this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
54 points (98.2% liked)

Japan Life

668 readers
2 users here now

For people already living in Japan - anything relevant to living or working in Japan such as lifestyle, food, style, environment, education, technology, housing, work, visas, sport etc.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Internet references conflating the two films drew anger in Japan, which was twice attacked by nuclear weapons during the second world war

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The USSR was never in a serious position to launch an invasion of Japan, and Japan was not ready to surrender for anything short of complete and total defeat. Even after the first nuclear bomb was dropped, there was serious discussion of continuing the war; after the second bomb, there was a failed coup attempt against the Emperor to prevent him from surrendering.

The USSR's intervention was mutually agreed upon by Allied (and actually requested by the Western Allies) forces and happened after the first bombing.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I don't know if I agree that the USSR was not in a serious position to invade Japan. For one, after they declared war on Japan as promised in the Yalta/Tehran Conferences, they were able to invade Manchuria, Sakhalin, and the Kuril Islands. I'm aware that the Kurils are tiny tiny islands compared to Hokkaido and Honshu, and they were locations Japan was probably not defending vehemently. So maybe the USSR wasn't prepared for the scale of a naval mainland invasion, but given the Japanese losses in Manchuria, it certainly seems they at least had the manpower in the region. It's not like the Red Army had to march all the way from Berlin to Vladivostok.

The Soviets and Mongolians ended Japanese control of Manchukuo, Mengjiang (Inner Mongolia), northern Korea, Karafuto (South Sakhalin), and the Chishima Islands (Kuril Islands).

This also seems to be a point of discussion among historians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War#Impact_on_the_Japanese_decision_to_surrender

American historian Richard B. Frank points out that there are a number of schools of thought with varying opinions of what caused the Japanese to surrender. He describes what he calls the "traditionalist" view, which asserts that the Japanese surrendered because the Americans dropped the atomic bombs.

Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings were not the principal reason for Japan's capitulation. He argues that Japan's leaders were impacted more by the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week after Stalin's 8 August declaration of war because the Japanese strategy to protect the home islands was designed to fend off an Allied invasion from the south and left virtually no spare troops to counter a Soviet threat from the north.

Btw, the story about how the surrender broadcast recording was saved from the coup, I always thought that was a fascinating story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito_surrender_broadcast

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

So maybe the USSR wasn't prepared for the scale of a naval mainland invasion, but given the Japanese losses in Manchuria, it certainly seems they at least had the manpower in the region. It's not like the Red Army had to march all the way from Berlin to Vladivostok.

Speaking purely from the standpoint of a mainland invasion, which is what the US was trying to avoid, and the USSR could not have undertaken, in order to force a Japanese surrender. They were in a serious position to invade Manchuria (and did), but that's not Japan so much as the Chinese puppet state of Japan.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

A friend of mine told me about a very thorough video talking about Japan's surrender and the (un)necessity of the atomic bombs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCRTgtpC-Go