I remember learning in high school that the US dropped the atomic bombs because they wanted to intimidate the Soviets and that Japan was at the brink of surrender and that the US was shocked when the Soviets invaded Manchuria, but after reading a lot of ww2 books none of this is true and Japan was no where near surrender, and the US was ecstatic that the Soviets broke the non aggression pact and Truman even told Stalin about the bomb at Yalta. It’s just so puzzling that this is such a mainstream theory and that the atomic bomb debate is considered one of the heavily debated topics when in 1945 the debate never even existed.
Why is the idea that the US dropped the Atomic bombs on Japan not to get them to surrender but to intimidate the Soviets so prevalent in our society
- Thread starter Bellacinos
- Start date
Garrison
Donor
Well first question I would ask is whether it is prevalent? I mean certainly in the narrow confines of AH it comes up reasonably often, but I suspect if you asked most people about the bombing they would see it as the Americans ending the war without facing a bloody invasion, or possibly the Americans getting revenge for Pearl Harbor.
Probably because history is seen from our eyes that view nuclear weapons as horrible and the Cold War as inevitable and something the US foresaw in 1945. The reality probably is that the US didn't even think about the Soviets and bombed Japan simply because they could and they might as well try and see how the Japanese react.
Ok I'm going to first of all ask where this High School is because that's a very interesting 'take' on the matter which is not supported by the history or the actual facts but sounds like a more personal justification? Was it GENERALLY taught as such or only by one teacher and was the curriculum supportive of this take or was it more along the lines of the generally accepted reasoning? Again I ask because this is wildly different than what I was taught half a century ago and I know from friends it's not generally what is taught in most high schools.
Note that I'm not saying it didn't happen and frankly that's why I'm curious because I actually have no doubt it DID happen that way. I have a friend who's kid graduated High School a few years back in the South who was 'taught' that while the Moon landings happened they were expressly driven by the US to help bankrupt the USSR who could not afford to keep up in the space race. I was rather shocked to find out that the accompanying text books did indeed support that narrative.
The problem is that the 'theory' is NOT a "mainstream" one but one that seeks to redefine the historical narrative of the bombing and that's more than a little worrying if it's being taught as being 'mainstream' or even supported by the history.
Randy
I think I was mistaken in that since that’s what I was taught in high school I projected that to mainstream. It was said by most high school teachers from my school that at least the Nagasaki bombing was to intimidate the Soviets and I would say it was more accepted general reasoning. If that’s not the case in most high schools then that actually makes me happy and it looks like I was mistaken as that was the general theory from where I grew up.
This is valid for Brazil, I must say. I even remember my teacher whitewashing the empire of Japan to make a "USA bad" argument about the atomic bomb.
FWIW, Leo Szilard did recall that James Byrnes told him that dropping the bomb might make the Russians "more manageable" in eastern Europe. One should probably not attach too much importance to this, since Szilard disliked Byrnes very much (and the feeling was mutual) and Szilard's recollection first appeared in an article published years later. But even assuming Szilard quoted Byrnes accurately, impressing the Soviets could not be more than a "bonus" (as Barton Bernstein put it) for a decision that would have been made
anyway--indeed, that was practically made by default, since it had always been assumed that the bomb would be used, either against Germany or against Japan. The idea that impressing the Soviets was the main purpose has never been accepted by mainstream historians; Gar Alperowirz's work to this effect has always gotten mostly negative reviews.
anyway--indeed, that was practically made by default, since it had always been assumed that the bomb would be used, either against Germany or against Japan. The idea that impressing the Soviets was the main purpose has never been accepted by mainstream historians; Gar Alperowirz's work to this effect has always gotten mostly negative reviews.
I was taught this in highschool as well. supposedly the japanese were shocked by the Russian invasion of Manchuria and had already decided to surrender to the USA to avoid a communist take over, but the US decided to drop the bombs anyway to send a message to the USSR. it never made much sense to me
I think a large part of it simply that people do not really know WWII and how horrible it was. Their basic knowledge is Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima. They don't know Pelileu or Iwo Jima or okinowa. They think the single most destructive air-raid of the entire war (pacific and european theaters) was Hiroshima. They know nothing of the planned invasion of Japan and how many casualties were expected...especially Japanese. And, in truth, I do think there was an element of warning off the Soviets in the decision. It was a BIG decision...lots of reasons why it made sense to do.
