Did the US have to drop the A-bombs on Japan?

[Drakkith]

You seem to saying Japan had some right to start the Pacific War because the US government was sympathetic to Britain and France but remained officially neutral. France, of course had already been defeated and its overseas possessions were nominally under Vichy control.

I'm saying the U.S. actively supported Japans enemies and had been working against them politically for years. We were not simple innocent folk who had no idea Japan was about to attack us and had done nothing to provoke them. This has nothing to do with "rights", as there is no legal system anywhere that determines whether countries have the right to go to war or not.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I'm saying the U.S. actively supported Japans enemies and had been working against them politically for years. We were not simple innocent folk who had no idea Japan was about to attack us and had done nothing to provoke them. This has nothing to do with "rights", as there is no legal system anywhere that determines whether countries have the right to go to war or not.

I agree. The US opposed the annexation of Manchuria by force in 1931. It opposed the invasion of China Proper in 1937 and objected to the Rape of Nanjing. The US opposed the bloody conquest of Ethiopia by Italy and in general was disapproving of the Fascist Axis. I agree the US was not "innocent" even when it remained officially neutral. By opposing Fascism, the US was opposing the great promise that Fascism held for the world.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree the US was not "innocent" even when it remained officially neutral.

That's probably a completely different topic, but my thought is that the US maintained an official or semi-official policy of neutrality for a century and a half regardless of if it really meant anything. As far as I can tell, it was never much more than an internal political position that didn't have a whole lot to do with the external reality.

Certainly, we were anything but neutral in 1940. But, that doesn't make it any less a war of aggression by Japan.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

That's probably a completely different topic, but my thought is that the US maintained an official or semi-official policy of neutrality for a century and a half regardless of if it really meant anything. As far as I can tell, it was never much more than an internal political position that didn't have a whole lot to do with the external reality.

Certainly, we were anything but neutral in 1940. But, that doesn't make it any less a war of aggression by Japan.

Well, the US did briefly engage in "internationalism" in Wilson's second term including participation in WWI and the postwar conclaves. However, the American public didn't like it and an isolationist mood spread over the country. The US never joined the League of Nations (proposed by Wilson and accepted by the other allied powers).

 

[willbell]

What it comes down to is would a Japanese negotiation team believe a film of a bomb going off that they don't have any real perception of the scale of or an emotional punch to the gut over the fact that a huge bomb killed thousands of Japanese people?

They could have saved everybody... or wasted nuclear weapons AND millions of Allies and Japanese in a costly invasion of Japan.

Or used nuclear weapons and killed thousands of civilians SAVING millions of Japanese, and more importantly to the Americans 400,000 to a million American lives.

 

[jim hardy]

i wasn't there, of course, but two uncles were in air corps. One of them flew recon for the B29 campaign, the other flew "Rubber Baby Buggy Bumpers" from Oak Ridge to Hanford and Los Alamos..

My two cents worth of observations:
Watch your history channel documentaries. One of them showed thousands of tons of nerve gas stashed in Australia for the invasion.
The Oak Ridge museum has a wall of letters to Manhattan Project workers, all to effect "Wow brother no wonder you couldn't tell us anything. I'm sure glad we didn't have to invade..."
An old fellow at my church was in a landing craft alongside USS Missouri when surender was signed. He'd been in most of those island by island campaigns. He said "You wouldn't believe how they'd planned for an invasion - we'd have got cut to ribbons."
Russia was on the march toward Japan. Doubtless they'd have grabbed at least half, as they did in Germany, and who knows what Japan would be today.
Japan had their own A-Bomb project. (Google Paul Kuroda)

So I'm not criticizing Truman for that call.

 

[willbell]

Russia was on the march toward Japan. Doubtless they'd have grabbed at least half, as they did in Germany, and who knows what Japan would be today.

It seems as if a communist government wouldn't catch on in an imperialist Japan after worshiping a god-emperor, definitely would have been bloody.

 

[vjk2]

has anyone watched Oliver Stone's Untold History?

I personally do feel that it was unnecessary. Especially the 2nd bombing.

 

[Drakkith]

I don't know what the big deal over the A-Bombs is. Maybe people don't understand how truly terrible World War 2 was. Wiki places the losses at over SIXTY-MILLION KILLED. SIXTY-MILLION. That's 2.5% of the world population at the time. The majority of these were civilians at around 40-50 million, with 15-20 million military.

