similar, but really
a completely unrelated, cliched trope where they know the outcome ("BUT THINK
OF THE CAMBODIAN BABIES!!!"). What the fuck does Cambodia have to do with this
article?

It's pointless to argue with them - the course of discussion has been tread
and re-tread for over 65 years thanks to US sponsorship of right-wing think
tanks, and the shape and conclusions ("OMG YOU'RE A NATIONALIST, NO WAIT,
MORAL RELATIVISM IS WRONG") have already been determined and they know that.
The only appropriate response is to troll and enjoy the lulz.

~~~
Ardit20
Right. So, will you actually answer my question?

~~~
sedachv
"Are you suggesting that the article is wrong in stating that the Japanese
believed that the Americans would treat them better if they surrendered to
them rather than the Russians?"

The Japanese leadership believed they would be treated better by the
Americans, probably correctly. On the other hand the Japanese people were
preparing for mass suicide in case of US invasion, believing (probably
incorrectly; but to be fair the Marines did manage to kill a quarter of all
civilians in Okinawa) that the US soldiers would rape, torture and mutilate
them. From what I understand they did not hold similar views about Soviet
soldiers.

------
sdm
People always like to forget that the USSR was one of our key allies in WWI.
In Europe, they faced over 80% of the German forces -- leaving the other
allies (UK, Colonies, and finally the US) to deal with the remainder.
Likewise, their vital role against Japan is generally not mentioned outside of
stuffy university military history courses. Good to see it getting some
mainstream love.

~~~
zeteo
The USSR had a decisive role not only in defeating Germany and Japan, but also
in shaping the very outburst of the war. E.g., Pearl Harbor was arguably a
consequence of the battle of Khalkin-Gol:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol#Afterma...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol#Aftermath)

And Hitler would have never invaded Poland if it wasn't for the Molotov-
Ribbentrop Pact:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact#Initial_invasions)

~~~
pella
>And Hitler would have never invaded Poland if it wasn't for the Molotov-
Ribbentrop Pact

It is not true ..

"In 1934, Hitler himself had spoken of an inescapable battle against both Pan-
Slavism and Neo-Slavism, the victory in which would lead to "permanent mastery
of the world", though he stated that they would "walk part of the road with
the Russians, if that will help us.""
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact#Background)

~~~
jacquesm
What he said in 1934 and what _actually_ happened though are two different
things. You can't equate the one which happened to what would have happened if
that had not been the case.

History only happens once, alternative branches are ruthlessly pruned by the
things that actually happen and we have no way of knowing what would have
happened for any of the other branches.

The fact that he said it in 1934 but waited until one week after the signing
of the pact gives some doubt about whether or not he would have done it if the
Russians hadn't signed.

~~~
varjag
He had good history of attacking places without Russian approval, so most
likely he would have attacked Poland either way. The pact with USSR was
tactically advantageous, but unlikely deciding.

~~~
jacquesm
The German invasion of Poland is commonly seen as the start of World War II,
which other places do you refer to?

~~~
varjag
I used past tense relative to our times, sorry. Does it really matter though
that France turn wasn't before Poland?

Anyway, in 1938 Germany and Poland partitioned Czechoslovakia in the same way
Poland would be handled year later. At this event Polish minister Beck said
that Czechoslovakia is not a real country anyway, giving tacit approval to
total German occupation. No one however would claim German incursion could be
avoided if not Polish participation.

It was nearly identical situation in 1939, only the scale was bigger and some
shots finally fired.

~~~
jacquesm
I don't think we're going to agree on that one. Poland was desperately trying
to avoid being crushed by either Germany or Russia at that point and tried to
save its own hide at the expense of Czechoslovakia. It's not as though Poland
would have invaded Czechoslovakia itself, the way Germany and Russia made
their pact.

Not quite idential.

Incidentally, I was in Prague 2 days ago, what a beautiful city it is.

~~~
varjag
Right, we then have to agree to disagree. The domestic excuse for Molotov-
Ribbentrop pact in USSR was also, to recite my schoolbook, "an attempt to
postpone inevitable war with Nazi Germany", politicians don't really have much
imagination anywhere. Poland's role in Czechoslovakia was marginal, however
military contribution of USSR in Polish campaign was also insignificant. To me
it's almost as if Hitler used cookie-cutter strategy both times, and both
adversaries fell for it.

