[Largeman]

Did the US do some significant damages to Japan through their B-29 incendiary raids>? When I was in middle school I was taught that the total amount of deaths from the firebombing of Japan exceeded the atomic strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together, but I recall that during highschool I learned that the Americans didn't do shit to the Japanese homeland until they split an atom above their heads.

Also, if my former instruction was correct, why weren't more large-scale incendiary campaigns carried out against the Japanese?

[ThereBeDragons]

Because we only had so many more B-29s? As soon as we captured airfields from which we could bomb Japan, we started a massive firebombing campaign of basically every major Japanese population center; we hit over five dozen cities and Tokyo alone fifteen times in half a year; by the time we were through with it there wasn't half a Tokyo left. Half a million people died from firebombing alone; the entire Blitz didn't even kill a ninth that many. You might as well ask why we didn't bomb the Germans more than we did - because there are only so many planes to bomb them with.

[lovertothemoon]

There were many more deaths and destruction due to the firebombings of the cities of Japan then the use of nuclear weapons. Sure, firebombing was effective in killing people, but the nuclear explosions were symbols, and it was those symbols that ended the war.

[Nattering Nabob]

but I recall that during highschool I learned that the Americans didn't do shit to the Japanese homeland until they split an atom above their heads.

This is incorrect...incendiary bombings took place long before the atomic bimbs...the war ended very shortly after the atomic bombs...

Also, if my former instruction was correct, why weren't more large-scale incendiary campaigns carried out against the Japanese?

Many incendiary attacks took place against the Japanese homeland...

[MB.]

Incendiary firebombing techniques were a common motif in the Allied strategic bombing campaigns in Europe and against Japan. The atomic bombing of Japan was a political decision on the part of the Allies orchestrated to demonstrate the unparalleled scientific and technological mastery of the entente over the devastated Axis nations. The Soviet Union was significantly not a signatory of the Potsdam Declaration.

[Igor Antunov]

but the nuclear explosions were symbols, and it was those symbols that ended the war.

Not quite

The rapid defeat of Japan's Kwantung Army was a significant factor in the Japanese surrender and the termination of World War II.[1][2][5][6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_inv ... _Manchuria

Don't bother with the standard anti-wikipedia response, the entire article is heavily sourced.

[lovertothemoon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_surrender

On August 6 and 9, the Americans dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Between those two events, on August 8, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan, and just after midnight launched a surprise invasion of the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo, as promised to the Allies at the Tehran and Yalta conferences, and in violation of the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact. These twin shocks caused Emperor Hirohito to intervene and order the Big Six to accept the terms the Allies had set down in the Potsdam Declaration for ending the war. After several more days of behind-the-scenes negotiations and a failed coup d'état, Hirohito gave a recorded radio address to the nation on August 15. In the radio address, called the Gyokuon-hōsō (Jewel Voice Broadcast), he read the Imperial Rescript on surrender, announcing to the Japanese populace the surrender of Japan.

So we were both right

For for future reference, I don't care if you use wikipedia to back up your claim, but 9 sources is not "heavily sourced."

[Igor Antunov]

No, you attributed all credit to the bombs. But it doesn't matter. What matters is that the sourced information on what happened is available for free online for everyone to access.

[ThereBeDragons]

It seems highly unlikely that the invasion of Manchuko would have led, sans atomic bombs, to the unconditional surrender of Japan; the other alternative seems more plausible. From what I know, Imperial Japan would not have accepted unconditional surrender terms even if all their overseas colonies were utterly annihilated. I cannot imagine the Japan of 1945 doing so without an invasion of the Japanese homeland, short of the atomic bombs (or perhaps a five-fold increase in incendiary bombing.)

[MB.]

Japan surrendered because of the blockade.

[Igor Antunov]

It seems highly unlikely that the invasion of Manchuko would have led, sans atomic bombs, to the unconditional surrender of Japan

The soviets had already started the invasion of Japan itself, the Kurils were taken and the north island was next. Japan saw that it's most experienced land forces in asia simply broke and figured it could no longer oppose anyone on land, in the air or in the sea. The bombs were just the icing on the cake.

