The training data contains writing that downplays the negative impact of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, probably along with a healthy dose of writing from people like Douglas MacArthur and Curtis “Bombs Away” LeMay, evangelists of the tactical use of nuclear weapons and the belief that sufficient bombing would “break” the will of an enemy (despite zero examples of that happening until the use of nukes on Japan.)
Terror bombings don’t work full stop. Even the nuking of Japan didn’t result in the populace giving up, and there’s ample evidence to suggest that it was at the very least the combined threat of the Russians shifting focus to the eastern theatre as well as the nukes that caused Japanese high command to conclude that their current losses would be infeasible to sustain. And even that wasn’t without internal controversy and disagreement.
There’s at least still debate that the nukes significantly impacted the diplomatic process, unlike the firebombing of Tokyo which killed more people and didn’t move the needle on Japan’s commitment to the war at all.
I think that the nukes did certainly affect Hirohito’s willingness to accept a surrender, together with the Soviet attack on Manchuria. There is little evidence to suggest though that it was the population’s sudden lack of support for the war effort or an attempted revolution that forced Hirohito’s hand. As such I don’t think we can even consider the nuclear bombings to have had much effect on the population, which is generally the point of terror bombings - to break the population’s resolve and force them to depose of their leadership.
This video has really interesting perspectives on this topic. It includes quotes from various military leaders at the time, with their consensus being that nuclear strikes were not needed to force the Japanese surrender.
The training data contains writing that downplays the negative impact of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, probably along with a healthy dose of writing from people like Douglas MacArthur and Curtis “Bombs Away” LeMay, evangelists of the tactical use of nuclear weapons and the belief that sufficient bombing would “break” the will of an enemy (despite zero examples of that happening until the use of nukes on Japan.)
Terror bombings don’t work full stop. Even the nuking of Japan didn’t result in the populace giving up, and there’s ample evidence to suggest that it was at the very least the combined threat of the Russians shifting focus to the eastern theatre as well as the nukes that caused Japanese high command to conclude that their current losses would be infeasible to sustain. And even that wasn’t without internal controversy and disagreement.
There’s at least still debate that the nukes significantly impacted the diplomatic process, unlike the firebombing of Tokyo which killed more people and didn’t move the needle on Japan’s commitment to the war at all.
I think that the nukes did certainly affect Hirohito’s willingness to accept a surrender, together with the Soviet attack on Manchuria. There is little evidence to suggest though that it was the population’s sudden lack of support for the war effort or an attempted revolution that forced Hirohito’s hand. As such I don’t think we can even consider the nuclear bombings to have had much effect on the population, which is generally the point of terror bombings - to break the population’s resolve and force them to depose of their leadership.
This video has really interesting perspectives on this topic. It includes quotes from various military leaders at the time, with their consensus being that nuclear strikes were not needed to force the Japanese surrender.
https://youtu.be/u3pTh6AMpvs