Current Events > is it true that the us drop the bomb to japan in wwii is for stopping them from.

(+) Yeah! (+)

killinq the chinese.

nah, the principal motivation was looking forward to both the cold war and the end of the ceasefire of the chinese civil war.

The success of Zhukov's offensive in manchuria was a serious threat to the future of the pro-western nationalist party in China, as all territory captured by the USSR was to be handed over to Mao. And Manchuria held most of the Chinese coal and metal deposits. We had no idea how much a coward Kai-shek would be, and assumed he'd be able to defeat Mao and reassert control over China.

That's why we even had a plan for invading Japanese soil. Prior to the bombs, the army faction had a firm grip on the imperial throne, and surrender was not viable. They were demanding far more than retention of the emperor; they refused to allow the west to try their war criminals or even agree to forced disarmament and occupation; terms like that were utterly unacceptable to Americans and Brits alike.

At that stage we were already aware of the actions of the Nazis, as well as the rape of Nanking, so we knew the Japanese were conducting similar genocide efforts. We knew we could not let the treatment of American POWs go unpunished.

The use of the atom bombs motivated the Japanese emperor to act unilaterally, breaking tradition and shattering the control the army faction had over his council.
---

It was dropped for selveral reason

1. was testing the damage on humans , Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were different from each other

2. Showing off to the USSR

3. End the war before the soviets could start a invasion of japans main islands.

I've read books saying that the bombs ended the war and also books that said they were about to give up on their own.

So I dunno. There seems to be evidence of both sides of this.

What's done is done. Let's not use them again.
---

WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...

I've read books saying that the bombs ended the war and also books that said they were about to give up on their own.

So I dunno. There seems to be evidence of both sides of this.

What's done is done. Let's not use them again.

The Japanese at the time felt it would be better surrender to the allies over the soviets. It was basically how the surrender and what japan would agree to.

Tc has a weird gimmick
---

All atomic bombs are for genocide. duh
---

pretty sure it was to hasten the end of the war and due to some analysis that more people would been killed if the war dragged on then dropping those.
---

Unite posted...

The Japanese at the time felt it would be better surrender to the allies over the soviets. It was basically how the surrender and what japan would agree to.

Specifically, the army faction of the high council was opposed to forced disarmament and handing over of war criminals. Because the high council contained war criminals.

They were willing to sacrifice Japan to save their skins.
---

Harry Truman was a nuclear playboy.

Unite posted...

WrkHrdPlayHrdr posted...

I've read books saying that the bombs ended the war and also books that said they were about to give up on their own.

So I dunno. There seems to be evidence of both sides of this.

What's done is done. Let's not use them again.

The Japanese at the time felt it would be better surrender to the allies over the soviets. It was basically how the surrender and what japan would agree to.

The Japanese were also invited to watch the US test their A-Bomb as well. The resulting damage and the threat of it being used was enough for their government to want to surrender. Unfortunately the way they announced it had a double meaning of "refuse to comment" which is what ended up being reported. And well the rest is history.
---

HiddenLurker posted...

The Japanese were also invited to watch the US test their A-Bomb as well. The resulting damage and the threat of it being used was enough for their government to want to surrender. Unfortunately the way they announced it had a double meaning of "refuse to comment" which is what ended up being reported. And well the rest is history.

Following the test there were multiple opportunities for the government to issue statements that they agreed to the terms, and primary source information from people in the room made it clear that they did not agree to the terms.
---

It was to test the capacity of the bombs. After the first one Japan tried to surrender. But it wasn't an unconditional surrender, and therefore was unacceptable to top government officials. Maybe it was also their revenge for Pearl Harbor, we all know that story of how the envoy delivering the declaration of war got it to officials AFTER they already received news of the attack.

Dropping the first one was crappy but could be considered sufficient to end everything. Dropping the second one was totally unforgivable and beyond excessive.
---

Unite posted...

1. was testing the damage on humans , Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were different from each other

Only three bombs existed at the time, and the first one was blown up in the New Mexico desert.
The gun-type (Little Boy) device hadn't even been tested yet.