[Schadenfreude]

I've just been reading Hiroshima by John Hersey, a compelling work about six survivors of the atomic bomb in that city. I'm wondering if anyone has ever read these tragic tales and also just wondering peoples' general thoughts on the events, from the Manhattan Project to the surrender of the Japanese.
Here's a quote by Dwight Eisenhower about it:
"I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."

[MB.]

The atomic bombing was a decision authorized by the president of the united states as a political coup de main demonstrating american scientific and technological mastery prior to the conclusion of WW2. The bomb designs were conveniently tested on large civilian targets containing some military facilities (what was believed to be the likeliest target of strategic bombing well into the future...), so that analysis could be conducted on the weapon's effectiveness, biological and atmospheric degradation, population exposure to radiation, and any possible means of resistance thereof. The weapon tests were enormous successes, demonstrating convincingly that the atomic weapons worked, could be made much much more powerful, and could be delivered by conventional and future strategic bombers.

How useful was this decision in the political context? This is debatable. It is well known that Stalin was not concerned about the immediate impact of atomic weapons considering their great expense of manufacture and the limited quantity that then existed. The threat of atomic bombing during Korea was also not enough to contain Chinese involvement in that theater. The bombings did successfully convince the Japanese to surrender immediately without condition, something Truman desired to expedite the transition to the post-war economy.

[Cookie Monster]

Part of the reason was also to defeat Japan before the Soviets would take part in attacking the main Japanese islands which would have resulted in Japan's being divided like Germany and Korea.

[J Oswald]

The atomic bomb hastened the surrender of Japan to the USA, which in turn precluded any need for a massive sea invasion of the home islands. The loss of life from the two bombs was a much lower number than the projected loss of life from invading the Home Islands directly. At least one estimate put the number of American casualties at over 500,000 people, with millions of Japanese projected to be killed in the defense.

[MB.]

which in turn precluded any need for a massive sea invasion of the home islands. The loss of life from the two bombs was a much lower number than the projected loss of life from invading the Home Islands directly. At least one estimate put the number of American casualties at over 500,000 people, with millions of Japanese projected to be killed in the defense.

I don't agree with any of this. Firstly, the Japanese would have inevitably surrendered without the amphibious operations going in as a result of the blockade and/or the Soviet invasion. Secondly, the figures you refer to were fabricated by those seeking to justify the atomic bombings in the face of increasing public and international skepticism about the wisdom of the first two atomic bombings. The loss of innocent civilian life from indiscriminate strategic bombing is not the same as nor should it ever be compared with the deaths of soldiers fighting wars at the behest of their political masters.

[Texpat]

Image deleted, no 4chan-esque memes please - SD

the Japanese would have inevitably surrendered without the amphibious operations going in as a result of the blockade and/or the Soviet invasion.

The last main battle of the Pacific War, Okinawa, shreds this premise. If Japanese soldiers fought to the bitter end in Okinawa, what compelled anybody to believe the Japanese war machine was prepared to turn the off switch?

Indeed, it appeared to everyone the opposite was true. By forcing Japan's hand, millions of lives were spared.

innocent civilian life

Still dragging this old horse out to beat again?

The entire Japanese population was part and parcel to the war effort. Just as the citizens of Dresden were. This was 1940s. Unlike today, very few bleeding-heart imbeciles in any country were calling for the identification, vetting, handling, processing of enemy combatants, prior to hostilities, to assure nobody nearby was inconvenienced. Do not ignore context in a futile attempt to rewrite history.

[Maxim Litvinov]

One of the main problems for pro-bombing commenters is not the endlessly debated counter-factuals about what would have happened with no atomic weapons dropped, but the justification of the bombing at Nagasaki.

So, I suppose my questions to Texpat would be:

[1] Do you accept the need for the bombing at Nagasaki?
[2] If so, what is the evidence that Hiroshima didn't change things but Nagasaki did?
[3] If so, where is the evidence that appropriate opportunity was given for the Japanese to capitulate between the bombings?
[4] If not, saying that 1 of 2 bombings was appropriate hardly seems like a ringing endorsement does it? And does it not suggest that while the consequences of the first bombing may have been positive according to you, that the intentions of the bombers were far from laudable? ([4] is rhetorical)

[MB.]

The last main battle of the Pacific War, Okinawa, shreds this premise. If Japanese soldiers fought to the bitter end in Okinawa, what compelled anybody to believe the Japanese war machine was prepared to turn the off switch?