Never been to Czech yet, but I've spent three fine days in Krakow last month.
Beautiful town, fortunately left mostly intact in the war.

~~~
jacquesm
Krakow has the most beautiful town center set in the dirtiest town I've ever
been too, though in recent years they've cleaned it up quite a bit from when
it was at it's worst (late 1980's).

There are lots of nice cities in Poland.

------
dimka
I think that historical importance of Soviet roll in that was was purposely
minimized to morally excuse nuclear bombing of civilian targets and to lessen
the sentiments towards the people of soviet union who played the key roll in
fighting Germany. This is very important to keep the general population afraid
of commies.

~~~
duffbeer703
I always found the bleating moral outrage over the nuclear attack more than a
little grating and ignorant. As horrific as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, the
fates of Tokyo and other cities were little better.

The B-29s dropped white phosphorous, napalm, avgas, etc in specific patterns
intended to create a firestorm -- a phenomenon pioneered by the British in
places like Hamburg and Dresden. The flames were so intense that subsequent
waves of bombers were lifted in flight, and the glow could be seen for
hundreds of miles. Over 100k are estimated to have died. A million+ were
homeless.

This isn't something that was covered up/deempathized, nor was the atomic
bombing. Obliteration of the enemy from the air was heralded during and after
the war.

~~~
philwelch
It was _far_ more effective against Japan, especially because they used wood
and paper as building materials. The crews of the bombers at the tail end of
those bombing runs could even smell the stench of burning human flesh.

Far from covering it up, this kind of thing was a massive boost to the career
of Curtis LeMay, the man later charged with commanding the Air Force's nuclear
arsenal as commander of SAC.

------
jleyank
If the US Navy had carried through on mining Japan's home waters, it would
have been irrelevant who occupied Manchuria or Korea. Nothing would have
reached Japan. If carried out, naval blockade would have slaughtered gobs and
gobs of folks through 45-46. As I recall, there was only one un-incinerated
city left (Kyoto) after the two atomic strikes, so "bouncing the rubble" would
have been inefficient.

Slaughtering concentrations of defenders, however, would have been gruesome
and it WAS being planned for.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Even aside from that very little was reaching Japan, the allies were sinking
incredible tonnage of shipping. Japan would have been starving by the end of
1945. By the end of the war the allies were sinking an average of 100+
merchant vessels a month, that rate takes a heavy toll on the ability to
transport even the basics needed to keep the population of the home islands
alive, let alone to run the machinery of war.

------
count
This isn't new - it's part of the premise of 'The Rising Sun', a book about
WW2 from the Japanese perspective. It was written in 1970 by John Toland.
Awesome book, if you're into history.

------
ww520
The Soviet general beating the Japanese army in Khalkin Gol in 1939 was
Zhukov, who later went on to beat the German advance in the Eastern front, and
led the counter offenses to turn the tide. Zhukov was probably one of the
greatest generals in Soviet.

~~~
DCoder
No, he was a guy who

\- carried out his orders blindly and without thinking ( see
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Rzhev> where he blindly sent several
hundred thousand troops into fortified German position - if you send your
forces up the same road for two months straight without gaining any advances,
wouldn't you at least try to find an alternate route that the enemy doesn't
_expect_ you to use? ) ,

\- was very hungry for fame and glory (I can't find references now, but it was
his initial reports to higher command during the first few days after
1941-06-22 that led Stalin to believe the German invasion was already mostly
contained and delayed Russian defense deployments. In addition, Stalin demoted
Zhukov later, citing "attributes others' achievements to himself" as a
significant reason.), and

\- was generally vain, sadistic and incompetent. Several high ranking
officials and civilians reported his attitude towards his subordinates as
nothing less than disgusting.

\- He was also in charge of Totsk nuclear testing (
[http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1954USSR1....](http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1954USSR1.html)
), where he had over 40k soldiers split into two teams and engage each other
moments after a nuke had been detonated above the battlefield.

Also, he had nothing to do with the German defeat at Stalingrad - he was still
too busy headbutting Rzhev:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_for_Velikiye_Luki_(1943)>

For more details, I suggest looking up Viktor Suvorov's "Shadow of Victory".
And other Suvorov's books for a different view of WWII in general.

~~~
Ardit20
What does being "hungry for fame and glory", "vain, sadistic and incompetent.
Several high ranking officials and civilians reported his attitude towards his
subordinates as nothing less than disgusting." or "in charge of Totsk nuclear
testing" has anything to do with being a great guy because he beated the
Nazis.

God knows what would happened if they had managed to occupy Russia!

Besides, war is all about fame and glory.

