Necessity of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[Britvojnik]

I come here to ask some of the most knowledgeable people I can imagine on this subject.

I have recently been exposed to some outrageous claims that the US JCoS issued a report after the war claiming the invasion of Japan (Gymnast) could have been carried out with only 50K US dead (and i imagine 3 times a many wounded)

This of course is farcical given the totals from okinawa. But what does anyone know of this report, or a historian named Blum.

Also this hisorian claims Japan was trying to surrender for several years (1943). That there never was a need to drop the weapons... their army was demoralized and wanted give up.

To me this is all revisionist bull****, but i wanted to pick your brains and see if there was any credence to any of it.

thanks

[mogami]

Hi, my sources (well at least my recollection) have 100k killed on landing 1 million casulties total. The 2nd Marine Division was to make the first landing (Operation Olympic) and was written out of planning on D-Day+5 (it was presumed to have been wiped out by then) Personally I do not think the bombs by themselves are what made Japan surrender. (they had sent feelers out in 43 and 44 but did so through the Soviets who just sat on the requests) On Aug 8th 1945 the Soviet Union declared war on Japan and began overrunning Manchuria, they caused over a million Japanese casulties. This is what I believe actually caused Japan to surrender (the fear of Soviet occupation)

[asgrrr]

I participated in a somewhat heated discussion about this on the SPWAW forum a few months ago. Will perhaps try to find it, though it will be difficult without the search function.
I must say though that your approach seems prejudiced, and not likely to encourage factual debate.

[asgrrr]

Here it is. Knock yourself out.

http://www.matrixgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=007585

[Britvojnik]

I think you have judged me too quickly, but perhaps not.

i do hold a view that it was necessary... but im a willing ot listen to others. it is just that must people on the other board im at know very little about this subject. they read one random article and they feel they have the truth wit ha capital T.

thanks for the link...

[Frank W.]

as far as i know, japan was 1944 bacause of some changes in the goverment not anymore so shure to win the war. they even tried to come to some peace talks with the US. but US wanted uncondinial surrender. some sources said,there were some studies about late ´44 and early ´45 that came to conclusion that japan would have surrendered in 1946 because of total air and sea suppority of the allies. they would have surrendered without the a-bomb,too. perhaps it would had taken more time....

and even more weird was it that roosevelt let the russians anter the war against japan as they were almost dead. so the sovjets made easy prey with little cost. USA even supplied their far east army.

[Frank W.]

let me add the contracts with the russians were made in jalta, little time after jalta roosevelt died. he was a quite russian friendly president.

[RolandRahn_MatrixForum]

Originally posted by Britvojnik:
I come here to ask some of the most knowledgeable people I can imagine on this subject.

I have recently been exposed to some outrageous claims that the US JCoS issued a report after the war claiming the invasion of Japan (Gymnast) could have been carried out with only 50K US dead (and i imagine 3 times a many wounded)

This of course is farcical given the totals from okinawa. But what does anyone know of this report, or a historian named Blum.

Also this hisorian claims Japan was trying to surrender for several years (1943). That there never was a need to drop the weapons... their army was demoralized and wanted give up.

To me this is all revisionist bull****, but i wanted to pick your brains and see if there was any credence to any of it.

thanks

---

There are several estimates.

Dunnigan&Nofi: The Pacific War Encyclopedia, p.317 gives an estimate of 370k U.S. casualties, including 80k killed (for Olympic *and* Coronet).

I recommend to read "Downfall" by Richard B. Frank.
In the chapter "The Invasion and the President" there is an excellent listing of several estimates.
For example, if you argue that an invasion force of 1.792.700 men fights a ninety-day-campaign and if you look how many men are killed on each day in ETO/PTO, you might try to estimate the casualties by taking into account the total number of men involved, the length of the campaign and the average loss rate in ETO/PTO.
These estimtes lead to:
348.501 casualties (67.764 killed) using the ETO loss rate.
With the PTO loss rate, there are 1.202.005 casualties (348.501 killed).

On the other hand, you might try to find out how many US servicemen are killed/missing/wounded to kill/capture one japanese soldier.
On Luzon, the rate was something like one to five (One US soldier KIA/MIA/wounded to kill/capture 5 Japanese).
On Iwo Jima, the rate was something like 1.25:1 (however, I think that this number might be wrong, it could also have been something like 1:1).
And there are many other problems:
How would the japanese militiamen fight?
To the last spear or would they use their brain?
What about chemical weapons?
As you can see, there are lots of variables, and no one can be sure how many US soldiers would have been killed in an invasion.

And there would be a lot more non-japanese people be killed on the asian mainland (including losses from chemical and bio weapons).
And there would have been many dead japanese civilians.
Not only due to the fighting.
Also by starvation.
Even with the end of the war, Japan was unable to feed her population - without massive US help, there would be a horrible mass starvation in 1946.
As for the "Japan was going to make peace": All I know doesn't support this thesis.
There are prominent people who say that this was the case (for example Mr. Galtung), but in fact there was an exchange of telegrams between Sato (Japanese ambassador in the USSR) and Togo (Japanese foreign minister).
This exchange was read by the US (magic).
It showed that the Japanese leadership was not willed to accept anything like an unconditional surrender.
I do fully sympathise with every innocent killed by the bombing (nuclear and conventional) of Japan, but the alternatives to the bomb would very likely have been much bloodier.