Because they did ['turn off the switch' as you put it]. I can tell you didn't think this through very clearly. Furthermore, the last major battle of the Pacific War was in fact the Soviet invasion of Manchuria.

By forcing Japan's hand, millions of lives were spared.

Do you have a political or ideological motive for supporting the myth that the atomic bombings 'spared' lives? Do you not see how this position is flatly contradictory?

The entire Japanese population was part and parcel to the war effort.

My oh my. Do you realize that you are endorsing flawed logic that had been invented in WW1 and was used to justify every single strategic bombing campaign up to and including Linebacker II? Do you realize that not once did this 'logic' work as intended?

Do not ignore context in a futile attempt to rewrite history.

Context in this case being some vague appeal to 'this was the 1940s'?

[J Oswald]

I don't agree with any of this. Firstly, the Japanese would have inevitably surrendered without the amphibious operations going in as a result of the blockade and/or the Soviet invasion.

The Japanese leadership was full of hardline militarists who rejected any peace settlement with the Allies or the Soviets. Before the Hiroshima bombing, parts of the Japanese government had gone so far as to prepare to declare martial law in order to prevent any surrender from occuring. A prolonged blockade with no amphibious operation would have also resulted in a continuation of the bombing campaign as well, eventually, as starvation conditions on the Home Islands. The death toll would still have been much worse than dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Secondly, the figures you refer to were fabricated by those seeking to justify the atomic bombings in the face of increasing public and international skepticism about the wisdom of the first two atomic bombings.

I am skeptical of this claim, and would like to see evidence.

The loss of innocent civilian life from indiscriminate strategic bombing is not the same as nor should it ever be compared with the deaths of soldiers fighting wars at the behest of their political masters.

The strategic bombing of Japan is a separate issue from the dropping of the two atomic bombs. Arguing over this point would most likely be futile since it boils down to an acceptance or rejection of the doctrine of total war. However, I will give the following scenario, which would have been very likely in the event of an amphibious invasion:

The Americans land on Kyushu, and are immediately attacked on the beaches by a combination of Imperial Army troops and Japanese civilians armed with sharpened bamboo spears. Are these civilians, who are wearing no army uniforms and have been trained only in civil defense, innocents?

[MB.]

It is true that the Japanese would have surrendered eventually, but not without a very long and bloody fight that would inevitably have resulted in many deaths of both professional soldiers and conscripted civilians.

And you're absolutely certain that those 'many deaths' would have been more than the 200,000 civilians killed by the atomic bombings?

Considering the size and population of Japan, along with the number of cities that would have needed to be conquered, the estimated death toll would have been far in excess of the death toll caused from the dropping of the atomic bombs.

What I don't understand is how you can claim that the Japanese would have fought to the death in some kind of war of national extinction or whatever yet they gave up after only two atomic bombings.

and would like to see evidence.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/70-7_23.htm
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlesto ... /index.php

The strategic bombing of Japan is a separate issue from the dropping of the two atomic bombs

Disagree. You don't seem to know what strategic bombing is. I am willing to forgive this, however, because the topic of the thread is "Hiroshima & Nagasaki" specifically. But it is important to remember that the atomic bombings were only an extension of the strategic bombing campaign that had been conducted up until that point.

Arguing over this point would most likely be futile since it boils down to an acceptance or rejection of the doctrine of total war.

OR what total war is. I would love to hear about this 'doctrine' you speak of.

Are these civilians, who are wearing no army uniforms and have been trained only in civil defense, innocents?

Of course not. Why did you ask me this silly question? Do you really believe waves of bamboo stick wielding civilians would have resisted the Allies and the soviets to the bitter end?

[Godstud]

The Japanese were NOT ready to surrender and still had an army of around 6 million on mainland Japan by 1945. If it had come to the invasion, far more than a mere 200,000 would have died. Also note that the B 29 fire bombings of Tokyo had already killed 100,000+ people.
The figure of roughly 100,000 deaths, provided by Japanese and American authorities, both of whom may have had reasons of their own for minimizing the death toll, seems to me arguably low in light of population density, wind conditions, and survivors' accounts. With an average of 103,000 inhabitants per square mile (396 people per hectare) and peak levels as high as 135,000 per square mile (521 people per hectare), the highest density of any industrial city in the world, and with firefighting measures ludicrously inadequate to the task, 15.8 square miles (41 km2) of Tokyo were destroyed on a night when fierce winds whipped the flames and walls of fire blocked tens of thousands fleeing for their lives. An estimated 1.5 million people lived in the burned out areas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

Look at the casualties on Okinawa, too.

