Hiroshima, August 6, 1945

[stratovani]

Right off the bat, this is historical, not political. And I'd like to keep it that way.

Today is August 6, the 65th Anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, one of the events that led to the ending of World War II. Over on Newsvine.com, there's an ongoing discussion of an article on msnbc.com describing the commemorations going on in Hiroshima today. The main consensus is that the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary in order to prevent the tremendous loss of American lives in an invasion of Japan. I posted this as a thought experiment to see what kind of discussions it would generate. Unfortunately, as of this moment no one has commented. So I'm posting it here.


Sometimes I wonder about an invasion of Japan. Would it really have cost all the lives they say it would have cost? I think a well-planned invasion of Tokyo, blitzkrieg-style, might have ended the war right there. The ultimate objective of such an invasion would have been the capture of Emperor Hirohito, the one man who could have ended hostilities right then and there. Remember, Japan by then was a spent force. America controlled the skies over and the seas around Japan, its infrastructure lay in ruins, its land forces were decimated, and its civilian population, while fanatical, was demoralized as well. Also, the Emperor was essentially a figurehead; General Tojo and his cronies ran the Japanese government. A surgical strike by commandos, a quick capture of the Emperor, and forcing him to order Japan to cease hostilitles, might have been sufficient to end the war right then and there. Plus, the US had the atomic bomb in reserve. Detonating it off the coast of Tokyo in full sight of the populace might have been sufficient to convince them to cease hostilities. All conjecture, I'll admit, but an interesting thought experiment nonetheless, certainly food for thought.


Discuss.

And please, no politics!

[Mark Latimour]

A colleague of mine's father was in a Japanese POW camp in Burma. The Japanese had orders to exterminate all POW's in Burma the moment the British moved from India to retake Burma (to avoid uprisings in the camps). This is all documented. The invasion of Burma was scheduled for 2 days after the Japanese surrendered. As Richard says in the book he wrote about his father's experience. He doesn't know how many lives the bombs saved, but he does know they saved his father's life.

[12bass]

Sorry to say, but from everything I've learned, the atomic bomb was ultimately used for geopolitical reasons, in part to set the world on notice.

My condolences to all who died in the war.

[becker4567]

Unfortunately, your 'quick strike' scenario wouldn't work. Tojo had given orders that every man, woman and child was to fight to the death. The Japanese people were making crude weapons in their homes to fight with. Remember, the Allies would have to fight a D-Day like invasion at least 7 times on the major islands against an enemy that had every intention (and desire) of dying for the emperor. I believe Gen. Mark Clark was to head up the invasion (Operation Olympic) and he reportedly told Harry Truman to expect up to 1 million casualties before Japan was defeated. And your right about this issue not being political and it shouldn't be. There were alot more issues going on when Truman gave the order to drop the bomb, unfortunately, history has forgotten most of them.

[EBodious]

the standard u.s. history book story is that all the people of japan would have fought to the death if we invaded their homeland. my guess is that we would have ended up in a korea type standoff. this would have meant that japan would not be the economic force that it became and that our wars in korea and vietnam might have occurred differently, if at all. maybe japan, in a stand off against the u.s., would have been lured by communist support.....

[Jim Campbell]

Originally Posted by 12bass

Sorry to say, but from everything I've learned, the atomic bomb was ultimately used for geopolitical reasons, in part to set the world on notice.

My condolences to all who died in the war.

there was also the staggering cost in lives of an invasion by sea,estimated in the hundreds of thousands of american soldiers,sailors and airmen......balanced against the destruction of hiroshima and nagasaki,truman made the best and only choice

[sloasdaylight]

Originally Posted by stratovani

Right off the bat, this is historical, not political. And I'd like to keep it that way.

Today is August 6, the 65th Anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, one of the events that led to the ending of World War II. Over on Newsvine.com, there's an ongoing discussion of an article on msnbc.com describing the commemorations going on in Hiroshima today. The main consensus is that the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary in order to prevent the tremendous loss of American lives in an invasion of Japan. I posted this as a thought experiment to see what kind of discussions it would generate. Unfortunately, as of this moment no one has commented. So I'm posting it here.


Sometimes I wonder about an invasion of Japan. Would it really have cost all the lives they say it would have cost? I think a well-planned invasion of Tokyo, blitzkrieg-style, might have ended the war right there. The ultimate objective of such an invasion would have been the capture of Emperor Hirohito, the one man who could have ended hostilities right then and there. Remember, Japan by then was a spent force. America controlled the skies over and the seas around Japan, its infrastructure lay in ruins, its land forces were decimated, and its civilian population, while fanatical, was demoralized as well. Also, the Emperor was essentially a figurehead; General Tojo and his cronies ran the Japanese government. A surgical strike by commandos, a quick capture of the Emperor, and forcing him to order Japan to cease hostilitles, might have been sufficient to end the war right then and there. Plus, the US had the atomic bomb in reserve. Detonating it off the coast of Tokyo in full sight of the populace might have been sufficient to convince them to cease hostilities. All conjecture, I'll admit, but an interesting thought experiment nonetheless, certainly food for thought.


