# Another World War II Question **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 29, 2011, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-world-war-ii-question/607750 "2011-12-29T19:57:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Hail\_Ants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dc4da7/32.png) [@Hail\_Ants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hail_Ants)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-world-war-ii-question/607750/21 "2011-12-30T00:20:20Z")
Stalin is said to have computed that the destruction the Germans wrought against Russia was roughly the equivalent to about 60 Hiroshima bombs. So he didn’t exactly tremble at the idea of us threatening to nuke him. Which we never really did (threaten to that is), till the Berlin airlift anyway. Even then, only tacitly. Thing about tyrannical despots, they tend to not worry as much about their citizens as the do their power… ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-world-war-ii-question/607750/22 "2011-12-30T00:39:07Z")
> [@Hail\_Ants](#): > > Thing about tyrannical despots, they tend to not worry as much about their citizens as the do their power… A public speech made by Mao in 1958 demonstrated this point: > [@](#): > > “Do not be alarmed either if there should be war. It would merely mean getting people killed and we’ve seen people killed in war. Eliminating half of the population occurred several times in China’s history. The 50 million population in the time of Emperor Wu in the Han Dynasty was reduced to 10 million by the time of the Three Kingdoms, the two Chin Dynasties and the North and South Dynasties. The war lasted for decades and intermittently for several hundred years, from the Three Kingdoms to the North and South Dynasties. The T’ang Dynasty began with a population of 20 million and did not reach 50 million until Emperor Hsuan. And Lu-shan staged a revolt and the country was divided into many states. It was not reunited until the Sung Dynasty, some 100 or 200 years later, with a population of just over 10 million… Not very many people were killed in the two World Wars, 10 million in the first and 20 million in the second, but we had 40 million killed in one war. So, how destructive were the big swords! We have no experience in atomic war. So, how many will be killed cannot be known. The best outcome may be that only half of the population is left and the second best may be only one-third. When 900 million are left out of 2.9 billion, several five-year plans can be developed for the total elimination of capitalism and for permanent peace. It is not a bad thing.” ---
**Author:** ![The\_Peyote\_Coyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f8ce5/32.png) [@The\_Peyote\_Coyote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Peyote_Coyote)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-world-war-ii-question/607750/23 "2011-12-30T00:44:25Z")
> [@](#): > > You’re thinking of Kyoto. Secretary of War Henry Stimson took it off the target list personally, due to its extensive cultural heritage. Tokyo, conversely, had already been bombed extensively, in the most devastating air raid of WW2. General Groves and others wanted a relatively unscathed target in order to judge the effectiveness of the atomic bomb. About four were left at the time of Hiroshima: Hiroshima, Kyoto, Nagasaki, and Kokura. So I was, Gray Ghost. Thank you for the correction. ---
**Author:** ![HubZilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ccd318/32.png) [@HubZilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HubZilla)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-world-war-ii-question/607750/24 "2011-12-30T00:50:26Z")
It’s not really accurate to portray it as “invade or use nukes”. Operation Downfall would’ve [used multiple nukes on Japanese positions anyway.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_downfall#Nuclear_weapons) The choice was use them in lieu of an invasion, or use them _during_ an invasion. > [@](#): > > (bolding mine) > On Marshall’s orders, Major General John E. Hull looked into the tactical use of nuclear weapons for the invasion of the Japanese home islands (even after the dropping of two strategic atomic bombs on Japan, Marshall did not think that the Japanese would capitulate immediately). Colonel Lyle E. Seeman reported that at least **seven bombs would be available by X-Day, which could be dropped on defending forces**. > … > Ken Nichols, the District Engineer of the Manhattan Engineer District, wrote that at the beginning of August 1945, “[p]lanning for the invasion of the main Japanese home islands had reached its final stages, and if the landings actually took place, **we might supply about fifteen atomic bombs to support the troops.** ” There weren’t really moral qualms about radiation, as it wasn’t understood. Col. Seeman “advised that American troops not enter an area hit by a bomb for “at least 48 hours””. Imagine Hiroshima x10, this time with our own soldiers also dying of radiation sickness. ---
