• SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    8 months ago

    Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945. Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war. and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. - The United States Strategic Bombing survey (European war) (Pacific War) https://ia801903.us.archive.org/33/items/unitedstatesstra00cent/unitedstatesstra00cent.pdf

    • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Sure, but that wasn’t known at the time so it wasn’t a relevant factor in the decision to drop the bombs.

      • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        But it was though. We had intercepted the communications between the Japanese foreign affairs head and the ambassador to the Soviet Union. The ambassador was attempting to get the Soviets to mediate a peace with the allies as they were not yet at war. We had their entire negotiation strategy. We had their intent and knew their wants, must haves and no go’s. All of which lines up with the peace we ultimately would have.

        We 100% knew. All we had to do was sit down and negotiate.

        • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          The Japanese were not ready to surrender unconditionally, and that was the internationally agreed endpoint of the war with Germany and Japan. Unconditional surrender and occupation was considered necessary to completely break the German and Japanese spirit and ensure no third world war. The Allies didn’t want a repeat of the inter-war period between WW1 and WW2 where Germany was not occupied and could tell itself that it hadn’t really lost WW1. The Allies agreed that the way to avoid this problem was to comprehensively defeat and then force unconditional surrender on the Axis powers, followed by occupation, re-education, and rebuilding. When you look at Japan and Germany’s success after WW2, it’s hard to argue that the Allies were wrong to take that stance. The atomic bombs are a side issue. The invasion of Japan would have been so much worse.

        • Malek061@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          You’re leaving out the part where the peace talks were already a non starter. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/japanese-diplomacy-1945#:~:text=Japan’s ambassador to the Soviet Union in 1945%2C Naotake Sato,That effort ran through Sato.

          After what japan had done, there should have been more bombs dropped.

          And I know your argument is disingenuous because the fire bombing of Tokyo killed more people.