Side note: The current episodes of the We Have Ways Of Making You Talk podcast delve into the decisions and reactions to the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan.
One interesting factoid I learned was the prime mover of the B-29 campaign against Japan (Hap Arnold) was taught how to fly by the Wright Brothers.
They sent telegrams on the morning of August 10th to the Allies declaring that they accepted the Potsdam Declaration, but with one caveat- the Emperor was to remain on the throne. The Allies responded on the 12th with a statement saying that the Emperor could only stay in a ceremonial role.
That’s what prompted the attempted coup d’etat and subsequent formal surrender.
My view is that they began the surrender negotiations on the 10th, which meant that in the context of the earlier posts about whether there was enough time to assess the bomb damage and determine what had happen, there was plenty of time if they were ready to roll the following day, even if it took another five days for it to be official.
Both targets had military significance.
If we assume that the death of civivial life is something to be avoided- and i agree- then the A bomb was the more moral choice, saving millions of civilian lives.
But they didn’t.On August 18 two B-32 bombers on a reconnaissance mission over Tokyo were attacked by 17 Japanese fighters. Even after the surrender there was still resistance by some parts of the military.
They’re original surrender proposal was to stop fighting, self disarm, and punish themselves for their war crimes.
They disregarded the 1st bomb and their military was willing to continue to fight after the 2nd.
the original Allied invasion plans were based on a planned Japanese force of something like 3 divisions. That mushroomed to 13 divisions. Their suicide missions included training children as human anti-tank weapons.
Your racist screed aside, Allied lives were absolutely worth more than the Axis lives.
He was also one of the founders of Pan Am which forged a commercial route across the Pacific before European routes.
Just got done reading the thread down to this point, and I just want to take a moment to applaud everyone currently participating. This thread has been well informed, well reasoned, and firmly grounded in factual history. While also being careful to differentiate between knowledge that was available in 1945 and what we now know in the present day.
I particularly would like to recognize @Colesy for crafting a short, neutral OP that avoided poisoning the well in either direction and allowing the thread to progress in a rational direction. That’s not as easy as it might seem sometimes.
Also, @Broomstick’s posts should be considered required reading for anyone interested in the history of WWII, particularly around the decision making concerning the dropping of the bomb. Well written and easy to read while also being incredibly well informed.
Threads like this are what made me a fan of the SDMB 25 years ago. Kudos to all, and please carry on.
I’m quoting this because it’s a great encapsulation of the core moral argument repeated throughout this thread - that of the available options, dropping the atomic bombs was the least harmful means of achieving Japanese surrender.
It’s a powerful argument but it includes one very big assumption - that the the only possible end-state is the total surrender of Japan.
This was very much the mentality of the Allies at the time but it excludes other possible end-states which should form part of the moral calculus.
Imagine that the atomic bomb wasn’t available in August 1945 - according to the logic of the dilemma quoted above, that means the US would definitely, 100%, no question, invade Japan conventionally with the mass deaths that implies. There would literally be no other option.
I’m not sure. I think that if the Allies were faced with the deaths of 100,000 service men and women then other options would receive serious consideration. These could range from an ongoing blockade to achieve surrender over time, to negotiated cessation of hostilities (a la N/S Korea) with no return of territory, to return of territory in exchange for surrender etc. etc.
Some of these will very possibly be less moral than using the bomb. Some might be more so. But the point is that if these options would exist in the absence of nukes, then they also existed alongside nukes and have to be part of the calculus.
Several posters have taken into account the other options available at the time. Specifically the subject of both a blockade and an invasion of the mainland Japanese island have been noted as alternatives to dropping Fat Man and Little Boy in 1945. It’s also been noted the United States itself considered its other options before they dropped the first bomb in 1945. i.e. The calculus has been done and several posters even showed their work.
Except there is zero evidence for this. Operation Downfall was not just a vague “maybe let’s invade Japan sometime” idea. It was a precise plan with a schedule and a start date (Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyūshū, was to begin on “X-Day”, which was scheduled for November 1, 1945). The logistical preparations were well under way.
