Yes, but maybe in a different way than you'd think. There was a divide in Imperial Japanese politics - the Emperor wanted to end the war and was looking to surrender pre-Hiroshima. The heads of the military were split on a course of action - some wanted to fight to the end, but a more common position was trying to fight enough to get more favorable terms than just unconditional surrender.
It's common enough to fight a losing effort to get better surrender terms, and that's probably what would have happened. The United States never wanted to land invade Japan - the second option to bombings was a blockade to starve the army out. Do the Japanese still unconditionally surrender if they go that route? Could the Imperial Japanese Army be enough of a menace that the U.S. leadership takes less than unconditional surrender for terms? Maybe.
The most interesting question is what happens if Japan doesn't unconditionally surrender, become occupied, and have the MacArthur transition government put into place. It was hell at the time for Japan, but then Japan became an American protectorate and was able to run their government with one of the lowest military expenditures in the Western world. They were also well-protected from the various brutal Communist regimes in the area. Could Japan have been invaded by Red China or the Soviet Union if the Empire had kept more sovereignty and wasn't an American protectorate?
Interesting questions. After the Battle of Midway, the Japanese had already lost to the American forces and it was just a matter of time. The war was going to end, nuclear bombings or not. The question is when and on what terms. Japan got the worst possible terms - unconditional surrender, full disarmament, dissolution and loss of all colonies, and foreign military occupation - but then it works out that it becomes the most prosperous place in Asia. Funny world.
The Americans also showed the Japanese how to build cars and motorbikes, and now Toyota is the biggest car manufacturer in the world, and Japanese manufacturers are leading innovators in automobile manufacturing. The Japanese focus was small, incremental improvements over time, whereas for decades the Western attitude was 'big-bang' progress, i.e. trying to do a lot of innovation all at once. James Dyson speaks a lot about this in his autobiography.
Japanese manufacturing concepts of kaizen (continuous improvement) and muda (waste), among others, were copied by the rest of the world. The Japanese got the concepts in the first place from American manufacturing processes during WWII, used to rush Sherman tanks and other mass produced military hardware into production.
Sticking with the Axis powers post-WWII, Germany now produces it cars like it produced it's WWII tanks - big, powerful and expensive. The Tiger tank, for example, was a fearsome machine for it's time - one German tank ace in a Tiger laid waste to over two dozen vehicles in a single afternoon. It's 88mm main cannon could easily kill inferior American Shermans at over a mile away.
It's interesting to note how well Germany's economy fared after WWII also. To this day, the German economy is managed by keeping inflation under 2-3% (if I remember correctly). This is as a result of the rampant inflation in the Weimar Republic - conditions that lead to Hitler's rise to power. Germany today dominates the ECB (European Central Bank) so that mindset is at the forefront Europe-wide also, which contrasts with the slightly more laisse-faire economic approach in the US.
Very funny how things work out, indeed. Also it's fascinating for the historical reasons for the way policy, culture and attitudes are today.
Ah man, this was such a great and insightful and correct comment until this part -
> ...which contrasts with the slightly more laisse-faire economic approach in the US.
Nah, the USA hasn't been laissez-faire in money for a long time. Interest rates artificially low, lending based on political regulations, high ranking employees of major banks moving back and forth between government posts and high paying jobs at the major banks... nah, American currency/banks/Federal Reserve are incredibly government-managed and corrupt. Fiat currency + legal tender laws + direct election of Senate leading to short term thinking + deficit spending is legal and tolerated... well, that winds up somewhere, but it doesn't wind up laissez-faire.
Rest of the comment is good - what's interesting to me is that Japan got very little reconstruction money. Europe had the Marshall Plan go into effect, Japan had very little reconstruction money. It's a testament to the will and work ethic of the Japanese people how fast they rebuilt the economy and started prospering.
That said, I'm 100% with the rest of your comment aside from the idea that the American money/currency is run hands-off, very good comment. For anyone more curious, googling any of the terms in your comment would bring back some interesting results. I always thought it was fascinating that Germans were terrified of inflation and Americans were terrified of deflation, largely because of historical experiences in the years between WWI and WWII.
"Nah, the USA hasn't been laissez-faire in money for a long time. " - I only meant more laisse faire in comparison to Europe, and in a historical sense. I should've been more specific. Note I said slightly more laissez-faire ;-) It's moving further and further in the opposite direction now of course, with the crash of 2008 and ensuring economic upheaval, Obama administration's economic approach vs, Bushs' , Greenspan gone, TARP, bank bailouts etc.
Another interesting European policy decision arising out of the ashes of WWII is the European attitude to privacy of the individual, which is quite different to the American model. The European Data Protection Directive is interesting, in that specific protections are laid in place, versus the American approach which "relies on a combination of legislation, regulation, and self-regulation, rather than overarching governmental regulations" - Wikipedia
It goes onto explain that because individual's personal information was used by Nazi Germany to put people on cattle cars and ship them to concentration camps, Europe was always going to be more concerned about personal privacy than America, which had never gone through such a horrific experience. How could they possibly understand such an attitude, having never lived through the Holocaust? Fascinating stuff, in my opinion.
