Was Japan Really Ready to Surrender without the Atomic Bombs in World War II?

Question

My classmates and I disagree on this. Some think that Japan was ready to surrender anyway and an invasion and/or use of the atomic bombs was unjustified. Others argue that if we hadn't used the atomic bomb, Japan wouldn't have surrendered until after more combat, killing more people.

Who's right?

Answer 1

After their kamikazi showing at Iwo Jimo, the prelude to the invasion of Japan, i would have to say most definitely Japan was not ready to surrender. They did have feelers out via the Swedish Embassy to open up discussions, but the military rulers were preparing for a long drawn out battle on their homeland, even getting the populace ready to meet the invaders.

Answer 2

Even 61 years after the fact, the question of whether or not the use of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified is still emotional and divisive. First of all the death toll was terrible. If later deaths from radiation induced cancer are included some estimates of Atomic Bomb casualties are over 800,000. Among those many civilianns were killed and killed horribly, many clinging to life for days and weeks as the agony of severe burns and radiation sickness ravaged their bodies. Never have so many people been killed in such a short period of time from the use of but two weapons.

However, what was the alternative? The most concervative estimates for the convensional invasion of Japan was one million American dead, three million Japanese. The US needed to wrap up the war in the pacific and turn their attention to the growing Soviet threat. There are those who argue that Japan was about to surrender, but keep in mind that we did not make them give up by dropping an atomic bomb on them...

...We made them give up by dropping TWO atomic bombs on them, because after the first they were still unwilling to throw in the towel. It took the second bomb on Nagasaki to give Emperor Hirohito the leverage against Tojo that he needed to order him to quit. Also had Japan remained a divine right colonial Empire it would have retarded their incredible freemarket economic explosion after the war. Japan would have stagnated under the same tired autocratic system that embroiled the island in conflict since the invasion of Korea and Manchuria in the 1920's. Instead, destruction was centralized on Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, while the rest of the country, and more importantly the country's infrastucture was left intact. This let Japan recover from the war more quickly than her neighbors and take the initial economic advantage in the region which she has maintained ever since.

I love Japan and hurt just as much as anyone for the pain her people suffered in WWII, but at the same time, were it not for the atomic bomb, rightly or wrongly, the Japan of today would be a very different place. I don't know that it would have been a better place at all.

Answer 3

If America had not had used the Atomic Bomb it would of taken longer to end the war, we would not have used the bomb if not necessary especially twice! The people may have been wanting to surrender, but the government did not. Do they really think that we are that way that we would drop a bomb if they were surrendering, if we were to do that we would of done it to Germany! No Bomb was dropped on Germany since they surrendered, but Japan was stubborn and not wanting to.

Answer 4

Historians are still divided over whether it was necessary to drop the atomic bomb on Japan to end World War II. Here is a summary of arguments on both sides:

Why the bomb was needed or justified:

The Japanese had demonstrated near-fanatical resistance, fighting to almost the last man on Pacific islands, committing mass suicide on Saipan and unleashing kamikaze attacks at Okinawa. Fire bombing had killed 100,000 in Tokyo with no discernible political effect. Only the atomic bomb could jolt Japan's leadership to surrender.

With only two bombs ready (and a third on the way by late August 1945) it was too risky to "waste" one in a demonstration over an unpopulated area.

An invasion of Japan would have caused casualties on both sides that could easily have exceeded the toll at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The two targeted cities would have been firebombed anyway.

Immediate use of the bomb convinced the world of its horror and prevented future use when nuclear stockpiles were far larger.

The bomb's use impressed the Soviet Union and halted the war quickly enough that the USSR did not demand joint occupation of Japan.

Why the bomb was not needed, or unjustified:

Japan was ready to call it quits anyway. More than 60 of its cities had been destroyed by conventional bombing, the home islands were being blockaded by the American Navy, and the Soviet Union entered the war by attacking Japanese troops in Manchuria.

American refusal to modify its "unconditional surrender" demand to allow the Japanese to keep their emperor needlessly prolonged Japan's resistance.

A demonstration explosion over Tokyo harbor would have convinced Japan's leaders to quit without killing many people.

Even if Hiroshima was necessary, the U.S. did not give enough time for word to filter out of its devastation before bombing Nagasaki.

The bomb was used partly to justify the $2 billion spent on its development.

The two cities were of limited military value. Civilians outnumbered troops in Hiroshima five or six to one.

Japanese lives were sacrificed simply for power politics between the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

Conventional firebombing would have caused as much significant damage without making the U.S. the first nation to use nuclear weapons.

Answer 5

Recently, the History channel reported that Japan had developed it's own WMD and was preparing to drop this device on San Francisco as soon as it was good to go.

Unfortunately for the Japanese, the US dropped a bomb on Hiroshima. This pretty much took the wind out of their sails from an offensive posture, and the rest is history !

This information had been pent up in the archives, until it was finally released, just a short time ago !

Answer 6

No, Japan was not ready to surrender prior to using the atomic bombs due to the fact, they would not accept the terms the Aliies wanted that being of 'unconditional surrender' which made no mention of what would happen to Emperor Hiroihito...Japan wanted to make sure he would remain as monarch because in order for Japan to survive, Hiroihito would have to survive due to reverance the people held for him. After the A-bombs were dropped, it was the Emperor who called for Japan to cease all hostilites.

Were the A-bombs jusitified? Of course there are 2 arguments on that, one for and one against. My father was in Europe with the 3rd Infantry Division and was scheduled to de re-deployed to Pacific for the invasion of Japan...all troops from Europe were to be used for the Operation Coronet, the invasion of the Canto Plain near Tokyo, scheduled for March 1, 1946 and said that if those bombs weren't used he thought hundred of thousands of American and Allied troops and millions of Japanese soldiers and civilians would of died in the invasions. His thought was as horrible as the a-bombs were, it most likely saved hundreds of thousands even millions of lives. He was grateful they were used
and from that sentiment I would have to agree with him.

I hope I have answered your questions.

Answer 7

watch "Diaoyu islands, the truth"
great doco

Answer 8

Japan was making moves towards surrender, but it wasn't a surrender acceptable to many in the USA. It wanted to keep some of its colonies, and it wanted the Emperor to remain officially divine.

But I would agree with those who say that the use of the A-bomb was unjustified. The civillians killed had nothing to do with the war. It could have been detonated off the coast to demonstrate its power, and America-friendly ceasefire conditions would have been met.

Answer 9

I suggest you and your friends do some further reading on the end of the war and the actions in the Pacific.

Look over this website and read the highlights. You will find your answer. Truman would never have authorized the use of the weapons if the war was nearing and end.

http://www.dannen.com/decision/

Answer 10

Nope! They were going to take over the world. Look up their naval vessels and how much better equipped they were. I have often wondered why the same thing was not done in Europe. Hitler was just as big or a bigger threat look at how he just marched right into France, Africa in search of the Ark of the Covenant of all things. Leterally destroyed England, Poland...