__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
Has lots of quotes from those invoked that admit Japan was ready to surrender without the use of the bomb. There is a lot of support to the theory that the bombs were dropped to show the Soviets the US had a tactical advantage and they were not afraid to use it.
The crux of the issue is were the Japanese ready to unconditionally surrender, I would fully agree that it was obvious the end was near for them and that what ever action the allies took the result would be Japanese surrender eventually but the Japanese internal history shows that the army was not ready to surrender, their plan was to fortify the southern islands, make American casualties so horrendous there that they could force the U.S. into accepting a conditional cease fire of some sort, it's important to remember the Japanese high command did not surrender after the bombs were dropped, they had to be forced into it by the Emperor, it's also important to realize the Japanese military was not in any way centrally controlled, the Kwuntang army of Manchuria invaded China against the orders of the mainlands high command, generals were not particularly obedient to orders that they considered 'dishonerable', such as surrender.
You can't call the dropping of the bombs a war crime unless you can show that there was a way of ending the war otherwise that wouldn't kill 300,000 civilians, I've read many arguements on both sides but I've never seen any arguement that could make a cogent case for ending the war with less casualties, in fact thus far no one here has suggested any action that would have forced surrender.
I repeat once more there is absolutely no evidence the Japanese were on the verge of surrender, all the available information is clear, we were going to beat them but only with a long bloody campaign forcing our way through the multiple islands that make up Japan.
U.S. military estimates at the time for the two campaigns too capture Japan were that it would cost two million allied troops and in excess of ten million Japanese.
Last edited by afc wimbledon; 01-06-2016 at 11:57 AM.
Yup. There are a lot of people, in hindsight, who thought it wasn't necessary. That Ike quote is almost 20 years later. It's pretty easy to take decades of sober reflection and make a proclamation, but a lot of people thought about this problem when the dilemma was current. Including scientists who, other than maybe Edward Teller who actually seemed a little crazy, weren't about the geopolitical aims.
There is a chance they didn't need to use it, that the Russians declaring war on the Japanese was the last straw and they were going to surrender or that the Japanese were ready to surrender anyway. However they couldn't be sure, and a lot of the lives of their men were at risk as a result.
Basically the last input on the willingness of the Japanese to surrender was Okinawa. Japanese soldiers alone killed there matched the number of people killed in Nagasaki. Not including civilians and not including Americans. The KIA rate was like 80% And it wasn't even a home island. The home islands had millions of soldiers waiting to defend it, plus thousands of artillery pieces, thousands of tanks, millions of rifles. Add to that, multiple millions of civilians, seemingly fanatical about their emperor.
It's not like their estimation of casualties and willingness to fight of the Japanese was totally out to lunch here.
I don't agree.
The dropping of the bomb is a cautionary tale of bureaucratic/military momentum. The Bomb was always going to be used. It was designed and built to be used, first on Germany, and then when that no longer worked as a target, on Japan.
The bomb was ALWAYS going to be dropped, regardless of need, all that was needed was a suitable target. After VE Day in Europe, those targets rested squarely in Japan.
The US estimate for an invasion of Japan was roughly 25-40k casualities on the American side, with the most intense fighting predicted outside Tokyo in the spring months. There's no evidence that any American in a position of authority expected half a million deaths, nor did that reasoning become canon until after 1945.
Certainly, regardless of what you think about the motivations for dropping the first bomb, dropping the second bomb was completely unecessary and should be viewed as a war crime.
I've read many arguements on both sides but I've never seen any arguement that could make a cogent case for ending the war with less casualties, in fact thus far no one here has suggested any action that would have forced surrender.
The only way was if a 1980's nuclear carrier went into some sort of time warp and found itself days before the attack on Pearl Harbour, and some sweet F-14's took care of the Japanese fleet.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bigtime For This Useful Post:
The bombs weren't meant to make the Japanese leaders surrender. They were meant to destroy the Japanese people psychologically. Surrendering wasn't good enough for the Americans. They had to cede all negotiating power and kill resistance at the civilian level.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The dropping of the bomb is a cautionary tale of bureaucratic/military momentum. The Bomb was always going to be used. It was designed and built to be used, first on Germany, and then when that no longer worked as a target, on Japan.
The bomb was ALWAYS going to be dropped, regardless of need, all that was needed was a suitable target. After VE Day in Europe, those targets rested squarely in Japan.
The US estimate for an invasion of Japan was roughly 25-40k casualities on the American side, with the most intense fighting predicted outside Tokyo in the spring months. There's no evidence that any American in a position of authority expected half a million deaths, nor did that reasoning become canon until after 1945.
Certainly, regardless of what you think about the motivations for dropping the first bomb, dropping the second bomb was completely unecessary and should be viewed as a war crime.
One estimate was 25-40k on the American side. There were several contemporary estimates that put dead in range from the low to high mid 6 digits. American dead, not total dead.
The only way was if a 1980's nuclear carrier went into some sort of time warp and found itself days before the attack on Pearl Harbour, and some sweet F-14's took care of the Japanese fleet.
The crux of the issue is were the Japanese ready to unconditionally surrender, I would fully agree that it was obvious the end was near for them and that what ever action the allies took the result would be Japanese surrender eventually but the Japanese internal history shows that the army was not ready to surrender, their plan was to fortify the southern islands, make American casualties so horrendous there that they could force the U.S. into accepting a conditional cease fire of some sort, it's important to remember the Japanese high command did not surrender after the bombs were dropped, they had to be forced into it by the Emperor, it's also important to realize the Japanese military was not in any way centrally controlled, the Kwuntang army of Manchuria invaded China against the orders of the mainlands high command, generals were not particularly obedient to orders that they considered 'dishonerable', such as surrender.