Every single major country committed acts that would be considered heinous atrocities, including Japan, The U.S., Britain, Russia, and Germany. We're talking about firebombings of cities, The Blitz, and dozens of others.

China itself lost 10-20 MILLION people. So great were it's casualties that the UNCERTAINTY in the casualty list was in the millions. Think about that. Considering practically all of those were from China's war with Japan I don't have any problem with dropping a couple of A-Bombs. Heck, considering the devastation inflicted on Tokyo by firebombings, in which more than 100,000 people were killed by conventional weapons, I don't see the big deal. It's a sad, sad fact that the slaughter of entire cities of civilians occurred. But considering the horrible state of the world at the time, it probably saved lives in the end.

 

[NemoReally]

It is worth noting that despite the dropping of 2 bombs, Japan did not surrender immediately and there were still significant factions in favour of continuing the war right up to the surrender. Claims that the Japanese would have surrendered anyway, with less loss of life, are highly speculative.

It is also worth bearing in mind that intelligence is a game played with hidden cards and interpretation of data is fraught with difficulties, particularly where intent is concerned and not all parties are disinterested in presenting all the facts or being neutral in their analyses - and that includes ex post facto claims by all sides, Japan included. In evaluating what the "correct" action should have bee, consider the reliability of the information that Truman and others had to work with and the range of less favourable outcomes that had to be factored in.

If we're voting, then I think Truman made the right decision, given the overall military and political situation, the likely scenarios and the nature of the intelligence available.

I also side with those who believe that what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a major factor in stopping the nuclear powers reaching for the Big Red Button. I suspect several hundred / thousand bombers / rockets doing x amount of damage with conventional weapons is somehow more emotionally acceptable than one bomber / rocket just wiping a city off the face of the earth. It might not have been if Little Boy and Fat Man had not made it so Very Real.

 

[jim hardy]

It is also worth bearing in mind that intelligence is a game played with hidden cards and interpretation of data is fraught with difficulties, ..

One can only speculate what went through the intelligence community when German submarine U234, bound for Japan, surrendered in Portsmouth NH with uranium in cylinders marked "U235" among its cargo.

http://www.ww2pacific.com/u-234.html

The Uranium carried by U-234 was enough to make two atomic bombs, to blow up two American cities -- 1,235 pounds of 77 percent pure uranium oxide -- unusable by the destroyed Nazi hopes, it was destined for the Japanese atomic bomb program.

But, such speculation probably belongs more properly in the "Science Fiction" thread. It'd make a great short story..

 

[vjk2]

I really recommend that everyone watch the 3rd episode of Oliver Stone's Untold History of the USA which deals with the subject.

Basically, the Japanese were sending out peace feelers prior to the bombing. The only issue that they wanted was to keep the emperor, who was a religious figure for them. Symbolic, in other words.

The motivation for dropping the bomb was intimidating the Soviets.

here's an interesting quote from Eisenhower

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012...ainst-japan-to-contain-russian-ambitions.html

In [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude….

 

[russ_watters]

Oliver Stone is a filmmaker, not an historian, so I'd be wary of treating his movies as actual accurate history lessons - even ones purported to be documentaries.

 

[NemoReally]

One can only speculate what went through the intelligence community when German submarine U234, bound for Japan, surrendered in Portsmouth NH with uranium in cylinders marked "U235" among its cargo. http://www.ww2pacific.com/u-234.html

A proper "U" boat, eh?

But, such speculation probably belongs more properly in the "Science Fiction" thread. It'd make a great short story..

An odd thought occurred to me ... I wonder if the Japanese would have used a bomb to attack an Allied base or city (tricky to get it there), a beach-head area-denial weapon (that would make Omaha Beach look like a walk-in-the-park) , or, given what happened on Okinawa and other places, used it as a last-stand suicide weapon - the ultimate Scorched Earth weapon, perhaps even taking out Tokyo themselves?

 

[OmCheeto]

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012...ainst-japan-to-contain-russian-ambitions.html

hmmm... Is the person who writes that blog some kind of book club of the month person?

Every single reference is to a book. (Ok, so I only went to #3. Fool me once, fool me twice, fool me 3 times on a Sunday, but...)

I don't have time to read a book every time someone references a quote.

I do believe the entire world economy would come to a freakin' standstill if that were the case.

"Don't believe that he said that? Here! Read this book!"

Phhhttt!

