You’re probably familiar with the argument that Japan’s surrender was in direct response to the Soviet invasion of Manchuria (and the southern Sakhalin Island)…
Familiar with, not supportive of. Internal discussions of the Japanese government make it quite clear which was the more pressing concern, and the mainstream view in academia remains overwhelmingly that the threat of further nuclear destruction was the pivotal point for Japan’s surrender.
This one I have saved in my favorites, but more generally you can find Sadao Asada’s views broadly reflected in academic literature, with Hasegawa’s position being regarded as revisionist, in the literal rather than pejorative sense of attempting to revise the established mainstream interpretation.
It depends on who you ask in Japan. The civilians didn’t care about Manchuria since the US was in the process of destroying every city in Japan. They knew the war was lost and wanted it to be over.
The army knew that they couldn’t fight the Soviets in Manchuria, occupy China, and repel American invasion of the home Islands. Amd even them, you still had higher ups in the military trying to overthrow rhe government to keep the war going.
Okay, so the nukes made Japan surrender, but did the surrender of Japan stop the war?
I would argue that the war ended when Germany was defeated, not Japan.
Or is it a shortcut that historians agree on to say that Japan’s surrender was the reason for Germany’s defeat?
Japan’s surrender was in direct response to the atomic bombings, it’s correct in broad strokes.
You’re probably familiar with the argument that Japan’s surrender was in direct response to the Soviet invasion of Manchuria (and the southern Sakhalin Island)…
Familiar with, not supportive of. Internal discussions of the Japanese government make it quite clear which was the more pressing concern, and the mainstream view in academia remains overwhelmingly that the threat of further nuclear destruction was the pivotal point for Japan’s surrender.
Interesting. Is there a definitive reference for this, that you have handy? I just did some literature searches but most cites were over 20 years old.
This one I have saved in my favorites, but more generally you can find Sadao Asada’s views broadly reflected in academic literature, with Hasegawa’s position being regarded as revisionist, in the literal rather than pejorative sense of attempting to revise the established mainstream interpretation.
Very interesting, thanks. It’s kind of funny how as I grow older, I become more interested in conflict termination.
It depends on who you ask in Japan. The civilians didn’t care about Manchuria since the US was in the process of destroying every city in Japan. They knew the war was lost and wanted it to be over.
The army knew that they couldn’t fight the Soviets in Manchuria, occupy China, and repel American invasion of the home Islands. Amd even them, you still had higher ups in the military trying to overthrow rhe government to keep the war going.
Okay, so the nukes made Japan surrender, but did the surrender of Japan stop the war? I would argue that the war ended when Germany was defeated, not Japan. Or is it a shortcut that historians agree on to say that Japan’s surrender was the reason for Germany’s defeat?
Germany surrendered several months before Japan did. Japan was the last major power to surrender.