How Ruthless was Vito?

You don't get to be head of a Mafia Family by being a nice guy but compared to Michael how ruthless was Vito?

Vito is unable to order the death of his son-in-law though it is apparently obvious to a hysterical Connie that everyone blamed Carlo.

Later, Michael has no problem either ordering or countenancing the murder of a prostitute simply to get leverage over Geary. Could Vito have done that?

If Vito hadn't passed on when he did, how much longer would Carlo have gotten a pass? Plainly Vito knew Carlo would have to go. Would Michael have felt constrained from handling Carlo as long as Vito was alive just to spare Vito's feelings?

I think that the movie doesn't go into enough detail on Vito's rise to give us the depth of his ruthlessness. While it's said in the novel that Sonny made up for what Vito lacked in that area, I also remember reading that Tom was surprised to find out that Johnny Fontaine was screwed by some records piracy that Vito was involved in. He had no problem doing that to his godson, so what else was he capable of??

Yes I agree, Vito knew Carlo had to go. But I also think even Vito knew his time was running out. You can tell this when he steps down and makes Michael head Don. Vito even mentions that hes drinking more wine! lol. Its little hints such as those that make you wonder.

But hey! Thats just my theory.

That's true, Lilo. But Vito also knew that Michael would deal with Carlo upon Vito's death. He had to fully expect and even support that. He just didn't have the stomach to see his daughter endure the pain of being a widow. But I'm sure he was still in favor of Carlo getting what was coming to him . If you believe in revenge (which Vito did), killing Carlo was a no brainer.

While Vito did not 'order' the killing of Carlo (perhaps in part not wishing to make his only daughter a widow...NAAAHHHH), Vito was perfectly willing to allow Michael to have it done, along , it's a pretty fair assumption that he had no problem with it happening...

There was no hurry to do away with Carlo as long as he was kept under tight reigns after the 'peace' was made that allowed Michael's return. To have him alone done away with prior to the 'baptism day massacre' would've immediately arouses suspicion among the other Families, particularly Barzini.

Anyway it was imperative to get Carlo to admit to his part in Sonny's murder...something he might never have done prior to Vito's death and the settling of all 'Family Business'.

Apple

Vito's hands were tied as it relates to Carlo. He took an oath not to do anything to start another war, so if he killed Carlo it would be an indirect attack on the Barzini family.
Vito and Michael meticulously planned what had to happen in the upcoming war (first order of business, build a secret regime under Neri and send Tom to Vegas).

This was always to be Michael's war, so Vito left it to him.
When Michael has had all the heads of the families killed it is then he approaches Carlo and informs him TODAY I SETTLE ALL FAMILY BUSINESS.

I have no doubt Vito in his day would have been ruthles enough to kill Carlo, son in law or not. This is the guy who shot Fanucci in the mouth one time to many, just in case he wasn't dead, and then casually relieved the corpse of a wallet and all his money, in order to take power with the backing of Clemenza and Tessio (who paid him $50 each). This is also the guy who invited that landlord to ask around about him. Once the poor landlord did, he was terrified to so much as sit down in his office. Obviously he had heard some scary stories.

By the end, even Michael - hardly a sensitive fellow - admitted that he couldn't "do it any more."

I don't think that we can infer, however much Vito may have mellowed by the end, that he was anything less than the single most ruthless person in his time and place. How else could he have risen so far?

This is definitely true. Not to mention, this is the same guy who gutted Don Tommasino to avenge the murder of his family. Don Vito is a tough fellow and also one who never goes back on his word.

Lots of good points made, especially about not wanting to tip off Barzini by getting rid of Carlo too soon.

But if Vito had lived another five years, would Carlo have done so as well?

And given Vito's low opinion about men that made their living off of women, would he have assented to murdering a woman just to get one up on Geary?

I dont think Vito would, IMHO.

Doesn't really matter. Vito was in no rush to have Carlo die ... remember his strong belief that revenge is a dish best served cold.

