I’d like to expand on one point touched earlier: As a German, I absolutely think it was the right thing to demand an unconditional surrender.
It’s true that the WW1 armistice was a big influence on the conditions that led to WW2 in Germany, and there was no way that the Allies would have let that happen again.
Of course it led to more casualties in the short term, on both sides, but as much as it pains me to say it I think it was worth it.
And the results speak for themselves, I think:
Both Germany and Japan are now Allies to the US, because we were forced to realize what we had done (in Germany at least) and the treatment after the war was fair.
The US wasn’t as successful in that department since then…
As has been noted by other posters, the flaw in this argument was that Japan wasn’t surrendering. In fact, the Navy started its bombardment of the home islands in July 1945, along with continuing bombing by the Air Force. No surrender.
Not exactly. As late as July 22(warning: pdf) the Japanese wanted to retain “national structure.” Whether that meant just the office of the Emperor or something more complex is something historians still debate – and you can’t just flatly state the Japanese were only asking for retention of the Emperor.
Not quite. Marshall predicted 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days. MacArthur predicted 125,000 casualties in the first 120 days (later revised to 105,000.) In other words, the two Army leaders were predicting about 1,000 casualties per day. The Navy projections were even higher. No one was predicting the invasion would be over after 30 days – or even 120 days.
I don’t defend Japans actions. what they did in Manchuria was disgusting. But the winners write the history books. We were guilty of atrocities too. War is ugly and we should quit doing it. We had little choice in WW2, but our actions since have been reprehensible.
Are you saying the Western Allies (not the Soviets) and Imperial japan were morally equivalent in World War 2? Japan deserved punishment a hundredfold.
This sounds like a tu quoque to me; the Allies undoubtedly did some pretty unpleasant things in WWII, but systematic murder and torture of innocent civilians was not one of them. The Japanese and German regimes had this at their heart, and we were right in stopping them as soon as we were able.
You’re also forgetting that 81,000 Allied prisoners (according to wiki, but it’s cited) were freed at the end of the war - if the war had gone on much longer you can bet that the dwindling resources of the Japanese would not have been used to feed prisoners.
I find several cites on Marshall’s estimates, from 25,000 to 1 million. But when does the armed forces ever predict an easy victory? They always think they need a ton of troops and munition. They always overestimate the difficulty and needs.
Well, in Operation Overlord - another amphibious invasion - the Allies, with a force consisting of 2 million men by August, suffered 226,386 casualties.
The Germans did not have the same ‘fight to the death mentality’ that the Japanese had, nor were they defending their homeland.
In Operation Overlord the Allied invasion forces actually outnumbered the German occupying forces. In an invasion of the Japanese home islands they would have been outnumbered considerably.
Mac’s casualty estimates for the commencement of Downfall were 105,050 KIA, MIA or WIA. Other estimates done by the Joint War Plans Committee came up with initial figues of 193,500. If northern Kyushu was occupied, this figure rises to 220,000. Marshall was using estimates from Luzon in the Phillipines, Leahy countered that the experience in Okinawa (a 35% casualty rate) would be more apt. These are only American casualty estimates, mind. Given that civilians were killing themselves in Okinawa who knows what the Japanese death toll would have been.
We had, as far as I can see, only three real options for dealing with Japan in the latter half of 1945.
The first option - continued blockade and bombardment, hoping to ‘starve them out’.
The pros - Minimal U.S. casualties, apart from perhaps the odd kamikaze attacks on blockading ships.
The cons - Absolutely no guarantee of ‘starving them out’. The Japanese had been in a precarious situation in terms of food and resources for the duration of 1945, with U.S. subs enjoying naval superiority.
Massive casualties among Japanese civilians from starvation, disease and bombardment. Witness the deaths from bombing runs earlier in the year.
No hope of rescuing the thousands of Allied prisoners of war held on the home islands.
Allows time for the Soviets to invade, increasing post-war communist power. An ‘east and west’ Japan, if you will.
The second option - Operation Downfall, comprised firstly of Operation Olympic and then Operation Coronet.
The pros - Probably quicker than a pure blockade option.
Would also possibly limit Soviet power, with American boots on the ground.
The cons
It would be an absolute bloodbath that would make Operation Overlord look like a training exercise.
The Japanese, as previously pointed out, had the capability to put up a formidable resistance. They were fully prepared for an American invasion with Operation Ketsu-Go, ready to fight tooth and nail.
The Soviets would still have influence in post-war Japan. The invasion wasn’t going to be over quickly.
The third option - Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The pros - Minimal American casualties.
Allowed the Japanese to surrender whilst keeping ‘face’. Surrendering because of a ‘wonder weapon’ was not as disgraceful as surrendering in open combat.
The quickest option. Allows for an occupying force to be sent in immediately, post-surrender. No Soviet influence.
Demonstrates the bomb to the world. In a post-war world establishes the image of the bomb in popular conciousness as something to be avoided at all costs - although decision makers likely wouldn’t have factored this.
The cons - A large amount of civilian casualties.
Radiation effects that linger on after the war - although the decision makers couldn’t have known this at the time.
If you were Truman, which of the options would you pick? Any option is going to result in the deaths of Japanese civilians, that was the grim reality. The main priority was ending the war as soon as possible, with a minimal amount of casualties all-round. The bomb allowed for this.
I am aware of this. But the Allied mentality was not one of aggressive warfare, eugenics, nationalism. The driving force behind Imperial Japan and the Third Reich was. You can’t really compare the atrocities committed by the Axis forces to tragic incidents committed by the Western Allied powers.
Axis war crimes were systematic, part of the regime. The needed to be stopped, as soon as possible, by whatever means we had at our disposal.
So with different estimates by the same person ranging by a factor of 40, you choose to cite the lowest one in your argument, ignore the qualifier “in the first 30 days,” then backpeddle by saying “they always overestimate.”
If you have no confidence in military estimates, don’t use them in your arguments.
Saying this over and over again doesn’t make it true. The allies had control of the skies, but there were still at least 600,000 soldiers in Japan, plus whatever civilian forces could be mustered as they were in Okinawa. Further bombing was unlikely to change anything because pretty much everything that could be usefully bombed, already was.
Indeed. It’s similar to the contemporary view after D-Day that Germany was in a similar position. Years of bombardment, the Soviet meat grinder, the opening of a second front…bound to be on their last legs, right? A total pushover? Er…no.
You fail to answer…any other points. And no, it wouldn’t. It would have killed hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and Japanese soldiers, as well as civilians. You are wrong on many levels here;
Which is why the most apt comparison is Operation Overlord. Even then, everything points to Operation Olympic being a lot bloodier. A number of different circumstances, mainly the direct, amphibious invasion of the enemy homeland.
There was also the completely different enemy mentality. Even the common Japanese infantryman had it drilled into him that surrender was totally unacceptable, that death in battle was an honourable way to go - hence Banzai charges and kamikaze attacks.
Once again your commanding knowledge of history is astounding. Nothing but mopping up. Indeed, I would like to surrender to your superior debating style of making things up, linking to sites that don’t actually support what you’ve written, ignoring evidence that your beliefs are wrong and repeating them as if they haven’t been refuted. However, unconditional surrender is unacceptable, so I will only do so if you agree to certain conditions:
Agree that you are wrong and;
Not post in Great Debates again and acknowledge that it belongs to those who would honestly debate.
Should you not agree to these terms, then you are an inhuman monster who believes what the government tells you and revel in the slaughter of innocent dogs, cats, rats, insects and worms. Won’t anyone think of the worms?