**Author:** ![Patch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a183cd/32.png) [@Patch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patch)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-world-war-ii-question/607750/25 "2011-12-30T01:53:07Z")
> [@dolphinboy](#): > > So had we had the bomb a year earlier we wouldn’t have bombed Berlin to end the war in Europer? The place where Hitler and all of his cronies were? I’m not sure we could have, at least not how we did against Hiroshima. The Germans were still shooting down a lot of bombers in '44. A run against Berlin would have involved a large number of planes, Hiroshima had 3? 4? which ran like hell when the bomb was dropped. Would that have worked if you had 3-400 planes in the air? What if the plane carrying it was shot down? We didn’t think the bombs were that big of a deal, given how we ran troops into the mushroom clouds during tests. I wonder if we would have bombed the invasion beaches. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-world-war-ii-question/607750/26 "2011-12-30T05:23:10Z")
> [@Patch](#): > > I’m not sure we could have, at least not how we did against Hiroshima. The Germans were still shooting down a lot of bombers in '44. A run against Berlin would have involved a large number of planes, Hiroshima had 3? 4? which ran like hell when the bomb was dropped. Would that have worked if you had 3-400 planes in the air? What if the plane carrying it was shot down? > > We didn’t think the bombs were that big of a deal, given how we ran troops into the mushroom clouds during tests. I wonder if we would have bombed the invasion beaches. :eek: The Japanese had given up attacking lone bombers. Since firebombing runs came in waves of dozens or hundreds of planes, a lone bomber or two was likely just reconaissance and not worth the effort - since it wasn’t dropping anything, if the attack aircraft were shot down it was a waste of scarce resources. The Americans knew this, and sending a lone bomber was a calculated risk that worked twice. That attitude might have changed by the fourth or fifth A-bomb; but then the US would just send a pack of 10 or 20 plus escort, making it a puzzle to find the right plane in time. ---
**Author:** ![notsoheavyd3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/85e7bf/32.png) [@notsoheavyd3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/notsoheavyd3)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-world-war-ii-question/607750/27 "2011-12-30T05:54:10Z")
> [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > General Groves and others wanted a relatively unscathed target in order to judge the effectiveness of the atomic bomb. About four were left at the time of Hiroshima: [Hiroshima, Kyoto, Nagasaki, and Kokura.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki) That reminds me of something. Wasn’t part of the plan to invade Japan to basically use nukes like any other bomb? IE you soften up the defense with shelling/bombing and then the landing troops come in. Did I hear correctly that the plan was to drop the nukes on the Japanese first and then land the troops immediately afterwards? (Curious since I’ve heard the argument the options were bomb or invade but it sounds like plan was always bomb and invade but the Japanese gave up during the weapon test phase of things.) ---
**Author:** ![notsoheavyd3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/85e7bf/32.png) [@notsoheavyd3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/notsoheavyd3)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-world-war-ii-question/607750/28 "2011-12-30T05:57:29Z")
> [@HubZilla](#): > > It’s not really accurate to portray it as “invade or use nukes”. Operation Downfall would’ve [used multiple nukes on Japanese positions anyway.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_downfall#Nuclear_weapons) The choice was use them in lieu of an invasion, or use them _during_ an invasion. > > There weren’t really moral qualms about radiation, as it wasn’t understood. Col. Seeman “advised that American troops not enter an area hit by a bomb for “at least 48 hours””. Imagine Hiroshima x10, this time with our own soldiers also dying of radiation sickness. Damn, knew I should have read the rest of this before posting. ---