Sure he would have.

Don't get all misty eyed when thinking about how high and mighty Vito was. He was a thug, albeit a smart one. His Family did well in business and they didn't need to resort to being pimps to earn their living BUT if they did (and became pimps) that wouldn't have mattered to Vito... he was earning a living for his Family.

True that.
But there again Vito refused to murder the attackers of Bonasera's daughter, was seemingly against drugs not only for pragmatic reasons (he wrongly thought it would jeopardize his business) but moral ones (he called it a dirty business), and was quite contemptuous of Tattaglia's primary business.

I'm not saying Vito wasn't cold, cruel and evil. Just that Michael was (or became) even more so.

I don't think that's true, given that many agree that anything Michael did, a younger Vito would probably have done as well. Including, IMO, having his traitorous brother murdered.)

I guess we can dismiss that bandleader story...but what 'cold, cruel and evil' act of Michael's can equal being prepared to blow a guys brains out for simply refusing to let your godson out of a contract?

What Michael lacked ... or perhaps had once had but lost ... was an 'old world' warmth. But he was no more cold a businessman than his father had been.

By the way...consensus is that Michael didn't order the murder of that prostitute. That may have all be orchestrated by Tom.

Apple

I don't think Vito would have had a close relative murdered.
Vito refused to make his living exploiting women. Of course he did things that were just as bad but this showed he had some restraints.

Although his initial refusal to invest in drugs was primarily a business decision I think it's clear that there was some moral disdain there as well.

I used to think that Tom did the prostitute murder all by himself but the more I think about it the more I think that Michael set it up and gave the go-ahead.

Michael was a complete control freak. I can't imagine anything as big as setting up Geary taking place without his knowledge and consent.

There is no way to know that for certain, because Vito never had to experience the betrayal of a close relative. Like a jealous older brother, for instance. A betrayal that would have put not only his own life in danger but also the existence of the entire empire.

We tend to give Vito much credit as the 'kindly old man' and in GFII, dashing young Don. He really did not go through the type of transformation that Michael eventually did. He was a 'control freak' as well. This is so evident in how he chose to handle the killing of Fanucci; right from the dinner at which he tells Clemenza & Tessio that he'll 'take care of everything'...to the shadowing on the rooftops to the shooting (and raiding of the wallet) itself.

How ruthless was Vito? Pretty ruthless.

1. The fact is Vito died before Carlo, but he and Michael had planned every detail of what was to be done, and there is no question that Carlo's fate was sealed before Vito died. I can almost hear Vito telling Michael for the umpteenth time: "Now remember you cannot touch Carlo until you are certain Barzini and the others are already dead."

2. He would have considered the prostitute in Nevada to be collateral damage just as the prositute who died in bed with Tattaglia was. Vito's and Michael's opinion was
echoed by Hagen when he explained to the Senator that "this girl" had no identity, no family and it will be as if she never existed

I'm not so sure we can be certain that Vito discussed the Carlo problem with Michael. Vito knew that Michael knew what a thread Carlo was.
On the other hand: Michael had put Carlo a little too close. Carlo should have smelled the rat when he heard he was going to be Michael's right hand man in Vegas, while Hagen was out. Carlo's little modest vain nod when he hears about his promotion is unforgettable.

I think It's because Vito was originally from Sicily, and Sicilians believe strongly in family, even though Carlo beat on his daughter. That's most likely why he didn't want anything happening to Carlo. Michael was an Americanized Sicilian. That's just my guess. I think Vito wanted to also be 100% sure that Vito double crossed the fam.

Other than the horse and Fanucci, the films didn't show us much of Vito's ruthlessness. But the novel did--attest the murder of the Capone gunmen. I don't see any substantive difference between Vito and Michael in the ruthlessness department: it comes with striving to be a Mafia pezzanovante.