Discuss.

And please, no politics!

I have no doubt in my mind that you are completely and utterly wrong about that. The Japanese would have fought until the bitter end if there was an invasion on their home soil. That's what you're leaving out. An army may be demoralized when they're losing men and materiel at the rate the Japanese were, on top of losing the war, but the instant there was a GM vehicle on Japanese soil, that's an instant rallying cry and shot in the arm.

What you're also forgetting is that the Japanese propaganda machine had residents of some of the islands we were hopping convinced that they should kill themselves rather than make contact with us. Now granted that's only one example, but imagine if we were assaulting their home islands.

I think the figures for US deaths may be a bit high, but only by about 10% or so. I've no doubt that dropping the bomb saved millions of lives.

[stratovani]

Originally Posted by sloasdaylight

I have no doubt in my mind that you are completely and utterly wrong about that. The Japanese would have fought until the bitter end if there was an invasion on their home soil. That's what you're leaving out. An army may be demoralized when they're losing men and materiel at the rate the Japanese were, on top of losing the war, but the instant there was a GM vehicle on Japanese soil, that's an instant rallying cry and shot in the arm.

What you're also forgetting is that the Japanese propaganda machine had residents of some of the islands we were hopping convinced that they should kill themselves rather than make contact with us. Now granted that's only one example, but imagine if we were assaulting their home islands.

I think the figures for US deaths may be a bit high, but only by about 10% or so. I've no doubt that dropping the bomb saved millions of lives.

You're probably right. I'll admit I'm wrong and that America did the right thing in dropping the a-bombs. But this is just a thought experiment, along the lines of the "What If" historical books that try to examine certain historical events and what the ramifications would have been if events had played out differently.

[sloasdaylight]

Originally Posted by stratovani

You're probably right. I'll admit I'm wrong and that America did the right thing in dropping the a-bombs. But this is just a thought experiment, along the lines of the "What If" historical books that try to examine certain historical events and what the ramifications would have been if events had played out differently.

Those are great books, with great historians writing them, I've got the 2 huge like, 1,000 page compilations in my room.

I don't want you to think that I was attacking you though, cause I wasn't.

[stratovani]

Originally Posted by EBodious

the standard u.s. history book story is that all the people of japan would have fought to the death if we invaded their homeland. my guess is that we would have ended up in a korea type standoff. this would have meant that japan would not be the economic force that it became and that our wars in korea and vietnam might have occurred differently, if at all. maybe japan, in a stand off against the u.s., would have been lured by communist support.....

Interesting to think what the ramifications would have been if the US had decided to go ahead with an invasion of Japan. Other than the loss of life, the world would have evolved differently. Japan might have even become a US Trust Territory, like Guam and Puerto Rico!

[aborgman]

Originally Posted by 12bass

Sorry to say, but from everything I've learned, the atomic bomb was ultimately used for geopolitical reasons, in part to set the world on notice.

I'd say that is extremely true of the Nagasaki bomb (look at target selection, the decision to accelerate the Nagasaki bombing schedule, and the discussions about the Nagasaki bomb being necessary to 'show the Russians') but not really at all true of Hiroshima.

[stratovani]

Originally Posted by sloasdaylight

Those are great books, with great historians writing them, I've got the 2 huge like, 1,000 page compilations in my room.

I don't want you to think that I was attacking you though, cause I wasn't.

I appreciate your consideration, sloasdaylight. You've always struck me as very intelligent. I think it's kind of fun to think about topics like this. I read a chapter last night in "What If vol 2" about what might have happened if Jesus had not been crucified. Very interesting if you're a history buff like me, and very thought-provoking as well.

[becker4567]

Originally Posted by sloasdaylight

I have no doubt in my mind that you are completely and utterly wrong about that. The Japanese would have fought until the bitter end if there was an invasion on their home soil. That's what you're leaving out. An army may be demoralized when they're losing men and materiel at the rate the Japanese were, on top of losing the war, but the instant there was a GM vehicle on Japanese soil, that's an instant rallying cry and shot in the arm.

What you're also forgetting is that the Japanese propaganda machine had residents of some of the islands we were hopping convinced that they should kill themselves rather than make contact with us. Now granted that's only one example, but imagine if we were assaulting their home islands.

I think the figures for US deaths may be a bit high, but only by about 10% or so. I've no doubt that dropping the bomb saved millions of lives.