 

[NemoReally]

I really recommend that everyone watch the 3rd episode of Oliver Stone's Untold History of the USA which deals with the subject.

Basically, the Japanese were sending out peace feelers prior to the bombing. The only issue that they wanted was to keep the emperor, who was a religious figure for them. Symbolic, in other words.

The motivation for dropping the bomb was intimidating the Soviets.

here's an interesting quote from Eisenhower

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012...ainst-japan-to-contain-russian-ambitions.html

In [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude….

How much involvement had Eisenhower in the war against Japan? How in tune was he with the events? What would the "minimum loss of face" have been and how long would Japan have negotiated for until they achieved it or gave up hope of doing so? What would they have done if the (pre-nuclear) deal was unacceptable to them? How did Eisenhower's views align with the thoughts of those involved in Theatre who had witnessed Iwo Jima, Saipan and Okinawa? Do you think the latter group would have, say, viewed peace feelers as genuine or an attempt to buy time to improve the defences? How well had previous negotiations with the Japanese gone?

 

[OmCheeto]

ps. I thought the OP was answered appropriately shortly after the thread started.

ergo... hmmm... Ah ha!

note to self: unsubscribe from all solved threads, as quickly as humanly possible.

 

[phinds]

I really recommend that everyone watch the 3rd episode of Oliver Stone's Untold History of the USA which deals with the subject.

You get your history from fictional movie account by a filmmaker who loves controversy? Really?

Basically, the Japanese were sending out peace feelers prior to the bombing. The only issue that they wanted was to keep the emperor, who was a religious figure for them. Symbolic, in other words.

HIGHLY speculative [EDIT: speculative that they were ready to surrender, not speculative that they wanted to protect the emperor]

The motivation for dropping the bomb was intimidating the Soviets.

Yeah, I think that was a part of the motivation. Maybe 3%.

here's an interesting quote from Eisenhower

Eisenhower wasn't fighting the war in Japan.

At the end of the day, hindsight is wonderful but at the time it looked completely as though it would have cost as much as 100,000 American lives and perhaps 1,000,000 Japanese lives if we had had to invade the home islands, so the bomb seemed like a good idea at the time.

 

[vjk2]

So attack the messenger instead of actually looking at the message. That's all I hear so far.

A number of military leaders, from Douglass MacArthur to Dwight Eisenhower to Curtis LeMay stated that in their opinion it was unnecessary to drop the bomb. That's militarily. Japan was losing the war. That was obvious. Surrender was only a matter of time.

Secondly, why drop the bomb on a populated city? Why not drop it on a naval base or in an uninhabited region as a demonstration?

And why drop it twice?

Intimidation of the Soviets makes perfect sense.

 

[Drakkith]

A number of military leaders, from Douglass MacArthur to Dwight Eisenhower to Curtis LeMay stated that in their opinion it was unnecessary to drop the bomb. That's militarily. Japan was losing the war. That was obvious. Surrender was only a matter of time.

Surrender was only a matter of time? Have you taken into account that even after 2 atomic bombs and the thread of a soviet invasion the Japanese cabinet was still deadlocked in deciding on whether to surrender or not? And when the Emperor himself stepped in and broke the deadlock in favor of surrender there were 3 separate coup attempts to avert the surrender. That doesn't sound like surrender was only a matter of time to me.

Secondly, why drop the bomb on a populated city? Why not drop it on a naval base or in an uninhabited region as a demonstration?

Because this is World War 2. The slaughter of entire cities, by BOTH sides, was effectively commonplace. Japan itself had massacred millions of civilians in China. MILLIONS. World War 2 was the biggest example of "Total War", in which countries mobilize nearly the entirety of their resources and population in order to carry out warfare.

The true tragedy of the war is that it was of such magnitude, of such scale, and prosecuted against foes that were so brutal that otherwise good men were forced to forget about their morals and values in order to win. That they were forced to see entire cities and their populations as numbers on reports about how valuable they were to the enemies war efforts.

Remember that this was a war that lacked precision bombs, jet aircraft, and guided missiles. How do you destroy a factory that produces munitions when they are covered by a massive Flak battery and fighter aircraft? You send 200 bombers all at once and drop thousands of bombs since you have no idea if you'll be able to hit all the targets with any less. There was no other way. You couldn't send a small strike force. Fighters can't carry enough bombs and can't fly far enough, and bombers are too big to avoid being seen well in advance. You can't send a special forces team. You have no way of safely delivering or picking them up and they had little chance of taking out huge factories anyways.