As for Carlo, in a deleted scene, Vito admits to Michael that his failure to act on Sonny's and Appolonia's murders were "weaknesses." But there were pragmatic reasons for not whacking Carlo. As has been pointed out here, it would have signaled Barzini and the others that the Corleones knew who set up Sonny--and who was behind it. That would have been fatal to the Great Massacre of 1955. Another: if Michael had had Carlo whacked before Vito died, Connie would have gone running to her father, driving a wedge between Vito and Michael and undermining Michael's authority.

Carlo never smelled the rat because he actually believed he was Capo Regime Material when in fact he was nothing more than a philandering, wife beating moron.

Carlo was a tool......

Lots of interesting responses.

Not that it would have helped much in escaping but I always thought that Carlo's delusions of grandeur were only matched by his utter stupidity in not getting out of town shortly after Sonny met his end. Certainly living next door to murderous people who never forgive or forget doesn't seem too wise...

But on the ruthless thing I go back and forth. I've been rereading a lot of the Silmarillion lately and Vito and Michael still seem to me to have slightly different fatal flaws-just like Melkor and Sauron.

Vito and Michael were both evil, no doubt about that and who would claim otherwise?

But in Vito's case at least his Pride and Wrath were also tempered by loyalty to friends and family, honestly caring about people within his circle of trust, and living by a certain code of personal conduct , which although harsh and self-serving still had a twisted sort of fairness to it.

Do we ever see any hint that Michael cares about anyone outside of himself? He uses Tom like toilet paper and doesn't care about being more obvious about this as the film progresses. If Michael had been less self-absorbed, perhaps he would have picked up on Fredo's discontent or Kay's issues.

Does Michael have any friends, people that either aren't afraid of him or that are outside of the criminal realm? Vito honestly likes Nazorine and does a favor for him that probably ends up saving his life. Michael has no people like that and doesn't seem to want them either. Michael appears to be much more "What can you do for me right now".

I think Michael was also envious of the straight life he could have had so in a way this made him less forgiving and more ruthless than Vito was. Vito was more at peace with who he was and what he did than Michael was I think.

It's certainly true that Vito never had to deal with betrayal by blood but I can imagine him saying "I would not live my life so that that would have been possible".

Good discussion.

Well, I do recall a passage in the novel stating that after Sonny's death Carlo suddenly became a doting husband to Connie and in general behaved himself. That behavior would make slightly more sense than bolting and bringing unwanted attention to oneself.



To repeat an earlier post...while equal in ruthlessness as it served 'The Business'...it can be argued that Michael did lack a depth that Vito possessed, that gift of (dare I say it again)...old world warmth, and yes, loyalty.



Michael cared about protecting his 'Family' as a whole. And he did it well. Unfortunately it is at the expense of individuals in his own, personal 'family'. This again is where he is in deep contrast with Vito.

While we have talked about the character flaws of Vito and Michael, perhaps we have overlooked one thing. Vito saw first hand, as a child what happened when the Mafia was crossed. He witnessed his mother die, and was shipped to the U.S. where he had to learn a new language and a new culture. When he got fired from the grocery because Fanucci forced Genco Sr. to hire his nephew, Vito understood he was going nowhere in the world unless he chose the life he lived. He was already mixed up with Clemenza and Tessio selling stolen clothing, stealing rugs, etc., and when confronted by Fanucci he understood he had to take Fanucci out and run his own "business." Later in his life he told Michael he had no regrets because he did not want to be some kind of puppet manipulated bu others. Throughout his life Vito probably believed this rationale, and that allowed him to have a good marriage, to love his children, to maintain friendships, and to show respect for others.
Michael was totally different. He grew up affluent. HE went to an Ivy League school, and while he was certainly happy to live in that lifestyle, he was also a rebel who joined the army and took pleasure in telling his father he would never work for him, nor be a man like him.

Then after Vito was shot and Michael saw that it was necessary for him to become involved in the family busines, he did so with a vengence. Its kind of like someone who converts from one religion to another...people like that are probably a bit more zealous than those born into it.