No one involved in planning it, from Truman on down, gave the slightest indication they might choose not to do it.
This, the mentality was already in place for nothing but total war and complete defeat of the enemy. When you have your foot on their throat you don’t back off and let them catch a breath. The American public was already prepared to accept the fact that an invasion of the Japanese homeland was inevitable and neccesary, they were battle hardened and would only expect the military to fulfill its job.
That’s in no small part because the geography of Japan dictated more or less where such an invasion could take place. Invading islands is a bit different than invading a continent.
Over 140,000 of just ground-based military personal from just the US had been killed fighting the Nazis in Europe. If you add in the air force and navy that number is even greater. Total military personnel killed from all nations involved involved in WWII is estimated to be between 15-20 million.
The Soviets (USSR) had lost between 8-11 million people fighting WWII in Europe.
The US had, by 1945, already lost over 100,000 people fighting the Japanese Empire in Asia. So at least a quarter million US dead from WWII up to that point.
No, I don’t think the prospect of losing 100,000 additional people to achieve the desired end to the war was going to stop anyone at that point. Most people these days have not really studied WWII in depth and really have not wrapped their head around just how many people died fighting, or as collateral damage, or by deliberate intent. It was war on a scale incomprehensible to most of us who did not live through it.
The US was adamant that the Japanese surrender by unconditional, regardless of the means by which that would be achieved. Less was not on the table. Recall that after Nagasaki the Japanese offered a surrender with the only conditional that the Emperor be retained. The US did not accept, demanding completely unconditional surrender.
No, negotiations were not and would not be on the table.
In the context of 1945 America, the A bombs were just the point of the US spear. Not using them would have been an immense scandal. Killing a million Japanese was not a moral issue. Failure to use the bombs was unjustifiable. Imagine the headlines - “Truman Could Have Ended the War in a Day!”.
The propaganda about heavy US invasion losses was just an effort to lower expectations. The F4U, F6F, F8F and P61 would provide lethal, close support of ground troops. They would devastate depleted military units and para-military civilians with sharp sticks.
The audience for the bomb was the US population. It demonstrated that four years of war were worth it. The only objections voiced at the time were from the usual suspects and a few letters to the editor. Who, other than the 1945 US population, has the right to judge?
I’m thinking the Japanese might have their own opinion(s)…
I expect an accurate account of opinions both then and now would require more than just a sound bite. It’s not like the Japanese were enjoying the war, either.
Hitler ordered them not to retreat. He basically murdered an entire army.
The German forces suffered immense casualties at Stalingrad. Estimates vary, but it’s believed that around 800,000 to 1.2 million Axis soldiers (including German, Italian, Hungarian, and Romanian troops) were killed, wounded, or captured. Specifically for Germany, estimates range from 300,000 to over 400,000 casualties.
Good point, and that would make an interesting thread.
Actually, the reply I was looking for was: Will you get to the point!
That’s not true. Prior to the atomic bombs being dropped they had done nothing more than put out peace feelers, offers to begin negotiations about negotiations.
My understanding is that any surrender options were presented by Japan were on Japan’s terms to which the Allies dismissed saying unconditional surrender is the only option. And that they were not actual serious offers but rather “What if …” through back channels.
I mean… how did that work out vis-a-vis North Korea?
The lesson there is you don’t leave the dictatorial military bitter-enders in charge just to obtain a ceasefire. You’re not only buying worse problems down the road for yourself, you’re also abandoning the pro-peace minority to a permanent dictatorship.
It was total war. Japan started it. They committed war crimes much worse than whatever they’re claiming they suffered under the bomb. Their postwar outcome was much better post A-bomb than it would’ve been otherwise, and they’re fortunate that they only caught 2 bombs instead of the 30 or whatever that LeMay had envisioned for Germany.
And in spite of all their martyrdom and victimhood theatrics, Japan still has not signed the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.