~~~
DCoder
He had nothing to do with the Stalingrad breakthrough, and he wasted two whole
tank armies in Berlin because he was too daft to see that narrow, barricaded
and rubble-filled streets are not the best place for tanks. Such a great guy.

Excusing the Russians' war atrocities simply because they beat the Germans is
quite like picking the frying pan instead of the fire - they are both very
bad, just one is somewhat worse than the other. (Then again, I'm from the
Baltic states, where we were actually stuck with the Russians until 1990, so I
am probably biased.)

Did the Nazis have long distance bombers that could actually destroy the
industrial complexes in Ural or further to the East? I am not aware of any.

------
pella
Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria_(1...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria_\(1945\))

\----

Soviet–Japanese War Importance and consequences

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War_(19...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War_\(1945\)#Importance_and_consequences)

------
SkyMarshal
> _Despite the death toll from the atomic bombings — 140,000 in Hiroshima,
> 80,000 in Nagasaki the Imperial Military Command believed it could hold out
> against an Allied invasion if it retained control of Manchuria and Korea,
> which provided Japan with the resources for war, according to Hasegawa and
> Terry Charman, a historian of World War II at London's Imperial War Museum._

My understanding is it was not the US's intent to invade mainland Japan. After
taking strings of Pacific Islands from the Japanese, ending with the Iwo Jima
bloodbath, I thought it was decided to drop nukes on Japan till they
surrendered, instead of invading them (one, to spare American lives, and two
to scare the Soviets).

I'm sure that the Soviet army pushing the Japanese out of resource-rich
Manchuria would have played a key role in Japan's eventual surrender had the
atomic bomb never been invented, but saying that _"The Soviet entry into the
war played a much greater role than the atomic bombs in inducing Japan to
surrender"_ is a bit of a stretch.

The Soviets may have cut off Manchuria, but Japan still had resources from
Korea. And the Soviet Army was separated from the Japanese mainland by sea as
well, where they would have been particularly vulnerable had they tried to
cross and invade. Compared to the US razing entire mainland Japanese cities
with a single bomb, at will... Sorry, don't buy it.

~~~
Setsuna
Soviet Union is always given far less credit than it deserves. Just imagine
what would have happened if instead of resisting the Nazi invasion they gave
up! I shudder everytime I think about this!

~~~
jacquesm
But then you _also_ have to wonder what would have happened if Hitler had
never been given the nod to attack Poland from the West without retribution.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact>

------
DifE-Q
"arguing that fear of Soviet invasion persuaded the Japanese to opt for
surrender to the Americans, who they believed would treat them more generously
than the Soviets."

Well you can't argue with this statement. The soviets would have treated them
far worse. However, according to the Japanese - it was the bomb that drove
them to surrender. Additionally, though the Soviets were right next door, the
U.S. had Japan essentially blockaded and completely surrounded. We would never
had allowed the Soviets to close in and conquer Japan; nor did the Soviets
have the ability to mount an invasion of mainland Japan. This blockade of
Japan, and the fact that their forces in Asia were essentially cut-off, led to
the weakening and thus capitulation of those Japanese forces when it came time
for the Soviets to attack. The Soviets essentially attacked a weaken and
already beaten Japanese army in Asia - a small feat, not a great decisive one.

------
InclinedPlane
I don't buy it. I'm sure it played a role in Japan's eventual surrender, but I
don't think it was as pivotal as it's being made out to be. The Japanese knew
full well the limitations of the Soviet's naval and air capabilities, and they
knew that the Soviet's had zero chance of mounting an invasion of their home
islands was extremely limited. Whereas they knew first hand the threat the
US/UK forces posed through the experience of loss of many territories
(including Japanese home territory), air raids, and naval blockades. Faced
with the option of losing all their territorial advances in China and Korea
and then having to cope with ineffectual air and naval attacks from the
Soviets, I think Japan would have been ok with playing that game out as long
as possible.