82 days
American losses
12,513 killed
38,916 wounded,
33,096 non-combat losses

Japanese losses
About 95,000 killed
7,400–10,755 captured
Estimated 42,000–150,000 civilians killed

You also had the Japanese high command that had said something akin to leaving enough US casualties in the Pacific that the Americans would be able to walk to Japan.

The Japanese were not the same foe that the Allies were fighting in Europe. Surrender was unknown, and surrender rates were below 3%, for Japanese soldiers. The war was far more brutal and bloody in the Pacific. Surrender was almost unknown for the Japanese people, and Japan was not considering surrender, according to most military tacticians who knew the Japanese.

Leaflets dropped on cities in Japan warning civilians about the atomic bomb, dropped c. August 6, 1945
TO THE JAPANESE PEOPLE:
America asks that you take immediate heed of what we say on this leaflet.

We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate.

We have just begun to use this weapon against your homeland. If you still have any doubt, make inquiry as to what happened to Hiroshima when just one atomic bomb fell on that city.

Before using this bomb to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, we ask that you now petition the Emperor to end the war. Our president has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender. We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better and peace-loving Japan.

You should take steps now to cease military resistance. Otherwise, we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.

EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.

ATTENTION JAPANESE PEOPLE. EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.
Because your military leaders have rejected the thirteen part surrender declaration, two momentous events have occurred in the last few days.

The Soviet Union, because of this rejection on the part of the military has notified your Ambassador Sato that it has declared war on your nation. Thus, all powerful countries of the world are now at war with you.

Also, because of your leaders' refusal to accept the surrender declaration that would enable Japan to honorably end this useless war, we have employed our atomic bomb.

A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s could have carried on a single mission. Radio Tokyo has told you that with the first use of this weapon of total destruction, Hiroshima was virtually destroyed.

Before we use this bomb again and again to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, petition the emperor now to end the war. Our president has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender. We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better, and peace-loving Japan.

Act at once or we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.

EVACUATE YOUR CITIES.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/truman/pso ... flets.html

Some military historians believe that the Okinawa campaign led directly to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as a means of avoiding the planned ground invasion of the Japanese mainland. Victor Davis Hanson explains his view in Ripples of Battle:

...because the Japanese on Okinawa... were so fierce in their defense (even when cut off, and without supplies), and because casualties were so appalling, many American strategists looked for an alternative means to subdue mainland Japan, other than a direct invasion. This means presented itself, with the advent of atomic bombs, which worked admirably in convincing the Japanese to sue for peace [unconditionally], without American casualties. Ironically, the American conventional fire-bombing of major Japanese cities (which had been going on for months before Okinawa) was far more effective at killing civilians than the atomic bombs and, had the Americans simply continued, or expanded this, the Japanese would likely have surrendered anyway.

The A-bombs, no matter how heinous they appear now, probably ended up saving more lives than they ever took.

[MB.]

The Japanese were NOT ready to surrender

Surrender was unknown, and surrender rates were below 3%, for Japanese soldiers. The war was far more brutal and bloody in the Pacific. Surrender was almost unknown for the Japanese people, and Japan was not considering surrender, according to most military tacticians who knew the Japanese.

Incredible. Why did they? What about the atomic bombs specifically convinced the Japanese government- who you assert were willing to exterminate themselves- to surrender?

Ironically, the American conventional fire-bombing of major Japanese cities (which had been going on for months before Okinawa) was far more effective at killing civilians than the atomic bombs and, had the Americans simply continued, or expanded this, the Japanese would likely have surrendered anyway

Of course they wouldn't have! Because they were willing to die fighting, right? Right? How can you possibly not see the gapping logical contradiction in your argument?

[Godstud]

You're not understanding. You're just reacting without thinking.

What about the atomic bombs specifically convinced the Japanese government- who you assert were willing to exterminate themselves- to surrender?

The use of 2 bombs made the Japanese believe there was more(which was not the case) which was a concern, due to limited radioactive material available for A bombs. Japan also had an atomic program, so they had some knowledge on this, too. This might have altered the Japanese' intentions.

