Historians rethink key Soviet role in Japan defeat

[cowcommander]

As the United States dropped its atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, 1.6 million Soviet troops launched a surprise attack on the Japanese army occupying eastern Asia. Within days, Emperor Hirohito's million-man army in the region had collapsed.

It was a momentous turn on the Pacific battleground of World War II, yet one that would be largely eclipsed in the history books by the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the same week 65 years ago. But in recent years some historians have argued that the Soviet action served as effectively as — or possibly more than — the A-bombs in ending the war.

Now a new history by a professor at University of California, Santa Barbara seeks to reinforce that view, arguing that fear of Soviet invasion persuaded the Japanese to opt for surrender to the Americans, who they believed would treat them more generously than the Soviets.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gTT2JIVvexygxWpYnKyDO-JVbUBAD9HJMCUG2

Anyone else agree with the professor? The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't end the war, the Japanese didn't even understand the concept of A-bombs until long after. But it was the Soviets that really scared them into surrendering, especially considering what they did to Europe.

[virgogal]

1. This discussion,one way or another,has been going on for 60 years

and will probably continue for many years more.

Who really knows?

[rug]

2. No doubt. The collapse of a million man army sealed it.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. I read something similar 20+ years ago,

and it was rather convincing then, too. Except, a couple of reviewers thought it was too pro Soviet, not enough pro American or pro Atomic weapons, and they trashed that book.

[Sherman A1]

4. I would think that both played a part

working hand in glove with one another, which I believe may have been the plan.

[Larkspur]

5. It's possible that both acts ended WWII

Some in the Japanese government wanted to call our bluff that we had more atomic bombs. We only had 2. But the Emperor is credited with overriding the military and supporting unconditional surrender to the Americans.

Either way, the Japanese were going to lose WWII. Their choices were few. Surrender to the Soviets or the Americans. Same kind of choice Germans made in Europe. Americans in general aren't as ruthless as the Soviets, so surrendering to us was a lesser of 2 evils from their point of view.

[provis99]

6. yes. The Soviets destroyed the Japanese army

They had no army on the homeland, despite the bullshit US propaganda about enormous US casualties in a possible invasion. The Japanese surrendered because their army had been destroyed in a week by the Russians.

[krispos42]

9. The US also had no invasion force ready.

By the time we were in a position to initiate "D-Day Two: Electric Bugaloo" the Japanese army would likely have been transferred back to Japan's home islands.

[Kaleva]

10. By 1945, the Kwantung Army was a shadow of its former self.

The best units had been transferred to other theaters and what remained was mostly ill trained and poorly equipped conscripts and raw recruits. Near the end of the war, it was primarily a counterinsurgency and border security force that stood little chance against a well equipped mechanized Soviet force almost twice its size.

[Historic NY]

7. The goal was to undercut the Russians...

relations had begun to sour and there were fears that they would have to deal with them in ruling over Japan. The big stumbling block of the time was using the emperor to force a program of rights on the people like the US. It became abundantly clear to Sec of War Stimson that Russia was getting into the act with their invasion of Manchuria. They resolved to act and act quickly to force the surrender.

[rug]

11. Under the Yalta agreement, the Soviets were to invade Manchuria three months after Germany's defeat.

The German surrender was announced May 8. The Soviets invaded Manchuria August 9. It was at the Allies' request.

[JVS]

8. While the Soviets clearly meant the end of Japan's presence on Asia's mainland, a Soviet invasion...

of Japan seems outlandish. Soviet experience with amphibious invasions is restricted to some activity near the Crimea. The US, with the world's best navy, was having trouble with the Japanese Kamikaze tactics in Okinawa. The weaker Soviet navy would have fared much worse.