**Author:** ![notsoheavyd3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/85e7bf/32.png) [@notsoheavyd3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/notsoheavyd3)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-world-war-ii-question/607750/29 "2011-12-30T06:00:43Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > Another item I read once said that also, after a week of no surrender, the Americans wanted the Japanese to think they had an unending supply of the bombs and were willing to use them. (I also recall some technical people in Japan argued that it would take months or years to accumulate the material for a bomb, the Americans probably did not have another) So, the Americans dropped the next one, and IIRC they would have to wait a month or two for the third to arrive. Somewhat of a bluff. It seems to have worked. > > The fact that the Soviets entered the Pacific war, so getting all of Japan before the Russians got beyond the Kuriles(?) was a good strategy too. Actually my understanding was the 3rd bomb was being shipped to Tinian and was going to be dropped during the 3rd week of August. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic\_bombings\_of\_Hiroshima\_and\_Nagasaki#Plans\_for\_more\_atomic\_attacks\_on\_Japan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Plans_for_more_atomic_attacks_on_Japan) ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-world-war-ii-question/607750/30 "2011-12-30T09:10:17Z")
> [@obbn](#): > > It has to be remembered that the Soviets didn’t declare war on Japan until it was quite obvious that the US had them defeated. The timing of the USSR’s declaration of war was specifically agreed to as part of a deal between them and the other Allied powers. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-world-war-ii-question/607750/31 "2011-12-30T12:48:41Z")
I read a few books years ago which held that the idea of a rabid military high command prepared to overrule the Emperor and continue fighting was pure myth. No Japanese officer, including Tojo, would have dreamed of disobeying his Emperor. The Americans nurtured this idea because they felt Japan would be far easier to rule with the Emperor in place, rather than trying him as a war criminal (and there was substantial evidence apparently of his support for the war party). Just remembered the title of one of them, Japan’s Imperial Conspiracy by David Bergamini. This one impressed me at the time by its voluminous detail, well-sourced notes and the author’s encyclopedic knowledge of Japanese politics from the 19th century to the end of WWII. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-world-war-ii-question/607750/32 "2011-12-30T13:45:28Z")
> [@Patch](#): > > I’m not sure we could have, at least not how we did against Hiroshima. The Germans were still shooting down a lot of bombers in '44. A run against Berlin would have involved a large number of planes, Hiroshima had 3? 4? which ran like hell when the bomb was dropped. Three planes: [QUOTE=Wikipedia] The _Enola Gay_ was accompanied by two other B-29s, _Necessary Evil_ which was used to carry scientific observers, and as a camera plane to photograph the explosion and effects of the bomb and _The Great Artiste_, instrumented for blast measurement [/QUOTE] . ---
**Author:** ![MarcusF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/67e7ee/32.png) [@MarcusF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarcusF)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-world-war-ii-question/607750/33 "2011-12-30T14:07:51Z")
> [@obbn](#): > > I think that your reading is spot on. It was done to force and unconditional surrender of the Japanese without us having to resort to a full on invasion and to send a message to the Soviets. > > It is amazing how many people seem to have a problem with us sending that message to the Soviets. They were (as proven in the post war years) a very aggressive nation and we needed to show that we were in a position to stop that aggression. It has to be remembered that the Soviets didn’t declare war on Japan until it was quite obvious that the US had them defeated. This showed a clear intent on their part to “share” in the spoils of war and to make a land grab without the sacrifice. > [@RickJay](#): > > The timing of the USSR’s declaration of war was specifically agreed to as part of a deal between them and the other Allied powers. Until July 1945 the US (and UK) were pressing hard for the Soviet Union to join the war on Japan. They were very aware of Soviet expansionism and the danger that represented to Chiang Kai-shek and his Nationalist Chinese (always an American obsession!) but desperate to share the burden, and the casualties, of destroying the Japanese army and a possible invasion. By Potsdam this was changing. It was clear the Japanese were nearing collapse due to the blockade and the fire-bombing and the A bomb was a potential game changer but the US was still pressing for a Soviet invasion of Manchuria - although with less enthusiasm than before. It was to get the Soviet’s into the war against Japan that Roosevelt had signed over half of Europe to the Soviet Union