Sad but very true. Most people don't realize that Japan still had a huge (at least 1 million men) army stationed north to guard against an invasion from Russia, that could be relatively quickly shifted to one of the southern islands. They had also been building in very large numbers a version of the V-1 flying bomb, only the Japanese version (the Okra) had a pilot, and the Japanese navy still had a large inventory of subs. The only reason the Japanese surrendered was by direct order of the Emperor. Tojo, the 'Shogun' and real political leader of the country had every desire to have the population fight to the death.

[Smokin' Toaster]

The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrible, horrible events, as was ALL of WWII. But if you have any doubt that the atomic bombings saved American AND Japanese lives, do some research on the battle for Okinawa. The Japanese women and children were fighting with sticks and stones and finally throwing themselves off of cliffs rather than be taken by the Americans, due to the propaganda they had been fed. And while the explosions of the bombs and the radiation was worse, the incendiary bombings that had turned Japanese cities into firestorms were almost as horrible.

It's easy to relax today and view a horrible event through the window of history and play "monday morning quarterback", but the US were not evil bad guys... they were trying to end a war. And they did.

Those who do not understand the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

[12bass]

Originally Posted by Jim Campbell

there was also the staggering cost in lives of an invasion by sea,estimated in the hundreds of thousands of american soldiers,sailors and airmen......balanced against the destruction of hiroshima and nagasaki,truman made the best and only choice

That is the standard rationale. However, it is only speculative as we cannot know these claims to be true because the atomic bomb was dropped instead (twice!).

Originally Posted by aborgman

I'd say that is extremely true of the Nagasaki bomb (look at target selection, the decision to accelerate the Nagasaki bombing schedule, and the discussions about the Nagasaki bomb being necessary to 'show the Russians') but not really at all true of Hiroshima.

History is generally written to favor the victors and portray their actions as just. In this particular case, it would be rather unsavory for many to accept that the official justification was not the truth, and that there were other, less noble, reasons behind the bombings. In particular, there are issues of nationalism which make this a rather difficult issue to analyze objectively; no one wants to see their own country in a negative light, especially when confronted by possibility that hundreds of thousands were maimed and killed unnecessarily. Much easier to think that good prevailed and justice was done....

On that note, I'm probably going to bow out, as I can see how this line of thinking may be rather unpopular, even as a hypothetical put up for consideration.

[sloasdaylight]

The dropping of the second bomb on Nagasaki served 2 purposes, one of them convinced Japan to surrender, cause it was kind of a "We'll do this all over your island if you make us" type of thing I think. And the other was obviously to take our global penis out and wave it at the Russians. Everyone knew we were developing a nuke, and to drop one is one thing, but to come out and drop 2, within days of each other was something completely else.

[pbagley]

After reading "Flyboys" (same author as Flags of our Fathers) I highly doubt that Japan would have allied with a communist country. Russia was an enemy, China was an enemy. Germany was a partner that was looked upon as being an inferior. These were the children of the Sun God, all others were as animals. Victory had to be won in the most horrible way.

[sloasdaylight]

Originally Posted by stratovani

I appreciate your consideration, sloasdaylight. You've always struck me as very intelligent. I think it's kind of fun to think about topics like this. I read a chapter last night in "What If vol 2" about what might have happened if Jesus had not been crucified. Very interesting if you're a history buff like me, and very thought-provoking as well.

Well thank you, I think you're about the only one here, lol.

[Jim Campbell]

Originally Posted by 12bass

That is the standard rationale. However, it is only speculative as we cannot know these claims to be true because the atomic bomb was dropped instead (twice!).



History is generally written to favor the victors and portray their actions as just. In this particular case, it would be rather unsavory for many to accept that the official justification was not the truth, and that there were other, less noble, reasons behind the bombings. In particular, there are issues of nationalism which make this a rather difficult issue to analyze objectively; no one wants to see their own country in a negative light, especially when confronted by possibility that hundreds of thousands were maimed and killed unnecessarily. Much easier to think that good prevailed and justice was done....

On that note, I'm probably going to bow out, as I can see how this line of thinking may be rather unpopular, even as a hypothetical put up for consideration.

it is well documented that japan was gearing up for an all out defense of their island,and even if a conventional invasion were practical,one must remember that the world had been at war for a very long time and that ending it quickly was necessary.....how long can people at home endure the hardships and deprivations,while their loved ones are far away and in peril.....wars extract a terrible price to non combatants too,and must be considered.....methinks that you have not considered many factors in your thesis beyond your opposition to nukes...

[mrpackerguy]

I can only imagine what Harry Truman went through in making the decision. I visited the Enola Gay at the National Air and Space Museum annex facility near Dulles in Washington DC. It's eerie indeed being able to touch that plane knowing where it went, what it did, and how it so drastically changed or at least was a part of history. I don't know whether you can necessarily categorize the decision as "right" or "wrong". I tend to think of the decision in terms of necessity and the preservation of our way of life and freedoms.