So for Michael being the Don had nothing to do with trading favors, showing respect for others, or even loving his family (clearly the only reason he took his kids away from Kay had nothing to do with his caring about them, but instead it was a way to get back at her for "leaving" him).

A good example of the difference is een in the treatment of Johnnie Fontaine. To Vito he was a beloved godson who he could help, but who he could also reprimand, and give advice. To Michael Johnny was just a cash cow. In GF III Michael doesn't even give Johnny the courtesy of litening to his song, but instead humiliates him by making a reference to Tony Bennett and leaving the room. Vito would have never done a thing like that because such rudeness, to Vito, was an infamnia.

I think at the end of the day, they both were equally as ruthless, but the film obviously is about Michael's life. So naturally, since there's more screen time of him throughout the entire trilogy, you get a sense that "we've been with him the whole time...his entire life."

So while we've seen dashes of Don Vito's ruthlessness, I dont take that to mean "he wasn't as" ruthless as Michael. Plus, remember-we're talking about BOSSES here, not capos, not soldiers, who(in my estimation or ignorance here wouldn't have as much to worry about like a boss would.

Perhaps Vito was to some degree as manipulative as Michael when he manipulates him into taking over the olive oil business. And Michael inherits all the mess and unpayed checks - the Barzini coup, killing Carlo, etc.
After Michael had come back from Sicily, he wanted to do everything right (= right in the eyes of his father). And that's what he promised his father: "I can handle it."
Michael is honest to his mother and maybe she's one person he's not trying to manipulate. He asks her: "But by being strong for his family could he [Vito] lose it?" Of course, he's talking about himself. He's trying so hard to protect his family but on his way his heart became cold. He couldn't really love his family anymore, so he lost it.

"Vito and Michael were both evil, no doubt about that and who would claim otherwise?"

Actually, I don't think they were evil, particularly Vito. Charles Manson--yes. John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy--yes. Mrs. Iselin (Angela Lansbury's character in the first "Manchurian Candidate" movie)--yes. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney--yes. But Vito and Michael--no.

Both men were engaged in methods of earning income (extortion, racketeering etc.) that are at best quite shady. Yet there are legal ways of making a living that are equally questionable, if not more so. Is forcing businesses to pay protection money really worse than denying people healthcare coverage? In Part II, either Michael or Tom has a prostitute killed to retaliate against a corrupt, bigoted senator. While the senator definitely deserved retaliation, the prostitute hadn't done anything on her part to deserve to be killed. But even this isn't nearly as bad as invading a country without any provocation and getting tens, if not hundreds of thousands of equally innocent people killed to avenge your father (Bush's animosity toward Saddam appears to have been driven by Saddam's assassination attempt on his father in 1993).

I actually admire Vito tremendously, he's one of my two favorite movie characters (the other is Indiana Jones). The reason is because Vito has an incredible combination of toughness, muscle and ruthlessness on the one hand, and compassion and wisdom on the other. This is rare in someone in a position of power. Combined with his incredible "rags to riches" story, it makes him a highly appealing character.

Michael lacked Vito's sense of fairness. Vito IMHO genuinely liked and loved people, Michael did not. In many ways Michael is a more one dimensional person than Vito.

I do think Michael and Vito were both evil. Each of them places little value on human life if it gets in the way of what they want. Each will order murders in a nanosecond if they feel it's required. They both set up elaborate organizations that ran on fear, fed on people's vulnerabilities, and extorted money and services. Greed and Pride were extreme in both men even as they talked about family and respect. You could even be minding your own business (as both the bandleader and Woltz were) and if you had something Vito wanted, he would take it under threat of violence.

The difference that I see is that Vito is a bit more of a
Magnificent Bastard than Michael was. Vito was much more affable and actually occasionally helped people without an immediate expectation of a return favor. Michael was more the Chessmaster
but couldn't hold on to his family as Vito did. I do think he took things beyond where Vito would have gone.