If you are really interested in this topic, I can only encourage you to read "Downfall".

Hope this helps,
Roland

[Unknown_Enemy]

Something to add to this thread is that Japanese high command was divided.

The most influent faction wanted to continue the fight whatever the cost, they knew the war was lost, but they wanted to make sure that when an US landing were to occur, a massive bloodbath was to be ensured, for lots of old schoold army officers, there could be no such thing as surrender. The honor dictated to die fighting.

But there was a peace faction in the army, which was arguing "then what shall we do if the US just keep fire bombing us whithout any intend to conquest our country ?". There was no answer to that question from the other side.

The Emperor expressed his views supporting the second group, but was not yet listened to.
The problem was the "unconditionnal surrender", they had just witnessed the nazis beeing wiped out, so it conforted the die hard staff that US would try to crush them in battle.

Then, for the decision to A-bomb cities, please remember that at this time, civil targets were valid targets from ALL military commands involved in WW2.

From our moral evolution, it is not anymore, and thanks god for that. But it was not so at the time. We may judge the act from our current moral values, but these were at the least different at that time.

So were Hiroshima & Nagasaki a military or a political decision ? I don't know. But whatever, I don't want it happening again.

[MarkFroio]

From what I've read it seems that the first bomb was definitely necessary. And if the second bomb was not, why didn't the Japanese do everything that they could to make sure the US knew they wanted to surrender? Because they didn't want to surrender, that's why. And in the end, it wasn't unconditional surrender. The Japanese Emperor retained his postion.

[ratster]

The second bomb was more punitive than "neccessary". Why did they firebomb Dresden for that matter, because there were a lot of pissed off people back then, who wanted payback.

The Japanese high command was at that point(up too and including Hiroshima) more concerned with the firebombings then the A-bomb(of which they were not aware of its full efects yet). There's a good argument that the second bomb "convinced" them of the "error" of their ways.

As others have stated, there is no way to be sure what the casualties would have been in an invasion of Japan. However, at that point, 1 would have been unacceptable. Remember, the Japanese attacked the US first.

Its easy to come up with alternatives in the 20/20 hindsight of the historical record. One could also argue that one of the chief reasons nukes have not been used since that time is because of the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[asgrrr]

One can speculate back and forth on the casualties in the case of invasion, but all that is irrelevant. No such invasion would ever have taken place. There was no option left to the japanese but surrender. The japanese leadership knew this. The US leadership knew this. And the US leadership knew the japanese leadership knew this. They only had to come to terms with this (to them) monstrous fact, which they would have in due course. The only thing they still put a question mark to was the fate of the emperor. Even after two atomic bombings, they opened negotiations by querying US intentions on that point. The reply was that he would not be harmed (as came true), after which the japanese agreed to surrender.
Anyway, since they were willing to surrender when faced with atomic destruction, why would they not have surrendered when faced with certain destruction by other means?
In Alperovitz's book that I mentioned in the thread above, the author reveals that little or no references exist in historical documents that the decision to use the bomb was discussed in the context of precluding the necessity of invasion or saving lives. Those documents make it all too clear what was on the mind of those making that decision (mainly Truman): To bring about the speedy capitulation of the japanese before the soviets could make substantial gains on the asian mainland, and in the process demonstrate the new weapon to them. This explains a murky side of the matter: why there was such a short time before the two bombings.
The commanders of the military branches did not have a part in this decision (which one would assume they had, if the objective was to spare their troops).
Macarthur, commander of the army (which might have been expected to have been the main "beneficiary" of the atomic attacs, did not even learn of the bomb's existence until days after the order to use it had been given. He later publicly described his disgust at this same decision.
Top navy leaders, including King (commander) and Nimitz, believed that japanese surrender was only a matter of time.
According to his aide, and supported by varios public utterances, Arnold, commander of the Air force, was of the opinion that the bombings were unnecessary, but that it was a political decision that was not his to question.

I close with a quote of Admiral Leahy, Chief of Staff to the president: "The japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender".

[Randy]

Hi, two good books you might want to check out are:
1)"The Invasion of Japan" by John Skates
ISBN 0-87249-972-3
2)"Downfall" by Richard Franks
ISBN 0-679-41424-x
Hope these help.

[Supervisor]

It's usually forgotten by both sides in this debate that both the leading contenders for ending the war with Japan without using the atomic bomb would have probably killed more Japanese than the bombings. Either an invasion or starving the islands into submission would have killed even more Japanese. Ironically, horrible as they were, the atomic bombings were the most humane solution for both sides.

The terms the Japanese floated through Stalin in 1945 were plainly unacceptable not only to the United States but the Asians who had suffered the brunt of Japanese agression and war crimes. There is also considerable doubt whether the Japanese Cabinet could have gotten the Army, who had basically run the country since the early thirties, to go along with any terms which smacked of surrender.

