An interesting thesis has been put forth: Atom bombs were not the proximate cause of the Japanese surrender. Now hold on a second before you dismiss it, and let's examine this idea put forth by a Japanese scholar. In recent years, however, a new interpretation of events has emerged. Tsuyoshi Hasegawa - a highly respected historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara - has marshaled compelling evidence that it was the Soviet entry into the Pacific conflict, not Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that forced Japan’s surrender. His interpretation could force a new accounting of the moral meaning of the atomic attack. It also raises provocative questions about nuclear deterrence, a foundation stone of military strategy in the postwar period. OK, the Soviets did declare war against the Japanese Empire and attacked them in Manchuria between the two atomic bomb attacks. That surely would have had some impact on the calculations their leadership was making. The Soviets were ruthless in ways that would have given even the professionally ruthless Japanese cause to consider heads being displayed on pikes and earth well and truly salted. If they got rolling and put a hurt on the already reeling Imperial forces, the Japanese may have had to make peace with the Bear and that was much less appealing than surrendering to us. In addition, it is well documented that Japanese leaders had little concern for their populace or military for that matter. We killed mind-numbing numbers of civilians in the fire bombing of Tokyo and while the technical feat of packing all of that killing power into one nuke bomb was impressive, why should they care how many bombs we used? They had already decided to use the bulk of their people as human bulwarks to absorb an expected invasion, so losing bunches to a mushroom cloud was simply another vector. Now that is some fodder for thought, but a tough concept to embrace fully. At best, the Soviets were able to cause serious pain to the remaining Japanese outposts on the Asian mainland. It would have been a pretty huge stretch to believe they posed an actual threat to the Japanese homeland that exceeded an impending American invasion let alone the prospect of losing a city a night. Plus the idea that somehow this calls nuclear deterrence into question is an even further stretch. I think it has worked quite well as evidenced by the complete lack of any nukes being used since Nagasaki. Now the Iranians may test that, and to be honest I wonder if anyone other than the Israelis have the stones to respond in kind. Personally, I'd be awful careful before I called their cards. So I will give Professor Hasegawa one possible for a Soviet influence, albeit a peripheral one at best, and one not bloody likely on disproving the validity of nuclear deterrence.
Read the complete post at http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Blackfive/~3/f9sxgS6HUaI/the-atom-bomb-ended-wwiiright.html
Posted
Sep 05 2011, 03:52 PM
by
BLACKFIVE