[the_rosentotter]

He was clearly writing this for posterity.

Japan was beaten. They had already offered a complete surrender, conditional only on keeping the emperor, which was rejected by the U.S. Their utter defeat and the hopeless state of their armed forces was well-known by the allies, since their communication encryption had been cracked months earlier.

The real issue was likely that the Soviet Union, positioned to become a formidable power in the post-war theater, had promised to enter the war against Japan on August 6. The Americans needed to make sure that Japan had been defeated by that point and that the U.S. would occupy Japan, not Soviet Russia. Hence the rush to drop the bombs before that.

Also, there was no uncertainty about the lack of military significance of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the contemporary reports state this clearly, they even warn about the presence of American POWs in the area (which was ignored and they were incinerated along with the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians).

[vonmoltke]

> Also, there was no uncertainty about the lack of military significance of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the contemporary reports state this clearly, they even warn about the presence of American POWs in the area (which was ignored and they were incinerated along with the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians).

Hiroshima was the city that supported the Kure Naval Base and associated anchorage. Nagasaki was a major port that was an adjunct of the Sasebo Naval Base. Those were two of the IJN's four main bases. The impotence of the IJn at this point notwithstanding, I think it is unreasonable to claim they had little military significance.

Whether or not that justified levelling them in what you can argue were just live-fire nuclear tests is a different question.

[dmm]

> They had already offered a complete surrender, conditional only on keeping the emperor, which was rejected by the U.S.

Are you saying the Japanese offered to surrender, with the only condition being maintaining the emperor, prior to the bombing of Hiroshima? My understanding is that was the terms accepted after the atomic bombings and the declaration of war by the USSR.

[the_rosentotter]

Yes. According to documents from Roosevelt's office, the Japanese had previously offered surrender on roughly the same terms that the U.S. ultimately accepted after the bombings:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8390436

[fredup]

> (which was ignored and they were incinerated along with the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians).

This is inaccurate. Much fewer than 200,000 people were killed immediately (totaled across both bombings), including both incinerated and not, civilian and not.

[the_rosentotter]

Wikipedia has casualties between 129,000–246,000:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_an...

Casualties and losses: 20 U.S., Dutch, British prisoners of war killed 90,000–166,000 killed in Hiroshima 39,000–80,000 killed in Nagasaki Total: 129,000–246,000+ killed

It doesn't say if these are all immediate casualties (does it even matter), but it does mention estimates for Nagasaki immediate casualties is between 22,000-75,000.

[fredup]

You wrote that "they were incinerated along with the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians", which implies that at least 200,000 Japanese civilians were incinerated in the bombings. The 129,000–246,000+ killed figure you cite covers 2-4 months after the bombings. I am confident that no one was incinerated 2 or more months after the bombing.

Wikipedia gives an immediate death toll of 70,000–80,000 people, of whom 20,000 were soldiers for Hiroshima and 22,000-75,000 people for Nagasaki. This is far from hundreds of thousands of incinerated civilians.

[switchbak]

I'm sure you're trying to make a point here. But the fact is upwards of 80 THOUSAND people died immediately. Not sure what this hair splitting accomplishes.

[fredup]

I'm not trying to make a point. I just got the impression that upwards of 200,000 people were incinerated in the bombings, but I was skeptical of that number. I investigated a bit and just wanted to leave a note that the number was incorrect.

I don't think 120,000 lives qualifies as splitting hairs. I thought I was delivering good news, but judging by my karma, it has not been well received.