The most strident criticism of Truman's decision comes from poorly researched and one sided interpretation of a handfull of documents. The stuff I've read totally forgets the context and events that drove Truman. "Thank God for the Atomic Bomb" an essay by Paul Fussell, the author of The Great War and Modern Memory as well as other wonderfull work, best puts the events in their contemporary context. He had just survived combat in Europe and was shipping off to Japan when the bombs dropped.

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: Ed Jenkins ]</p>

[Raverdave]

Originally posted by Penetrator:

In Alperovitz's book that I mentioned in the thread above, the author reveals that little or no references exist in historical documents that the decision to use the bomb was discussed in the context of precluding the necessity of invasion or saving lives. Those documents make it all too clear what was on the mind of those making that decision (mainly Truman): To bring about the speedy capitulation of the japanese before the soviets could make substantial gains on the asian mainland, and in the process demonstrate the new weapon to them.

---

I think that this is the true reason for the A-bombs being used....more so as a signal to the soviets than to further pressure the Japanese. The US had seen the half of Europe swallowed up by the Soviets who were busy installing pupet governments and now with the USSR declaring war on Japan, they had the nightmare of the soviets gaining control of large areas of Asia.

I just don't see how the A-bombs alone could have convinced the Japanese....lets face it....by mid June most of Japan's industry and cities were a fire-bombed wasteland....Kobe, Kawasaki,Yokohama,Osaka,Nagoya and of course Tokyo. There was no military need to drop the bombs. In fact "Hap" Arnold was so convinced that the USAAF could wipe out the rest of Japan that he sent LeMay to Washington to try to convince the JCS that there would be no need for an invasion of the home land.

And as for the timing? Well the first bomb was droped on the 6th of August....the same day that the Soviets declared war.

[Raverdave]

The US had 50,000 casualties taking Okinawa.
Marshall expected 275,000 casualties of the 780,000 men that MacArthur was intending to use in the planned landings at Kyushu.

[Supervisor]

We do have the testimony of senior members of the Japanese cabinet that the bomb was instrumental in forcing the Army to accept surrender. Even so there was an aborted coup on the night of the Emporer's broadcast and the CIC of the Army committed suicide rather than face the resposibility for surrender. If the bomb had nothing to do with Japanese surrender, why did they surrender so suddenly after the second bomb.

The conditions floated by the Japanese contained considerably more than assurances for the Emporer's safety. They demanded that the Japanese forces disarm themselves, not the allies, and that any war crimes trials be conducted by the Japanese. Most historians and observers at the time have concluded that the Japanese would have murdered the remaining allied prisoners in their care if given enough time.

American policy makers were convinced at the time if one set of conditions were accepted the Japanese would add new ones. They were undoubtedly right.

As to the invasion scenario itself, we do know that beyond a new wave of Kamakazis, use of civilians as cannon fodder and other plans that would have led to massive causualties on both sides, the Japanese planned to use the biological and chemical weapons they had developed in Manchuria. Which incidently they had tested on the Chinese population and allied POWs. I don't think anyone knows what the final death toll would have been on both sides. Any estimate is at best a guess and probably a low one.

It was better that the war end quickly in a massive allied victory. If we were merciful as we were then it was our mercy not a "last" victory wrung from us by the Japanese militarists.

The situation with the Soviet Union played its part. However, it was only one component of the equation. Does anyone really believe Asians in general or the Japanese in particular would have been better off liberated and occupied by Soviet troops?

Given the conduct of the war up until Truman's decision was the bomb an extraordinary weapon to use? The Japanese had carried out a reign of terror throughout Asia. They had routinely tortured and murdered POWs. They had encouraged Japanese civilians in areas captured by the allies to commit mass suicide. The Amercans had already crossed the Rubicon when they began fire bombing of Japanese urban centers.

War is all hell. No one at them time knew exactly what the bomb would do. Even today it's hard to conclude that it was more inhumane than the alternatives.

[ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: Ed Jenkins ]</p>

[Britvojnik]

I would like to say thanks to you all for your input and recomended readings... I will actually take a few of them up... again thanks i knew i came to the right place.

[asgrrr]

Well that is so and so is that.

Mr. Ed: there is quite a lot of speculation on your part, considering the seriousness of the decision. If you believe that the bombings were necessary and/or justified, the contemporary US military leaders seem to have disagreed with you, then and later.

It seems at least clear that there was no conscious decision on behalf of militarily informed persons, that the use of the bomb would save lives.

[Gump]

I don't think it's possible for us to fully understand the mindset of those involved...

It's very easy now to speculate that it was ugly revenge that motivated them.... and it probably was....

My question would be that if we could possibly imagine what it was like to have gone through that bloody period. Fresh after the loss of 50000 boys on Okinawa... your damn right it was revenge... very necessary revenge. If you are in that kind of a fight revenge and bloodlust are the absolute tools of the trade.

I would also speculate that the true horror of what an atomic bomb was might not have been fully understood..... To them I believe it was a "new toy that would kill a lot of Japs.... a very easy decision for them I bet........ <img src="wink.gif" border="0">