[ThereBeDragons]

Japan saw that it's most experienced land forces in asia simply broke and figured it could no longer oppose anyone on land, in the air or in the sea.

Of course. And yet, they were not going to surrender because the Japanese military leaders were fucking insane. Something like upwards of 90% of Japanese soldiers facing certain death chose certain death over surrender all over the Pacific. Civilians were told that the Americans raped everyone they conquered. You had infantry squads strapped with bombs and teenaged cadets fresh out of flight school - they didn't even finish flight school, they got sent to a special school for the sole purpose - flying piloted missiles in the hundreds while peasants ate grass for sustenance. The Japanese had lost every single battle for a while - one more would not break their resolve overnight.

The bombs were just the icing on the cake.

The Japanese had everyone from high school girls to geriatrics training everything with from swords to bamboo spears to awls to oppose an invasion of the mainland. A high school girl was actually issued one of these, and told that if she could get one invading soldier in the stomach she would have done her duty, because they didn't have enough spears.



The bombs made them surrender because there is no honorable fighting death against an atomic bomb. Or starvation, but that would have taken a very long time.

[MB.]

Or starvation, but that would have taken a very long time.

You underestimate the extent to which Japan was reliant on imports and how thoroughly and for how long the allies had blockaded the islands.

[Smilin' Dave]

The soviets had already started the invasion of Japan itself, the Kurils were taken and the north island was next. Japan saw that it's most experienced land forces in asia simply broke and figured it could no longer oppose anyone on land, in the air or in the sea. The bombs were just the icing on the cake.

The Kwantung army by 1945 was hardly their best army, and if it were it is only indicative of how dire things had already gotten. A lot of their equipment and reserves had been siphoned off from 1937 onwards to other fronts, starting with the expanding war in China and ending with the last ditch defence against the island hopping campaign. The Soviets during August Storm were not exactly facing stong opposition.

[Igor Antunov]

The Soviets during August Storm were not exactly facing stong opposition.

Regardless it's all the opposition Japan could muster. On paper they had 1 million troops in machuria, 600,000 surrendered, tens of thousands died, and the rest probably just fled.

[ThereBeDragons]

You underestimate the extent to which Japan was reliant on imports and how thoroughly and for how long the allies had blockaded the island.

Perhaps, but I'm convinced that Japan would endure starvation far longer than any Western country ever would. I don't have the details, though.

On paper they had 1 million troops in machuria, 600,000 surrendered, tens of thousands died, and the rest probably just fled.

You may want to note that the Kwantung Army only surrendered after the Emperor surrendered and ordered all Japanese troops, everywhere, to stand down. At the time that Japan surrendered, the Kwantung Army had lost less than ten percent of its personnel. Considering Japanese troops tended to (if retreat was inviable, which it probably was in this situation) fight extremely literally to the death, and the surrender-to-killed ratio among Japanese troops tended to range anywhere from 1/10 (Okinawa) to 1/30 (Guadalcanal), the Soviets would probably have had at least another six hundred thousand Japanese troops to massacre before the Kwantung Army was extinguished. (Plus the Soviets are notoriously bad at taking prisoners anyway.)

It is highly unlikely that the loss in combat of twenty thousand to ninety thousand troops in an overseas theater would truly have been the breaking point. So I feel it is extremely inaccurate to treat Kwantung as the the final nail in the coffin for Imperial Japan and the atomic bombs (which killed a lot less than probably would have died in Manchuria) as the "icing on the cake."

[Thunderhawk]

^ Though I believe the Atomic bombing was more important, I believe you are too narrow in the view of the Soviet operation in Manchuria. It is not the loss of 20k-90k soldiers, or that it would be a long grind for the remaining soldiers in China, but that the Soviets were commited and on side with the allies. Whatever diplomatic manouvering room Japan believed they had with the Kwantung army controling part of China was reduced by the knowledge that they would be facing the battle hardened Soviets with a huge warmachine who could and would take Japanese holdings in China.

[MB.]

the Soviets were commited and on side with the allies.

The Soviet Union certainly did not authorize the Potsdam Deceleration. I find the Allied and Soviet efforts against the Axis frankly incredible considering the ideological variations between the two federations. That said, the fascists seemed to possess a panache for self immolation through failed weltpolitik.