I'll reply:
And note there's likely places in the US that may 'teach' that kind of outlook as well but it's not common. Thankfully
To be honest there WAS some debate and the idea that using them no Japan rather than in Europe would be more 'impressive*' which taken out of context is likely how the whole thing got started. Probably more so was the idea that the US anticipated the Cold War which wasn't true at the time with the US assuming the Soviets were to badly damaged to be a credible post-war threat to Europe. The US Marshall Plan for Western Europe really scared the USSR as it looked like the US would re-build the Allies all by itself and then turn them against the Soviets and the post-war reliance on the Atomic threat in no way reduced that anxiety. Couple that with LOOKING for reasons to assume the US was and will always be the 'bad' guy and it all pretty much writes itself doesn't it?
Randy
*- A bomb effects study group noted that the mostly stone and heavy concrete construction in Europe would (obviously) resist the bomb blast effects far better than typical Japanese construction. Of course the people this study was assuming to aim the 'effect' at was the Japanese in order to get them to surrender but that tends to be lost unless you read the whole report which those with an agenda rarely do after all
I will add my experience as well. I was not taught that Japan was about to surrender but I was taught that the bomb was about intimidating the Soviets as much as it was about forcing Japan to surrender. My instructor was very left leaning, and I have since spent considerable time learning there was sometimes a selective omission of nuance in his presentation. To his credit he still made it interesting, which is quite a feat in High School.
BobTheBarbarian
Banned
My hypothesis is that the narrative itself was started by the Soviet Union and then picked up by the American left. Gar Alperovitz* was the first western proponent of "atomic diplomacy" (he wrote the book by the same name in 1965); since then this thesis has appeared in Soviet/Russian literature with references to Alperovitz, as well as in English language texts.
As morally horrendous as the bombings themselves were (and the utilitarian thinking used to defend them), this is another example of left-wing intellectuals pushing "America bad" and historical revisionism.
*co-founded the far-left "Democracy Collaborative" in 2000, other books by this author include "Unjust Desserts," "America Beyond Capitalism," and "What Then Must We Do? Straight Talk about the Next American Revolution."
As morally horrendous as the bombings themselves were (and the utilitarian thinking used to defend them), this is another example of left-wing intellectuals pushing "America bad" and historical revisionism.
*co-founded the far-left "Democracy Collaborative" in 2000, other books by this author include "Unjust Desserts," "America Beyond Capitalism," and "What Then Must We Do? Straight Talk about the Next American Revolution."
Last edited:
Interesting. A lot of "Mainstream" thinking is sort of retroactive. It was said SDI was never intended to be real, just a means to bankrupt the Soviets. The Moon Race was very expensive, so it must have been for the same reason? That's completely false, the American thinking in the late 50's early 60's was completely different. At that time the CIA thought the Soviet Economy was growing, not sputtering out, like in the late 80's. The Soviet Union was considered a rising power, in the 1960's, like China is today. No one talks about bankrupting China, though they may end up going bust anyway, for reasons other then defense, or space exploration spending.
More then one thing can be true at the same time. Yes the Americans wanted to end the war with Japan, and yes they wanted to impress the Soviets with American power. However the truth is if the Soviets weren't a factor the Americans would've still dropped the bomb on Japan. If Japan had been willing to end the war on American terms they wouldn't have dropped it. It was the suicide culture of the Japanese military that forced that horror on the world. Japan should have moved to end the war in July 1944, every death after that was unnecessary.