If that policy's really derived from WWII I daresy they've completely missed the point. The Data Protection Directive wouldn't help if you Europe were to fall under Nazi control again.
It's just a law that says the government can't process the data in certain ways, they still have the data though, and could start mining it by changing the law, or ignoring it.
If they actually cared they wouldn't be gathering this data in the first place. The U.S. (officially) keeps a lot less data on its citizens than the average European country, but that's been changing in the recent decades since the FBI, NSA and others were founded.
Relatively speaking. The first census was taken in 1790, the records being kept about US citizens today are a relatively recent thing compared to that.
Germany received less than half what the UK received from the Marshall Plan [1], and of course still had to pay reparations and some plans to dismantle German industry were also carried out.
Also from the same page: "Former U.S. Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank Alan Greenspan gives most credit to Ludwig Erhard for Europe's economic recovery. Greenspan writes in his memoir The Age of Turbulence that Erhard's economic policies were the most important aspect of postwar Western Europe recovery, far outweighing the contributions of the Marshall Plan. He states that it was Erhard's reductions in economic regulations that permitted Germany's miraculous recovery, and that these policies also contributed to the recoveries of many other European countries. Japan's recovery is also used as a counter-example, since it experienced rapid growth without any aid whatsoever. Its recovery is attributed to traditional economic stimuli, such as increases in investment, fueled by a high savings rate and low taxes. Japan saw a large infusion of US investment during the Korean war."
Ludwig Erhard is still known and popular today.
[1] And we know how badly UK industry up until Iron Lady.
> The United States never wanted to land invade Japan - the second option to bombings was a blockade to starve the army out.
I don't think that's correct. I've read that the alternative to the bombs was a huge invasion called Operation Downfall. According to Wikipedia: "The U.S. Navy urged the use of blockade and airpower to bring about Japan's capitulation...The U.S. Army, on the other hand, argued that such a strategy could "prolong the war indefinitely" and expend lives needlessly, and...supported mounting a large-scale thrust directly against the Japanese homeland...Ultimately, the Army's viewpoint won."
Fascinating, thanks for sharing that. I hadn't seen it before.
It doesn't surprise me that different military branches had different proposed plans - that's common. I wonder how much sway the Army had at that point? I'm pretty sure the Navy generally had more authority in Pacific operations since so much of the fighting was naval-based. Also, a lot of infantry in the Pacific campaign was the U.S. Marine Corps, who worked a lot more closely with the Navy than the Army during that era.
That said, the Air Force was actually a branch of the Army at that point - I'm not sure if it was Army or Navy planes that were involved in the raids and bombing of Japan. Edit: The Enola Gay which bombed Hiroshima was an Army plane. Which doesn't entirely answer the question.
Was MacArthur in favor of Operation Downfall? Pretty sure Admiral Nimitz wasn't...
I keep looking up Wikipedia links trying to figure it out, but not really getting great answers:
> A unified command was deemed necessary for an invasion of Japan. Inter-service squabbling over who it should be—the U.S. Navy wanted Nimitz, while the U.S. Army wanted MacArthur—was so serious that it threatened to derail planning. Ultimately, the Navy partially conceded, and MacArthur was to have total command of all forces, if circumstances made it necessary
Just spent about 10 minutes reading through that link and it's not quite clear who drafted the plans for Operation Downfall and who its proponents were vs. the blockade route.
I hadn't seen read about Operation Downfall before - I still wonder how much it was an option vs. a serious a consideration if the Japanese hadn't surrendered. Fascinating stuff - thanks for sharing.
Thanks for your very civil, truth-seeking reply! I don't usually notice or remember usernames on HN but I've noticed that in your comments before.
I don't know much more about Operation Downfall that you won't have already come across, but there is one detail you'll be interested in - from the Wikipedia article on Purple Hearts:
"During World War II, nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the estimated casualties resulting from the planned Allied invasion of Japan...In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Heart
Your missing the effects of Russia turning towards the east. The US was a little worried about further expansion past the disputed islands. Plus, the Army did want to invade and the Navy thought a blockade with constant bombing was the way to go.
It's common enough to fight a losing effort to get better surrender terms, and that's probably what would have happened. The United States never wanted to land invade Japan - the second option to bombings was a blockade to starve the army out. Do the Japanese still unconditionally surrender if they go that route? Could the Imperial Japanese Army be enough of a menace that the U.S. leadership takes less than unconditional surrender for terms? Maybe.
The most interesting question is what happens if Japan doesn't unconditionally surrender, become occupied, and have the MacArthur transition government put into place. It was hell at the time for Japan, but then Japan became an American protectorate and was able to run their government with one of the lowest military expenditures in the Western world. They were also well-protected from the various brutal Communist regimes in the area. Could Japan have been invaded by Red China or the Soviet Union if the Empire had kept more sovereignty and wasn't an American protectorate?
Interesting questions. After the Battle of Midway, the Japanese had already lost to the American forces and it was just a matter of time. The war was going to end, nuclear bombings or not. The question is when and on what terms. Japan got the worst possible terms - unconditional surrender, full disarmament, dissolution and loss of all colonies, and foreign military occupation - but then it works out that it becomes the most prosperous place in Asia. Funny world.