Did Japan really surrender because of the nukes? Or is that just American recisionism...

Did Japan really surrender because of the nukes? Or is that just American recisionism, and it was actually the threat of Soviet invasion that caused it?

After the US sent the Japanese navy to the bottom of the pacific, massacred their armies, killed their best pilots, reduced most of their cities to ashes and begin slowly strangling the home islands, the Soviet entry into the war prompted the Japanese to surrender a few months before an American invasion would have quickly resulted in capitulation. Basically, america curbstomped japan for four years and then the soviets came in and delivered the knockout blow, because the japanese had only made plans for getting raped by one superpower, not two at once.

>Basically, america curbstomped japan for four years and then the soviets came in and delivered the knockout blow, because the japanese had only made plans for getting raped by one superpower, not two at once
Less this and more the fact that the one "neutral" party for Japan just became their enemy, but the basic gist of the post is correct.

>believes the Japan was nuked meme

If the Soviets declared war and then promptly did nothing, the outcome would not have been changed. The Japanese were hoping to exact grievous casualties on an American force and then negotiate a conditional surrender with the Soviets as third party mediators. When the Americans showed they could disintegrate an entire army with one bomb and the Soviets showed they absolutely would not act as a mediator, Japan's game plan suddenly disappeared.

>the threat of Soviet invasion

What did OP mean by this?

I was talking about the extremely effective american firebombing campaign and not the nukes you retard

The Russians had already invaded, sort of, the island of Sakhalin, and were preparing to invade Hokkaido.

>and were preparing to invade Hokkaido
Not without American ships to transport Soviet troops.

>and were preparing to invade Hokkaido.
This is a meme, no they weren't. And if they tried it would be a bloodbath for them. The Soviets had no experience conducting amphibious invasions. Their entire fleet had fewer craft than what the US brought to Okinawa and was far less well equipped.

Pretty much this. Japan was posturing so they had a better position in negotiations with the Americans. If I recall some elements in the nip brass were at first willing to eat the bombs. They didn't really care how many civilians died so long as they could save dear emperor and honor. Japanese command structure was severely fractured at this point so there are multiple different accounts on what was going on depending on whose perspective you are reading about. Some Japanese military brass absolutely wanted to force the US into a costly invasion to bring them to the table. Even after the first bomb hit. Pressure from USSR, militarily in Mangchuokokoko and otherwise was another factor in the decision to surrender.

You only needs to listen to Hirohito's surrender speech to the Jap public to understand how impactful the nuclear attack was. The fact there was the coup orchestrated by the Ministry of War before the speech was released supports the fact that there were radical military elements willing to continue. Hirohito got to stay Emperor anyways.

Yes they were preparing an amphibious landing. Their experience on Sakhalin was positive enough to make this feasible. You are greatly over-estimating the potential Japanese opposition on Hokkaido.

The Russians were making daily, unopposed recon flights over Hokkaido. They saw no vehicle movement (ground, air, water). After the Russians took the southern have of Sakhalin they were unable to find a single gallon of liquid fuel (Gasolene, avgas, diesel, kerosene, alcohol, bunker, etc.). None of their troops ever reported seeing a Jap vehicle in motion. They expected the same on Hokkaido. As it turned out they were right.

The Soviets didn't have the navy required for an amphibious landing to take Japan, their amphibious operations up until that point had been done using borrowed USA ships. And regardless, the USA had complete control of the sky and ocean surrounding Japan, they weren't just going to let the Soviets take it from them.

>When the Americans showed they could disintegrate an entire army with one bomb
meme

While the A-bombs are extraordinarily effective against stationary above ground targets like cities, they are magnitudes less effective against mobile or dug-in targets. The atomic bombs were not really a game changer at the tactical level. There is of course the added disadvantage of irradiating areas you plan to march your own troops through that make A-bombs even worse tactically.

Modern tactical nukes have the advantage of being loaded on precision bombs so you can hit exactly what you're aiming at, in 1945 it was literally just dropping out of a plane at extraordinarily high altitudes and hope you landed within a couple kilometers to what you were aiming at.

This is really fucking stupid question.

Back then, Japs only had tow choices: surrendered to Commies or surrendered to Asia/Pacific allied forces(US+China+UK...etc). And anyone who isn't a brainlet know which one should be chose..

read a book moran

Japan had been attempting to send Prince Konoye as a special envoy of the Emperor himself to the USSR to try and achieve their graces to mediate a negotiated surrender but the USSR rebuffed them. The Japanese feared the Americans most of all because (not only was America the one who had literally firebombed their cities into ash killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians) America was the one who was the stickler for the "Unconditional Surrender" that Japan was loath to accept.

>read a book moran
>moran
Maybe you should learn to spell first, "moron"...lol

The idea that the American bombings had less influence on forcing Japan into surrendering than the threat of Soviet Invasion is the revisionist one. The traditional narrative has always been that after Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Japanese were too worn down by the hopelessness of their situation to fight, validating the American's usage of nuclear weapons. It's only a few decades later that historians started to acknowledge the importance of the USSR's involvement in the Pacific Theater in mainstream academia.
So basically, "revisionism" isn't a catchword for "everything I disagree with" you stupid fuck.

hows your first year on Veeky Forums treating you?

They were ready to surrender before the bombs even dropped. They were trying to negotiate with the Soviets b/c they knew they'd get a better deal if they went through them rather than the US.

Dropping the nukes was a show of force to the Soviets more than anything else, since everyone figured a war with the Soviets was a possibility after the war ended.

Wew nice argument.

there is no argument, you don't get the reference between in 2008 you were still in kindergarten and never heard of Veeky Forums

You really are an idiet.

Most of the leadership already wanted to surrender before the nukes. The nukes just gave them the justification they needed against the hardliners.

Your stupid

>believes the Japan was firebombed meme