Nukes were used when Japan was already in a position to surrender, but the firebombing of Tokyo was when Japan still had control of the almost the whole Pacific theater. That is not to defend the firebombing, but it is hardly a surprise they didn’t surrender after it.
Japan was ready to surrender before we nuked them. There was zero reason for dropping the bombs.
4 Likes
That’s basically the opposite of the story that’s always told.
Yes, but it’s the truth. Surrender was on the table before the nukes fell, and the terms after them weren’t even much more favorable to the US. Also, the Russian invasion may have had as much to do with any changes as the nukes. There wasn’t any real defense for using them.
1 Like
That story was made up after the fact. Japan was asking the USSR to help negotiate a peace deal for months. Worse, we knew Japan was asking for a way out of the war without losing their emperor. We intercepted the communications between Japan and their ambassador in Moscow.
1 Like
This is a derail, but this isn’t true. You can argue that it wasn’t necessary, but the USA was not getting an unconditional surrender from Japan until the nukes dropped. That’s why this debate always comes down to whether or not you’d allow the Japanese government to remain intact after WWII.
And it definitely isn’t unreasonable that you wouldn’t allow a WW1-like settlement with imperial Japan after the near nazi level shit they pulled.
1 Like
I’m under the impression that some of the elements of the government were willing to surrender if the emperor was preserved and other elements were willing to fight to the end and it wasn’t clear which side would have won the internal struggle if not for nukes.
Kinda similar to what Russia would say about dropping nukes on Ukraine, only way to get a surrender now, actually saves lives, etc.
I’m not saying they’re on the same moral ground, just picturing the rhetoric and justifications they’d use.
We didn’t get an unconditional surrender after the bombs dropped. Japan retained their emperor, which was their only true bright red line. We called it an unconditional surrender (with the condition that japans keeps their emperor) because Truman was running his mouth about how he would not accept anything less.
1 Like
the six person supreme counsel was split 3 to 3. The hardliners wanted to surrender but Japan keeps their emperor and the military, the peaceniks wanted to surrender as long as Japan kept the emperor.
Japan retained the emperor in the way we were ok with. He literally went on the radio to announce he wasn’t actually god. He was a figurehead that we covered up for to allow some semblance to the legitimacy of our occupation.
The big raid on Tokyo was in March 1945. Possibly you’re thinking of the much earlier Doolittle raid, but that was nothing.
2 Likes
Which we easily had without the nukes. We were never going to sack the emperor because we wanted him to keep giving orders. We wanted Japan to say we surrender unconditionally. Japan wanted us to publicly say we are cool with you keeping the emperor. That is literally why the war continued past spring. Everything else is pure bullshit revisionism.
1 Like
I’ve fought this battle many times before too. You will never get some people in the US to agree to the truth on this topic, because they’ve been brainwashed by the fake US history since childhood. Truman committed one of the worst war crimes in history and should be regarded as the WOAT president. It’s insane that instead this is taught as some heroic event in US history.
12 Likes
The arrogance of this position is truly hilarious. Everyone who disagrees with you, which includes a large set of serious people are not only wrong, they’re brainwashed
1 Like
Correct. Sorry that you can’t see through it.
5 Likes
Doolittles book is a good read, btw.
1 Like
Wasn’t it Roosevelt the one who interned the Japanese Americans? Or were you referring to him listening to the Generals and not the scientists who created the bomb after the war who wanted an international community to monitor all uranium mines and nuclear power everywhere? It ended up in the Russians getting the bomb too, but I don’t think it was a war crime.
This isn’t even close to true. Firebombing wasn’t until late in the war, after Japan’s fate was obvious. March 45 for Tokyo itself.
Japan’s fate wasn’t obvious to Japan. They were definitely planning on defending the Home Islands.