But they were both evil. If Nazorine hadn't paid up his protection money to the Don's bakers organization (from the book)or if someone borrowed money from a Corleone loan shark and didn't pay it back with appropriate interest those folks would have gotten hurt. Badly.

Wait. Are you describing Vito Corleone or Adolph Hitler?

"You could even be minding your own business (as both the bandleader and Woltz were) and if you had something Vito wanted, he would take it under threat of violence."

I don't think they were merely "minding their own business." Minding your own business would be a store owner who gangsters go to and demand protection money. The situation with the bandleader and Woltz was different. Particularly Woltz. In his conversation with Tom, Woltz made it clear that he was denying Johnny the role because of a personal vendetta and a desire to "run him out of the business," even though he actually believed Johnny was perfect for the role. While one could argue that Woltz had a right to cast whoever he wanted for whatever reason, Johnny, Tom and Vito still had huge reason to be pissed. Although one might seriously question whether killing an innocent horse was an acceptable response, Woltz was not some poor little innocent victim that had something terrible happen to him for no reason.

"Wait. Are you describing Vito Corleone or Adolph Hitler?"

How many times have the words "wisdom" and "compassion" been used regarding Hitler?

Hmm. I see it differently.
It's explained more in the book that Woltz was too stupid and egocentric to recognize that Vito was playing in a different league than he was but that aside, Woltz's only mistake was not giving Fontane a role that Fontane (and Vito) thought Fontane deserved. Woltz was not beholden to Vito in any way and owed him no favors or money. What Vito did to Woltz (and whoever Woltz had given the movie role to) was exactly what Fanucci had done to Vito years before when he leaned on Abbandando to get Vito fired. It was pure extortion. It was a higher level and for bigger stakes but the principle was the same. "Give my friend what he wants or I will harm you".

So Woltz was minding his own business and through no action of his own ran afoul of Vito. Woltz certainly has the right to run his studio as he sees fit without an obscure olive oil importer telling him who to hire.

*Woltz is not innocent (in the book the crime with the young girl appalled Vito) but he hadn't involved himself in Vito's world.

** Also I think it's very likely that once Vito discovered that Woltz could be bullied , Vito (and his friends) would have expanded extortion and racketeering activities on Hollywood in general and Woltz in particular. Woltz never would have been free.

"...Woltz's only mistake was not giving Fontane a role that Fontane (and Vito) thought Fontane deserved."

But didn't Woltz also think Fontane deserved it, on acting merit at least? Remember what he said to Tom: "That part is perfect for him..." Aren't acting roles supposed to go to who the role is most suited for?

Listen to what Woltz says, Woltz despised Fontaine.

"Listen to what Woltz says, Woltz despised Fontaine."

I know he despised him as a person. When I said "deserved," I meant that Woltz thought Johnny would be the best actor for the role.

The film doesn't show much violence. We see mostly the top level gangsters. This is what leads Vito to the deteriorated self image: "After all we're not murderers." But murderers they were from the very beginning.
Clemenza would have killed the cop when they stole the carpet.
They would have killed the truck drivers they robbed if they didn't give in.
The novel and the film portray Vito as a mild mannered man. And this is what makes the character Don Corleone so interesting: The killer and the tender, loving man.

And don't forget that in the novel an olive oil wholesaler who refused to give in to Vito disappeared leaving his wife and children behind.

Ruthless is as ruthless does. Michael said it succinctly when he wooed Kay in New Hampshire: "My father is no different than other men with responsibilities..." Powerful men have always justified the use of force--or being "forceful" or "effective"--to get their way, and identifying getting their way with overall good. "Politicians don't have people killed," Kay replied. Was Truman "ruthless" in using atomic bombs to bring an end to WWII? Was Gov. Rockefeller "ruthless" in ordering NY State troopers to use tear gas and shotguns to end a revolt at Attica State Prison? The end justifies the means--as long as you agree with the end.