You can't call the dropping of the bombs a war crime unless you can show that there was a way of ending the war otherwise that wouldn't kill 300,000 civilians, I've read many arguements on both sides but I've never seen any arguement that could make a cogent case for ending the war with less casualties, in fact thus far no one here has suggested any action that would have forced surrender.
I repeat once more there is absolutely no evidence the Japanese were on the verge of surrender, all the available information is clear, we were going to beat them but only with a long bloody campaign forcing our way through the multiple islands that make up Japan.
U.S. military estimates at the time for the two campaigns too capture Japan were that it would cost two million allied troops and in excess of ten million Japanese.
As an example of this, of the estimated 22,060 Japanese soldiers in Iwo Jima, 21,844 supposedly died. That's an enormous proportion. Soldiers were told to fight to the death or commit ritual suicide. To put that into perspective, during the Normandy landings, the Germans had an estimated 50,000 troops but only 5-10,000 died.
When one side of a conflict's actions are totally outside basic humanitarian and reasonable principles, you can't assume that a peaceful settlement is in any way desired.
The dropping of the bomb is a cautionary tale of bureaucratic/military momentum. The Bomb was always going to be used. It was designed and built to be used, first on Germany, and then when that no longer worked as a target, on Japan.
The bomb was ALWAYS going to be dropped, regardless of need, all that was needed was a suitable target. After VE Day in Europe, those targets rested squarely in Japan.
The US estimate for an invasion of Japan was roughly 25-40k casualities on the American side, with the most intense fighting predicted outside Tokyo in the spring months. There's no evidence that any American in a position of authority expected half a million deaths, nor did that reasoning become canon until after 1945.
Certainly, regardless of what you think about the motivations for dropping the first bomb, dropping the second bomb was completely unecessary and should be viewed as a war crime.
With respect I don't know where you get those estimates from, they essentially are the estimates for the landing alone.
A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities.
One estimate was 25-40k on the American side. There were several contemporary estimates that put dead in range from the low to high mid 6 digits. American dead, not total dead.
I'm not interested in contemporary estimates, I'm interested in the arguments at the time that were used to drop two nuclear bombs on a country within days of each other.
No one at the time believed American casualties would number greater than 50 thousand, especially once the Soviet Union had entered the conflict.
The casualty rate was an argument created after 1945 in an effort legitimize their use after the fact.
In fact, one of the motivations for using the bombs when they did was the fear that contemporary firebombing (that had already destroyed Yokohama) and the pending assault from Russia would leave the US without suitable 'test' sites that would show the devastation from the weapon. What good is blowing up a blown up city when you can blow up an intact city? Further to this point, this is one of the reasons Kyoto was spared, Secretary of Warm Stimson personally removed it from the list because Kyoto was too valuable for it's antiquities and cultural artifacts to risk destroying.
Even more disturbing is the argument that Truman himself may have never actually authorized their use. That is according to General Marshall himself, as well as several others. It speaks to the momentum of the project. It was a runaway train that 'needed' to be used to justify its existence.
Further to this, there is more evidence that the timing of dropping the bomb (and thus, the decision to do so at all) was predicated upon the Soviet invasion of Japan. According to Japanese diplomatic messages to the soviets (who up until the invasion characterized their involvement with Japan as 'neutral'). The Americans wanted an unconditional japanese surrender prior to a Soviet invasion so they could renege on their Yalta agreements with Stalin. Stalin had told Truman that they had planned their invasion for August 15th. The Soviets declared war on the Japanese , and then the next day the Americans dropped the first bomb.
By contemporary estimates I meant contemporary to the time, which is why I used "were". There were several studies done at the time that far exceeded your listed estimate.
Even more disturbing is the argument that Truman himself may have never actually authorized their use. That is according to General Marshall himself, as well as several others. It speaks to the momentum of the project. It was a runaway train that 'needed' to be used to justify its existence.
Additionally, Truman's own diary in an entry almost two weeks before the bombing states he decided to, and told the military to use it.
We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark.
Anyway we “think” we have found the way to cause a disintegration of the atom. An experiment in the New Mexico desert was startling — to put it mildly. Thirteen pounds of the explosive caused the complete disintegration of a steel tower 60 feet high, created a crater 6 feet deep and 1,200 feet in diameter, knocked over a steel tower 1/2 mile away and knocked men down 10,000 yards away. The explosion was visible for more than 200 miles and audible for 40 miles and more.
This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.
He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I’m sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler’s crowd or Stalin’s did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful...
Agreement or disagreement on targeting aside. He decided it.
The question around whether the bombs were necessary probably demand on what you deem as a suitable outcome for the war. If you wanted complete demilitarized Japan with dictated terms of surrender you needed the bombs. If you let Japan keep their military you probably don't.
The only way was if a 1980's nuclear carrier went into some sort of time warp and found itself days before the attack on Pearl Harbour, and some sweet F-14's took care of the Japanese fleet.
We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark.
Anyway...
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
No. You could potentially save millions of lives, but you have to club Baby Hitler like a seal.
But where would our world be without WWII and its aftermath? Would WWII still have happened even if you killed baby Hitler? There were plenty just like him, if not worse.
Arguments can be made that, at least technologically, we'd be much further behind. Perhaps socially as well, as we saw the actual outcome of scapegoating a whole culture, mass genocide, the entire world (mostly) brought together in a common goal, etc..
As horrific as the whole scenario was, WWII forced us ahead in many ways.
