Any other ways to make the Japan surrender? (WWII)?

Question:Okay, so US dropped an atomic bomb on Japan and Japan surrendered blah blah; everybody knows that right? But do you think there would have been other ways that US could have made Japanese to surrender other than dropping bombs?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: Okay, so US dropped an atomic bomb on Japan and Japan surrendered blah blah; everybody knows that right? But do you think there would have been other ways that US could have made Japanese to surrender other than dropping bombs?

There were 2 other ways:
1) Invade the home islands in a bloody assault, where the japanese would fight to the last man, woman and child to defend the home islands.
2) Invade the southern home island in a bloody assualt, where the japanese would fight to the last man, woman and child, taking enough to make a large air base there to bomb Toyko & the main island. Invade the main island, where the japanese would fight to the last man, woman and child to defend the island; and capture the leadership.

Either way would have cost the japanese far more than the price they paid for the atomic bombs, not to mention the consequences to the US military; of soviet expansion into Japanese territory.

The US had a plan to assault the islands; and the Japanese had been training civilians in 'civil defense' and had calculated that if each man, woman and child could take at least 1 US service man with them; the US public would tire of the invasion. So we're talking MILLIONS of casualties on both sides.

The defenders of Iwo Jima and Okinowa fought nearly to the last man. Of some 16000+ soldiers, a few hundred were captured. The rest fought to the death.

yes

A blockade may have worked as Japan is an island.

Drop the A-bomb outside Tokyo (in an unpopulated area) and inform the Emperor that the next target might be the Japanese government itself. If Japan refuse to believe that the Americans have more of those bombs, drop another one in the same place to scare the crap out of the Japs.

No. I recommend reading about the Battles for Saipan and Okinawa. The Japanese were preparing themselves for a grand holocaust of death. Surrender and dishonor were too closely tied for the Japanese people to embrace it easily.

The atomic bombs took all honor out of the equation. The impersonality of death in the atomic age...made notions of some sort of honorable fighting to the death irrelevant.

The atom bombs finally opened the eyes of the Japanese people to the utter futility of war itself and the realization that death is death...and that honor is meaningless to the dead.

No. We were doing everything we could to "strangle" japan. We were using our subs to destroy the convoys going to an dfrom japan. Were using our subs to defeat any and all merchant shipping. We were using our air force to destroy its factories and harbours.

We were going to invade but because of the estimated 1 million casulaties alone, we decided to drop the two a-bombs. There wasn't anything else we could have done. every step was taken to ensure as little as bloodshed as possible as the japanese were defeated in the basic sense in early to mid '45. The bombs were using as a convincing tool that we could go "all out" against them. Even though we only had 2-3 left (most sources say 2). So to answer you question: No not really.

No, the Japanese were not willing to concede to unconditional surrender. The first bomb did not convince the Emperor or the military leaders to surrender, so a second bomb was dropped to force the surrender.

I'm sure you'll get a lot of answers on both sides of this contraversy. Here's my view:

In all the documentation and information that I've seen, read and heard all indicate that two things were in play at the time th bomb was dropped. The emperor of Japan was felling the pressure and worried about the 'secret weapon' that the US was warning them of. According to MANY accounts he was at the brink of surrender and had approached his military advisors on how to do so. HOWEVER, the military advisors were not willing to surrender and face 'dis-honor' and therefore had plotted to assisinate the emperor in order to continue to war effort.

So... while there is a possiblity that the emperor MIGHT have been willing to surrender there is a much HIGHER possiblity that either A)he would be convinced not to or B)he would be assisinated. In either case, the war would continue for months with the only way to end would be a full force invasion of Japan which would have killed tens of thousands on BOTH sides.

These were there conditions that forced the american war counsel to approve the dropping of the A-Bombs and it is the GENERAL consensus that it was the lease expensive option in terms of loss of life (on both sides).

To quote Gen. Patton; "It's not about the bravery to die for your country, it's about making that other son of a ***** die for theirs. In this case, the savings of lives were mostly on the American side... but then again... they bombed Pearl Harbor at the very start.

I hope this answers the question.

It is now common knowledge that the only reason the US dropped those bombs was to send an impressive message to the Soviet Union. They dropped the bombs to "show-off".

The Japanese were ready to discuss surrender before those bombs were dropped. They were ready to throw it in once the USSR joined the war.

Just research the statements from the top generals at the time; can't get any clearer than that.

Japan has enough supplies to last for a few more years. However the Allies did not want to put their plans of rebuilding on hold while waiting for the Japanese to starve themselves. This would have been as costly as fighting to the Allies. Also the loss in civilian lives would have been far greater than that caused by the bombings. The Allies would have continued the firebombings which were very effective and would have run up the bill in human loss still higher.
Understanding the Japanese military mind would also allow you to understand that the starvation deaths would occur first in the civilian population as the military would confiscate the food and necessities for the 'defending' troops.
So you see, plan A or plan B would have netted thousands of deaths or Millions of deaths, mostly civilian. Pick your plan...

Additional note...the civilian population was preparing for the Allies to invade. They had home made weapons and traps devised for this event. They were willing to die for the Emperor. With this Japanese civilian mind set the Allies were looking at the loss of MILLIONS of civilians during the invasion. Having just completed operations in Iwo Jima the US Knew that there would be NO surrender by the Japanese if conventional assault methods were employed.

So in answer to your Lead question....NO...

What explains this post hoc determination to blame the bomb and the bombers for Japanese intransigence and delusions?

It has been calculated, reasonably and conservatively, that in the Pacific theatre, Manchuria to New Zealand, Hawaii to Indonesia, the average death rate per month was 250,000.
NOT military deaths, but civilians death caused by Japanese polices and practices.

There were 4 million armed Japanese troops outside Japan which were engaged in continuous murderous assaults, especially on civilians as the war continued.

How much blood shed by others and noncombatants would you have poured out as an alternative for bombing casualties. Far, far more Japanese civilians were incinerated in the B-29 fire-bombings than by nuclear weapons--by a factor of 4 or 5. That was the most likely alternative, coupled with a naval embargo to starve those we didn't burn.

Yes! Take all territory around Japan that was theirs. Next, blockade Japan with Naval bombardments every day or every other. Start strategic bombing of Japan. All this would have cost lost of $$$ and lives and we were so weary of war and sick of it by then that the "bomb" was the best op out of that idea.
Old

Yes, America could have continued to firebomb cities which is much more effective than atom bombs. They had been working on the technology and Japan was on the brink of surrendering. But they couldn't waste it and wanted to show off to Russia so the bomb was dropped. What's interesting is the partnerships that must have existed between the two countries that allowed certain parts of Japan to survive and certain parts to be devastated. Imagine if Kyoto and Nara had been bombed or the Imperial Palace itself. Imagine if the land battle was somewhere other than Okinawa. Japan would look very different indeed.

Yes. America had 3 a-bombs at that moment.
One was used for the first experiment in New Mexico.
The 2nd was on Hiroshima and the 3rd was on Nagasaki city.
Both cities had a considerable number of population, modern buildings, were surrounded by mountains, had rivers and deltas, and bays.

There are more than 1000 desert islands around Japan. And those desert islands are very close to the cities. People can see those island from distance. 2nd one should be dropped on the desert island first. Then people got to know the power of the new bomb. But US didn't take this opetation.
It was as same as Curtis Emerson LeMay's blind bombing.

I think they needed the data after the explosion. Actually America sent research and filming teams to both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That is why we can watch the damage of that time today.