at Yalta. At Potsdam Stalin finally committed the SU to declaring war on 15 August and it was clearly the dropping of the bombs that brought forward the invasion of Manchuria to the early hours of 9 August - just hours before Fat Boy was dropped on Nagasaki - so that Stalin could lay claim to part of the spoils. As to the OP, that’s mostly been covered. The targets for the first bombs were specifically chosen because they had not previously been damaged, This was partly for maximum impact and partly to get a clear idea of their effectiveness. The actual order to Spaatz from Stimson and Marshall on 25 July (from Potsdam) said “The 509 Composite Group, Twentieth Air Force, will deliver its first special bomb as soon as weather will permit visual bombing after about 3 August 1945 on one of the targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, Nigata and Nagasaki … Additional bombs will be delivered on the above targets as soon as made ready by the project staff.” Note that there was no separate decision to drop a second bomb on Nagasaki - the order was to drop them as they became available. The United States government could have ordered a halt before the second bomb was dropped but with no clear signals of surrender from Tokyo saw no reason to do so. In fact Fat Man was meant for Kokura but cloud over the city caused Bock’s Car to divert to their secondary target of Nagasaki. ---
**Author:** ![MarcusF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/67e7ee/32.png) [@MarcusF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarcusF)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-world-war-ii-question/607750/34 "2011-12-30T14:52:53Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > I read a few books years ago which held that the idea of a rabid military high command prepared to overrule the Emperor and continue fighting was pure myth. No Japanese officer, including Tojo, would have dreamed of disobeying his Emperor. The Americans nurtured this idea because they felt Japan would be far easier to rule with the Emperor in place, rather than trying him as a war criminal (and there was substantial evidence apparently of his support for the war party). > > Just remembered the title of one of them, Japan’s Imperial Conspiracy by David Bergamini. This one impressed me at the time by its voluminous detail, well-sourced notes and the author’s encyclopedic knowledge of Japanese politics from the 19th century to the end of WWII. In the end the high command were not prepared to over-rule the Imperial will but it was by no means a certainty. With the mindset of the Japanese military after thirty years of militaristic/nationalist ideology and rhetoric it was not impossible for individual officers to convince themselves that the Emperor was being mis-advised and it was up to them to free him from these evil influences. This is the same reasoning used in rebelling against anointed kings throughout history -“it’s not the King - it’s his advisers”. Remember Japanese history is a succession of leaders ruling in the Emperor’s name while keeping the Emperor himself powerless and in isolation. There was an attempted coup - but by junior officers, not the high command. A major and a Lt Colonel slipped into the Imperial Palace in the evening of the 14th August. It was a pretty feeble attempt but having shot dead the commander of the Imperial Guards Division they forged orders for troops to “protect” the Emperor and cut him off from the outside world. Fortunately they failed to find either the Emperor or the recordings of his broadcast to the Empire and by the early hours of the next morning other troops had arrived and pursuaded the Guards that they had been tricked. Having said that, it is quite true a deliberate decision was taken not to try the Emperor for war crimes and to play down his part in the governance of the war in the interest of easier government post-war. Although he did finally break the log jam and order the surrender it was only at the eleventh hour. He had made no serious attempt to prevent the war or to end it sooner despite the writing clearly being on the wall and his people suffering terribly. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_T](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Gary\_T](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_T)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-world-war-ii-question/607750/35 "2011-12-30T15:04:29Z")
> [@dolphinboy](#): > > It took two atomic bombs to end WWII and force Japan to surrender unconditionally. Wouldn’t one bomb on Tokyo have done the job instead? > [@md2000](#): > > Another item I read once said that also, after a week of no surrender, the Americans wanted the Japanese to think they had an unending supply of the bombs and were willing to use them. Exactly. Using two bombs was specifically planned for the psychological effect of having more than one. One bomb could easily have been (and likely was) seen as a one-time fluke. With the second bomb, the question changes from “Is that the only one?” to “How many more do they have?” Classic gamesmanship. ---