As for why those two cities, see the following link:

Minutes of the second meeting of the Target Committee
Los Alamos, May 10-11, 1945

http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html

Some important points from the link are:

6. Status of Targets

A. Dr. Stearns described the work he had done on target selection. He has surveyed possible targets possessing the following qualification: (1) they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter, (2) they be capable of being damaged effectively by a blast, and (3) they are unlikely to be attacked by next August. Dr. Stearns had a list of five targets which the Air Force would be willing to reserve for our use unless unforeseen circumstances arise. These targets are:

(2) Hiroshima - This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target)

7. Psychological Factors in Target Selection

A. It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.

B. In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value.

8. Use Against "Military" Objectives

A. It was agreed that for the initial use of the weapon any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the bomb.

And why drop it twice?

Partly because taking out two targets is better than just one. And partly because Japan didn't surrender after the 1st was dropped. Realize that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are terrible ordeals, but they were NOT the worst bombings or invasions of the war. The firebombing of tokyo killed more people, and Japan's Nanking Massace killed 300,000 civilians.

As I said, this was a war in which entire cities had already been bombed to husks for years. If you've already been bombed, and taken part in bombings of cities in order to win the war, what real reason do you have to hold back a weapon that takes a single aircraft to accomplish the same thing that 500 did before?

Intimidation of the Soviets makes perfect sense.

While that is an obvious benefit, I don't think you can justify that intimidating the Soviets was the primary reason for dropping the bombs.

And just in case you still don't think so, if we weren't so concerned with invading Japan, why did the U.S. government order approximately 500,000 purple hearts in preparation for the extreme number of predicted casualties an invasion would have cost?

http://hnn.us/articles/1801.html

In all, approximately 1,506,000 Purple Hearts were produced for the war effort with production reaching its peak as the Armed Services geared up for the invasion of Japan. Despite wastage, pilfering and items that were simply lost, the number of decorations was approximately 495,000 after the war.

The veterans were heavily criticized in some academic circles for their insistence that the dropping of the atom bomb had ended the war quickly and ultimately saved countless thousands of American -- and Japanese -- lives during an invasion.

When hearing of the new production, Jim Pattillo, then president of the 20th Air Force Association stated that, "detailed information on the kind of casualties expected would have been a big help in demonstrating to modern Americans that those were very different times."

Medical and training information in "arcanely worded military documents can be confusing," said Pattillo, "but everyone understands a half-million Purple Hearts."

Every single purple heart given out to a U.S. Servicemember since 1945 has been one that was originally ordered for the U.S. invasion of Japan.

 

[vjk2]

They didn't want an unconditional surrender, no. They wanted to surrender and keep the emperor.

Previous bombings were done in the middle of the war. This bombing was done at the conclusion, when surrender was obviously inevitable.

Frankly, I trust the statements of high ranking generals, especially LeMay and McArthur, over some random officer's statement.

The Japanese surrendered shortly after Stalin invaded Manchuria and Korea.

 

[Drakkith]

They didn't want an unconditional surrender, no. They wanted to surrender and keep the emperor.

And the militaristic lifestyle that had directly led to both the war itself and the atrocities committed during the war.

Previous bombings were done in the middle of the war. This bombing was done at the conclusion, when surrender was obviously inevitable.

No, surrender was not obviously inevitable. At BEST you could claim that this is a disputed topic, but in no way at all can you claim that it was obviously inevitable. The US military was gearing up for a major invasion. You don't gear up for a major invasion when surrender is inevitable.

Frankly, I trust the statements of high ranking generals, especially LeMay and McArthur, over some random officer's statement.

Have you researched this topic for more than 2 minutes? I have. And there is is FAR more to it that one or two generals statements.

The Japanese surrendered shortly after Stalin invaded Manchuria and Korea.

Irrelevant. It's no secret that the Soviet Invasion played a factor in the surrender of Japan. Instead of spouting off what you BELIEVE, actually take a little while and research the topic. I believe you will find that it is VERY complicated, with multiple points of view that don't always match up.

This whole topic is purely opinion based anyways. Did we HAVE to drop the bombs? No, absolutely not. But that's not the issue. It's whether we SHOULD have dropped them. There is no answer to that. It all depends on what you believe. And unless people have done more than a minute or two of research on the topic I don't think anyone should be posting, as they would just be wasting forum space.