Excellent point, Turnbull. It's like the terrorist/freedom fighter distinction: If you agree with the aims of nonstate actors who use violence in pursuit of political goals, you generally consider them freedom fighters, if not, terrorists.

Well, there's more to it than that. Exterminating Jews during Hitler's Third Reich was agreed to by many Germans. But aren't there higher moral standards that humaity ascribes to than those Germans ascribed to? Also, there are applicable concepts and principles in American law. One is that government must demonstrate a compelling interest in restricting a Constitutional right and it also must be the least restrictive.

Olivant,

I don't see what you're getting at. What do the Holocaust and the U.S. Constitution have to do with what's being discussed here? And not to get off topic, but I don't think the vast majority of Germans actually "agreed to" the Holocaust.

Perhaps what we discuss here, is a historical problem. When Vito came to New York, he realized, that the government, the police, etc. couldn't handle the violence. Just the opposite - they were corrupt. In fact, the situation in Little Italy was not much different than in Sicily: You had to fight in order to survive. And Vito discovered he was a good fighter.
So becoming a Don, Vito reinforced the status quo of political corruption and violence which he had despised when he came to the US.
He did well in pacifying the gang wars.
But he despised democracy, and he did what he could in undermining it.

Chaplin's Monsieur Verdoux asks the same question in the end of that film(1947).
But Michael continues: "My father's way of doing things is over, it's finished. Even he knows that. In five years, the Corleone Family is going to be completely legitimate."
(At that time, Michael probably believed it, he hadn't got greedy, addicted to power, control and violence.)
But my point is: If Vito knew that his way of doing things was over, he realized that a new era of democracy was dawning. And chances were good, that you could make a normal business without getting involved in illegitimate activities.
No. The means are part of the moral judgment. To use your example: Truman knew that the Japanese were willing to surrender. He should have known that they wouldn't accept the Potsdam ultimatum the way it was written. He didn't even tell the Japanese what they had to fear.
Considering the means to our ends, is part of what we call wisdom.

Of course the means are part of a moral judgment. I meant that "justifies" is in the mind of the perpetrator. To Michael, the end (trapping Geary) justified the means (killing a hooker and pinning it on Geary). To Truman, the end (swiftly ending a war and avoiding an invasion that could have lasted three years and cost millions of casualties on both sides) justified the means (wiping out two good-sized cities instantly with nuclear weapons).

BTW: "Downfall" by Richard Frank (Random House, 1999), considered by many historians to be the definitive, detailed account of the end of the war in the Pacific, shows clearly that the Japanese were not ready to surrender, even after the Hiroshima bomb was dropped.

TB there is a second pronng to the decision to nuke Japan. Apparently the Russians were going full speed ahead to capture Northern Japan (they still laim they own two islands there), so Truman et al. wanted the war with Japan over on our terms and without another Yalta-like outcome.

But I digress. Imagine the nerve of them Japs doing what they did on Vito's birthday. Talk about ruthless.

It's actually not clear that the atomic bombs were what caused Japan to surrender. One must remember that the Soviet Union declared war on Japan during the same week that the bombs were dropped. I'm inclined to suspect that the Soviet entry into the war was more important--perhaps even decisive on its own. After all, Curtis LeMay's command had already conducted brutal firebombing raids on more than 60 Japanese cities. The raid on Tokyo, on March 9-10 1945, killed more civilians than died at Hiroshima. If this type of destruction did nothing to convince Japan to surrender, I'm skeptical that merely dropping a more advanced type of bomb was what did it.

I don't think so Vito. The entry of the USSR into the Pacific war merely confirmed the Emperor's decision to surrender. Keep in mind that the Soviets had been successfully battling the Japanese in China and Korea ever since Germany's surrender. So, the declaration of war was just a formality. For the first time during the war, Hirohito used his Godlike position to command the Japanese armed forces to lay down their arms. The surrender message itself by the Emperor was unheard of since the Emperor never spoke to his people. The Atomic bombs were what convinced him.