They were not willing to exterminate themselves, but the Japanese were willing to make it so that the invasion of Japan could be so costly, in human lives, as to be impossible. Impossible in that the US people would call for an end to an invasion.
There were 5+ million Japanese soldiers on Japan, in 1945. How many were there on Okinawa?? Did you note how many died in 3 months? Now multiply that by about 50 to get the amount that would die in the invasion of Japan. Are you getting it now, MB?

As it was, it turned out it was the Emperor who decided, in the end.
After the atom bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Hirohito called a meeting of the Supreme Council, on 9th August, 1945. After a long debate, Hirohito intervened and said he could no longer bear to see his people suffer in this way. On 15th August the people of Japan heard the Emperor's voice for the first time, when he announced the unconditional surrender, and the end of the war. Naruhiko Higashikuni was appointed as head of the surrender government.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWhirohito.htm

[MB.]

Strange. It almost seems as though the emperor intervened to stop the suffering of his people. It's as though when the war was lost and the Japanese were dieing pointlessly the emperor finally stepped in. But OF COURSE this would never have happened had the blockade continued or the strategic bombing or the invasion or anything. ONLY the atomic bombs could have convinced him of this.

Clearly.

So you agree, Godstud?

but the Japanese were willing to make it so that the invasion of Japan could be so costly, in human lives, as to be impossible. Impossible in that the US people would call for an end to the invasion.

But NOT impossible for the Japanese emperor who in fact ended the war over pointless dieing?

[Godstud]

There is no evidence to suggest that the Emperor would have stopped the war before the A bombs were used. every indication was that it was going to take a land invasion to end the war. This, after Okinawa, would have been absurdly costly in human lives, both American and Japanese.

The fact that Japan had its own atomic program, was also a factor most people ignore.

[MB.]

There is no evidence to suggest that the Emperor would have stopped the war before the A bombs were used. every indication was that it was going to take a land invasion to end the war.

No evidence you say? So all those negotiations between the US and the Japanese government about conditional surrender never happened?

But this implies that the land invasion would have ended the war. Hmmm.... I thought the Japanese were going to fight to death and never give and there would be a MILLIONS civilian and allied deaths?

What do you think about people like Dwight Eisenhower and Basil Liddel Hart who disagree completely?

The fact that Japan had its own atomic program, was also a factor most people ignore.

Oh yes. And can you tell me how far advanced that project was before it was canceled?

This, after Okinawa, would have been absurdly costly in human lives, both American and Japanese.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support this? Personally I am of the opinion that the invasion of Kyshu would have been a great success.

[dgun]

How many times have debated this on PoFo? Seems like it comes back into debate a couple of times a year at least.

I only intend to make one point and then I'm gone.

When considering the decision to drop the bombs, it's not only important to consider the atmosphere in which the decision was made, being towards the end of a bitter war with massive casualties, but the history of the men who were making this decision.

This was not a decision made by Truman alone. Truman and the other men involved in the decision to drop the bombs all served in WW1. Truman saw first hand the horror of that war. Recall the end of WW1? Recall the failings of the treaties that ended WW1? There was much controversy over how the end to the first war to end all wars ended. Truman and his advisors very much believed that without unconditional surrender, WW3 was 20-30 years down the road. They did not want to repeat the mistakes that ended WW1 which led directly to WW2.

This is why they felt so strongly that unconditional surrender was necessary from Germany and Japan. The German people after the first world war 1) didn't feel like they had lost the war and 2) didn't feel like they were at all responsible for the war. The military culture survived in Germany and the next thing you know they war invading Poland. Truman and his advisors believed very much that the same exact thing could easily happen in Japan if the military culture of Japan survived and the Japanese could disown responsibility for the war and rationalize that they were not defeated.

So the estimate of losses in a land invasion is always brought up in this discussion as a counter to the lives lost in the bombings. But the overriding concern IMO, the driving force behind Truman's insistent on unconditional surrender, is the fear that ending WW2 without it would soon lead to WW3.

[MB.]

Truman took complete responsibility for the bombings. He famously told Oppenheimer that "the blood is on my hands".

But the overriding concern IMO, the driving force behind Truman's insistent on unconditional surrender, is the fear that ending WW2 without it would soon lead to WW3.

I agree. Which is why in my first post I made is clear that this was a political decision.

[Godstud]

I suppose it comes down to opinion then.

In my opinion, the choice was the right one.

[dgun]

Truman took complete responsibility for the bombings. He famously told Oppenheimer that "the blood is on my hands".

Well of course. The buck stopped with him.