In contrast, the Japanese knew they were almost certainly doomed if the US/UK
had the conviction to press home their invasion of the home islands. They
thought they could play for time by upping the ante through conscripting the
entire population and fighting to the death in the ultimate scorched Earth
policy. They thought they could raise the stakes enough to make a negotiated
surrender an option, or stretch out the war long enough for some magical
degree of luck to fall their way (e.g. Truman, a freshly minted president,
making different choices than FDR, or a kamikaze run becoming super lucky and
taking out an admiral or two and several key aircraft carriers, that sort of
thing). The use of the atomic bombs made it clear that the US was not only
willing to slaughter the Japanese as much as was necessary to get an
unconditional surrender, but they could do so far more easily and rapidly than
they had been doing prior (which was such that it would have brought about the
annihilation by bombing of all major cities in Japan and the starvation of the
entire population of Japan within the next year or two by mid 1945). Given
that, they knew the game was up and let go of their last bit of denial that
they could get lucky and eke out anything other than wholesale surrender.

The Soviets may have killed several tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers in
Manchuria, but I doubt this weighed more heavily on the Japanese than the
routine losses of soldiers and civilians they were taking from the US/UK
forces (which amounted to tens of thousands per day, on average) on their
doorstep and on their home islands.

~~~
zeteo
The article makes three main points:

1\. The Japanese were hoping to reach a more favorable peace by USSR
mediation.

2\. Manchuria and Korea were providing essential resources for Japan's war
economy.

3\. Furthermore, after the USSR war declaration, Japan stood at risk of losing
the island of Hokkaido for good, if they prolonged resistance.

You're not really addressing any of these points, except (tangentially) the
last. Regarding that, the Soviet Pacific Fleet was certainly strong enough
(and had plans) to mount an amphibious invasion of Japanese-held islands:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands_Landing_Operation>

~~~
InclinedPlane
As I said, the Soviet invasion had an effect on Japanese decision making. By
mid 1945 Japan was already in dire straits, the Soviet invasion and the use of
nuclear weapons were just 2 more additional "really, really bad things" added
to their list of woes.

What I want to know is whether it was the determining factor of their choice
to surrender when they did. Would they have surrendered as quickly or at all
without a Soviet invasion? Would they have surrendered as quickly or at all
without the use of nuclear weapons? My reading of history is that even without
the Soviet invasion they would have surrendered quickly (at most within a few
weeks of when they actually did). Without the use of nuclear weapons they
probably wouldn't have surrendered as quickly, though ultimately I think they
would have surrendered before a land invasion of the home islands but after
much greater destruction of Japan's cities and much greater loss of life of
Japan's citizens.

As to the point of the Soviet amphibious invasion capability: conquering a
sparsely inhabited island with few fixed fortifications hardly is not in the
same league as the battle of Okinawa and D-Day. The Soviets might have been
capable of taking Hokkaido, but the US and UK were capable of taking Honshu,
and they had the recent experience to prove it beyond a doubt. I'm sure the
latter fact weighed much more heavily on the Japanese mind at the time.

~~~
zeteo
The Soviets might have had fewer landing craft than the Allies, but they could
also afford much higher casualty rates. Witness the Battle of Berlin, in which
they took 40 times as many casualties as the US in the (roughly simultaneous)
Battle of Okinawa.

------
clutchski
In "People's History of the US", Howard Zinn adds another angle to this story.
He suggests that the Americans, knowing an overwhelming Soviet invasion was
imminent, used nuclear weapons to force the Japanese surrender to immediately.
Then the US would be the only power negotiating the terms of surrender and
could guarantee they'd be favourable to American economic interests.

Fascinating read, it's highly suggested.

------
duffbeer703
I love how "historians" now troll the media with revisionist re-writings of
history with glaring and obvious gaps. The US submarine fleet had so decimated
the Japanese merchant marine by 1945 that they essentially ran out of targets.
That wasn't news, and the ability for Japan's colonies to supply the home
islands had been in decline for over a year.

I'm sure that even a group as disconnected from reality as the Imperial
Military Command had figured this out, and gutted the army in Manchuria long
before the Soviet land-grab. The Japanese faced veteran Soviet armored armies
with no tanks and a few dozen effective aircraft.

IMO the pressure placed on Imperial Japan by the firebombing and nuking of
Japan's cities, the impending total destruction of the overseas possessions
and destruction of the Navy was enough to flip some key individuals in the
General Staff or the Emperor to stop the insanity. The Japanese surrender IMO
is all about internal politics and is something we are unlikely to ever
understand fully.