**Author:** ![Hail\_Ants](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/dc4da7/32.png) [@Hail\_Ants](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hail_Ants)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-world-war-ii-question/607750/36 "2011-12-30T15:33:21Z")
> [@MarcusF](#): > > At Potsdam Stalin finally committed the SU to declaring war on 15 August and it was clearly the dropping of the bombs that brought forward the invasion of Manchuria to the early hours of 9 August - just hours before Fat Boy was dropped on Nagasaki - so that Stalin could lay claim to part of the spoils. It could also be mentioned that had there been no atom bomb (yet) and Operation Downfall went ahead, Stalin might have then pursued a counter-invasion from the north (for the spoils). Without an A-bomb we would have been torn between welcoming the Soviets’ help (which, in terms of invading Japan, would have been no small thing) and still wanting to contain them in the post-war world. Suffice it to say that had Stalin invaded Japan with us, along with Korea & Vietnam, we’d also be talking about North & South Japan! ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-world-war-ii-question/607750/37 "2011-12-30T15:40:28Z")
> [@obbn](#): > > It is amazing how many people seem to have a problem with us sending that message to the Soviets. They were (as proven in the post war years) a very aggressive nation and we needed to show that we were in a position to stop that aggression. It has to be remembered that the Soviets didn’t declare war on Japan until it was quite obvious that the US had them defeated. This showed a clear intent on their part to “share” in the spoils of war and to make a land grab without the sacrifice. Many people make the same claim about the United States, citing, as you did with the USSR, its delayed entry into the war and its post-war aggression. ---
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-world-war-ii-question/607750/38 "2011-12-30T16:06:02Z")
> [@MarcusF](#): > > Until July 1945 the US (and UK) were pressing hard for the Soviet Union to join the war on Japan. They were very aware of Soviet expansionism and the danger that represented to Chiang Kai-shek and his Nationalist Chinese (always an American obsession!) but desperate to share the burden, and the casualties, of destroying the Japanese army and a possible invasion. By Potsdam this was changing. It was clear the Japanese were nearing collapse due to the blockade and the fire-bombing and the A bomb was a potential game changer but the US was still pressing for a Soviet invasion of Manchuria - although with less enthusiasm than before. It was to get the Soviet’s into the war against Japan that Roosevelt had signed over half of Europe to the Soviet Union at Yalta. > > At Potsdam Stalin finally committed the SU to declaring war on 15 August and it was clearly the dropping of the bombs that brought forward the invasion of Manchuria to the early hours of 9 August - just hours before Fat Boy was dropped on Nagasaki - so that Stalin could lay claim to part of the spoils. Didn’t he also keep fighting for a week or so after the surrender in order to grab more? (IIRC) ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_T](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Gary\_T](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_T)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-world-war-ii-question/607750/39 "2011-12-30T16:18:54Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > Many people make the same claim about the United States, citing, as you did with the USSR, its delayed entry into the war and its post-war aggression. That sounds like a ridiculous comparison. Entering a five-year war after the first year is hardly analogous to entering a few weeks from the end, and I don’t see how the U.S.'s post-war “aggression” even begins to resemble the USSR’s. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-world-war-ii-question/607750/40 "2011-12-30T16:22:46Z")
> [@Gary\_T](#): > > That sounds like a ridiculous comparison. Entering a five-year war after the first year is hardly analogous to entering a few weeks from the end, and I don’t see how the U.S.'s post-war “aggression” even begins to resemble the USSR’s. Well, if it wasn’t for those meddling kids and their six carriers, our plan would have worked! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-world-war-ii-question/607750.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-world-war-ii-question/607750.md?page=3)