"Keep in mind that the Soviets had been successfully battling the Japanese in China and Korea ever since Germany's surrender."

That's actually not true. The Soviets did not invade Manchuria and Korea until after the declaration of war on August 8, 1945.

"The surrender message itself by the Emperor was unheard of since the Emperor never spoke to his people. The Atomic bombs were what convinced him."

The evidence is actually contradictory on what convinced the Emperor. In his address to the Japanese people, he did mention the bombs, but in his address to the military, he mention the Soviet invasions and not the bombs. It's possible that the combination of both persuaded him. I don't think we'll ever really know for sure.

Truman's main objective at the Potsdam Conference in July '45 was to make sure that Stalin would deliver on his promise, made to FDR at Yalta the previous February, that the USSR would enter the war against Japan three months after Germany surrendered. So, even though Truman was informed at Yalta that the test of the first A-bomb in New Mexico was successful, he still wanted the USSR in the war. The Soviets did declare war on Japan exactly three months after Germany surrendered, and it was followed swiftly with the Hiroshima bomb. That, combined with the Nagasaki bomb, pushed Japan to surrender. I don't believe the Japanese expected the Soviets to enter the war. The combination of the two A-bombs and the Soviet invasion were decisive.

The Emperor definitely was "dovish" compared to the War Cabinet's refusal to surrender. But he was a constitutional monarch who had limited political and temporal power. The War Cabinet ruled Japan to the end.

After the Hiroshima bomb, a big majority of the War Cabinet favored continuing because they thought that bomb was a one-off. But after the Soviets invaded, and the Nagasaki bomb was dropped, the Cabinet divided on surrender almost evenly between the "four conditions" faction (Emperor stays on the throne, no Allied occupation of Japan, Japanese control over war crimes trials, Japanese control over disarmament); and the "one condition" faction (Emperor stays on the throne). Under the Constitution, the Emperor was required to be the tie-breaker, and he chose the latter option. His "rescript" (recording of his message asking Japanese to accept surrender) almost never got on the air: Fanatical Army officers attempted to seize the recording and isolate the Emperor. That revolt resulted in dozens of casualties, and nearly succeeded.

All your points are well taken, Turnbull, but as I said before, I don't think we actually know for certain why Japan surrended. Even today, the evidence is somewhat contradictory, and historians still disagree. For example, Richard Frank in "Downfall" stresses the important of the bombs, while Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, in his book "Racing the Enemy," argues that the Soviet intervention was decisive by itself without the bombs. One of the biggest problems in answering "was it the bombs, the Soviets, or both" is that both developments happend virtually simultaneously.

Well, of course we don't know for sure. All the principals involved being dead, they did not leave us with definitive information. So, we speculate. The surrender by the Japanese Cabinet and Hirohito was more than likely based on the proximate devastation wrought by the atomic bombs on the Japanese homeland and not the Soviet's near destruction of the Japanese Kwamtung army in far-away China.

Ehm, are we still talking about Vito's ruthlessness?

olivant:

"The surrender by the Japanese Cabinet and Hirohito was more than likely based on the proximate devastation wrought by the atomic bombs on the Japanese homeland and not the Soviet's near destruction of the Japanese Kwamtung army in far-away China."

I once saw a picture of Tokyo after the March 1945 firebombing. Next to it was one of Hiroshima after the atomic bombing. The two cities didn't look a lot different.

I think we outsourced it.

Vito, it wasn't the comparative destruction. It was its function as the product of two weapons delivered only two times. The Japanese could not know how many more such weapons the Americans had to deliver to Japanese cities.

The Soviet forces were on the Asian mainland; the Atomic bombs were falling from above.

"The Soviet forces were on the Asian mainland; the Atomic bombs were falling from above."

The Soviets would have been on Japan's soil had the war continued. After the war was over, Japan would have probably have been divided into "North Japan" and "South Japan" the same way Korea and Vietnam were.