The first thing you need to consider is what did Truman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff know in mid 1945 and what did they foresee going forward against Japan. Roosevelt went to Yalta with two goals in mind. He wanted a Soviet commitment to join the United Nations and he wanted the Soviet Union to join the Pacific War. To induce Stalin to join the Pacific War Roosevelt promised the return to the USSR of the territories taken by Japan in the Russian Japanese War of 1905. Stalin agreed to both committing to attack Japanese held Manchuria 90 days after the German surrender. At that date there was uncertainty about the atomic bomb. Admiral Leahy, Roosevelt's Chief of Staff is reported to have said "This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives." After that the US had suffered 25,851 casualties at Iwo Jima and 48,000 at Okinawa. The next operation, Olympic, the invasion of Kyūshū, was scheduled for November 1; with Coronet, the invasion of Honshu , on March 1, 1946. Casualty estimates ranged from 500,000 to 1,400,000. There also was concern because had reinforced Kyūshū; leading at least some US planers and Admiral Ernie King to question if the planned invasion force was large enough. On July 26, 1945 the US, Britain and China issued the Proclamation Defining the Terms of the Japanese Surrender, the Potsdam Declaration. It called for "We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction." This was broadcast to Japan but never delivered via neutral diplomatic channels. The Japanese cabinet was divided with the Army and Navy Minsters in favor of fighting on the civilians at least leaning in the direction of surrender. The Japanese Prime Minister responded in both Japanese and English "My thinking is that the joint declaration is virtually the same as the earlier declaration. The government of Japan does not consider it having any crucial value. We simply mokusatsu suru. The only alternative for us is to be determined to continue our fight to the end" The phrase mokusatsu suru was translated by the allies as "Killing by silence" Several years latter a dispute arose about the meaning of mokusatsu suru with some claiming it meant "to reserve comment" Most historians reject this interpretation. We do know that after the bombs were dropped and the Red Army invaded Manchuria there was another Japanese cabinet meeting where the deadlock between the military and civilian ministers was broken by the Emperor.
Truman, of course, had no idea what mokusatsu suru meant and did not know the phrase had been used. He relied upon the translation given him by the State and War Departments. He generally knew the casualty estimates. He is quoted as saying "We had a bigger bomb so we used it." Although unknown to the Allies at the time post war investigation showed that the Imperial Japanese Army was more upset by the Soviet Invasion that by the atomic bombs. Whether that means anything is doubtful in my opinion. The Red Army went through the IJA like a hot knife through butter and the smug Japanese Generals were undoubtedly embarrassed by their poor showing.
I do not see how the phrase "to reserve comment" indicates an acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration.
There were also some discussions in Switzerland where the Office of Strategic Services representatives was approached by a couple of Japanese businessmen who claimed to speak for the Japanese Ambassador seeking to set up a surrender. The CIA website (https://www.cia.gov/library/center-...ence/kent-csi/vol9no3/html/v09i3a06p_0001.htm ) has a summary of these discussions including the memos prepared for Truman. These discussions never really went anywhere and I do not think there is a paper record from teh Japanese Embassy back to Tokyo. At most what Truman had was a somewhat prominent businessman representing what the Japanese government was willing to do.
Still another argument is that the blockade of Japan would have forced a surrender within months if not weeks. Presumably the conventional bombing campaign both land and naval based would have continued. IF this would have caused a change in policy and how long it would take are conjectural at best.
To me the key fact is that it took an Imperial decision to overrule the Army and Navy ministers. The military, particularly the Army, had ruled Japan since 1940. Until that happened the official policy was to continue the war.
Truman, of course, had no idea what mokusatsu suru meant and did not know the phrase had been used. He relied upon the translation given him by the State and War Departments. He generally knew the casualty estimates. He is quoted as saying "We had a bigger bomb so we used it." Although unknown to the Allies at the time post war investigation showed that the Imperial Japanese Army was more upset by the Soviet Invasion that by the atomic bombs. Whether that means anything is doubtful in my opinion. The Red Army went through the IJA like a hot knife through butter and the smug Japanese Generals were undoubtedly embarrassed by their poor showing.
I do not see how the phrase "to reserve comment" indicates an acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration.
There were also some discussions in Switzerland where the Office of Strategic Services representatives was approached by a couple of Japanese businessmen who claimed to speak for the Japanese Ambassador seeking to set up a surrender. The CIA website (https://www.cia.gov/library/center-...ence/kent-csi/vol9no3/html/v09i3a06p_0001.htm ) has a summary of these discussions including the memos prepared for Truman. These discussions never really went anywhere and I do not think there is a paper record from teh Japanese Embassy back to Tokyo. At most what Truman had was a somewhat prominent businessman representing what the Japanese government was willing to do.
Still another argument is that the blockade of Japan would have forced a surrender within months if not weeks. Presumably the conventional bombing campaign both land and naval based would have continued. IF this would have caused a change in policy and how long it would take are conjectural at best.
To me the key fact is that it took an Imperial decision to overrule the Army and Navy ministers. The military, particularly the Army, had ruled Japan since 1940. Until that happened the official policy was to continue the war.
Last edited:
Yeah, he basically ignored all the war atrocities and the fact that Japan refused to surrender, and finished his explanation saying
"The problem is that not enought people recognize today how evil was for the US to drop the bomb"