A bigger obfuscation is the cause of WWII. We are given the history of WWI, geopolitical alliances, assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, harsh Treaty at Versailles, collapse of German currency, WWII continuation of WWI, failure of Chamberlain appeasement, German Soviet non-aggression pact. No mention of German genocide of African Herero and colony in South-West Africa ( Namibia ), Italian occupation and war against Ethiopia, and Russo-Japanese War. The Axis powers shared that they were late to the game of Western imperialism and they came into conflict with the long standing imperialists.
Why did Japan surrender? (2011)
21–30 of 76 posts
Re: Why did Japan surrender? (2011)
#22Maybe Hasegawa's interpretation has new implications regarding nuclear deterrence theory, but not how the author suggests. The idea that the nuclear bombings were not decisive factors in Japan's surrender does not mean that nuclear weapons do not serve as a deterrence. Nuclear weaponry advanced so much in the aftermath of WW2 that now nuclear countries can literally reduce entire nations to pixie dust. And the potential of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) all but guarantees that nuclear countries will never attack each other for fear of nuclear escalation.
Re: Why did Japan surrender? (2011)
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article also poses the idea that its unlikely that the U.S. would surrender a war after a city was destroyed. Article also gives the example of UK not giving up after German bombing in WW2.
Don't forget that France surrendered.
France likely surrendered because their home country defense force was defeated and their capital overrun, the countries administration had little chance of extracting itself from the rest of France before being completely overrun.
This does not always mean surrender; think Napoleon's invasion of Russia. The difference for Russia in my opinion is that they had a large homogeneous land mass upon which to move and maintain their administration.
Re: Why did Japan surrender? (2011)
#24"If killing large numbers of civilians does not have a military impact, then what, Wilson asks, is the purpose of keeping nuclear weapons?" The writer stupidly jumps from the idea that if nukes have less than a major impact then they have no impact. Does anyone think the UK or USSR would not have surrendered if the Germans had nukes? If the US had today's nukes on 8 Dec 1941 the war would not have lasted nearly as lo…
> "If killing large numbers of civilians does not have a military impact, then what, Wilson asks, is the purpose of keeping nuclear weapons?"
I just was reading about this [1]. Unguided weapons miss their targets, almost always. As a result you need to mass together and fire large numbers of them to hit even one target with any reliability. Also, because of the large numbers needed and the need to fire them near the target (because accuracy decreases as distance increases), they become a valuable target, vulnerable to the enemy.
Nuclear weapons solved these problems (with a some serious drawbacks). One weapon will do the job, and its blast area is so large that accuracy is unimportant.
(Modern guided weapons also solve many of these problems).
Re: Why did Japan surrender? (2011)
#25Because they are an inferior and peculiar race.
Re: Why did Japan surrender? (2011)
#26"If killing large numbers of civilians does not have a military impact, then what, Wilson asks, is the purpose of keeping nuclear weapons?" The writer stupidly jumps from the idea that if nukes have less than a major impact then they have no impact. Does anyone think the UK or USSR would not have surrendered if the Germans had nukes? If the US had today's nukes on 8 Dec 1941 the war would not have lasted nearly as lo…
I don't think the USSR would have even considered surrendering had the Germans had two 15 kiloton nukes and used those against them.
Indeed. The USSR was already down ~5 million people, why would it have made a difference for the Germans to kill a few tens of thousands more? That would just make the Russians even more angry.
Re: Why did Japan surrender? (2011)
#27"Why/how did WW1 end" is an interesting question, too. Aside from cursory school classes and then some reading, I've never really looked into it in great detail. The elementary school version is "tanks broke the stalemate, and the US/UK rolled through to victory", but it was a lot more nuanced than that, with internal revolutions in multiple countries. WW1 clearly could have kept going for some extended period longer…
It's fascinating. I just finished "To End All Wars," by Adam Hochschild. He points out that Germany's military was doing quite well in July 1918 ... but that blockades had ruined Germany's ability to feed its people. Folks were getting by on 1000 calories/day; starvation was common, and with the Bolsheviks having stirred up Russia, socialist/pacifists were totally tired of fighting. After modest military setbacks, Germany's will to fight collapsed.
Large German units started surrendering to small Allied forces. Yes, tanks and the U.S. arrival helped clinch everything. But the meltdown inside Germany was quite amazing. Think of the U.S.'s final decision in 1973-75 to get out of Vietnam no matter what. And then multiply that breakdown of the warrior mentality by 100.
The Kaiser lost control of his country in the war's final weeks, and the German authorities naively hoped that they would get an OK armistice/settlement if they called it quits. When they didn't, that created such deep German resentment over the next 20 years that a resumption of the war became inevitable.
Re: Why did Japan surrender? (2011)
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't forget that France surrendered.
France likely surrendered because their home country defense force was defeated and their capital overrun, the countries administration had little chance of extracting itself from the rest of France before being completely overrun. This does not always mean surrender; think Napoleon's invasion of Russia. The difference for Russia in my opinion is that they had a large homogeneous land mass upon which to move and main…
I think it was the large number of casualties the soviets were wiling to tolerate, I doubt the French would have encouraged the loss of a million as was incurred during Stalingrad. Consider also that the large land mass was a liability as it had to be defended, for example from Japan.
Re: Why did Japan surrender? (2011)
#29Recommended reading: "Japan's Longest Day", the nonfiction book, not the movie or novel (Review: http://www.warbirdforum.com/end.htm ). This was written in the 1980s by a group of Japanese historians who interviewed almost everyone still living who had been directly involved in the decision to end the war. The key thing to understand is that nobody was firmly in charge. The 6-member Supreme War Council, with represen…
Well said. I'm remembering other accounts saying that one of the Navy commanders at the end was eager to see everything go up in a giant conflagration if necessary. Some strange, distorted sense of heroism.
In such settings, I think it makes sense to regard the combination of Soviets and A-bombs as decisive. Most really big events in history have multiple causes.
Re: Why did Japan surrender? (2011)
#30'...Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should We continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization...'
— Hirohito, August 14,1945