StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I think this goes here.

I was having a debate with an acquaintance at school about the morality of dropping the atomic bombs, and his constant insinuation that no one in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have died hat we not dropped the bombs was really grating on me.

My question is this: How important were those to cities to the Japanese war effort? I know they must have had some relevance since I sincerely doubt Truman would have vaporize two cities just for the hell of it. If Truman had decided against dropping the big one, would the two cities have been subjected to strategic bombing on the same scale as German cities during operation downfall?

IIRC Hiroshima was home to the Japanese Imperial Army HQ for the whole southern region of Japan, and also hosted an aircraft engine factory plus a variety of other war-materiel industries.

Had we not used nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, their fate may have been just the same or even worse - witness what was done to Tokyo with conventional weapons.

Then there's the fact that, absent an unconditional Japanese surrender the Allies would have implemented their home-island invasion strategy. I don't recall the casualty estimates offhand, but I think the figure for Japanese civilians alone was put somewhere around one million dead, plus their military casualties, plus our own.

Kanastrous wrote:I was having a debate with an acquaintance at school about the morality of dropping the atomic bombs, and his constant insinuation that no one in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have died hat we not dropped the bombs was really grating on me.

My question is this: How important were those to cities to the Japanese war effort? I know they must have had some relevance since I sincerely doubt Truman would have vaporize two cities just for the hell of it. If Truman had decided against dropping the big one, would the two cities have been subjected to strategic bombing on the same scale as German cities during operation downfall?

The targets were selected because they were as yet untouched by conventional bombing, and because the geography of the cities (at least Hiroshima) was favorable to a highly-destructive nuclear fireball. The developers of the bomb wanted it to look as impressive as possible, not only to traumatize the Japanese but also to justify in the eyes of Congress the massive amounts of cash that had been poured into the project over the past several years. I don't think that Truman himself specifically devised and ordered the bombings.

I'm not poo-pooing any legitimate strategic considerations, but there was definitely some internal politics going on.

One major reason was the forecast as previously mentioned, of an estimated one million U.S. Military casualties in a seaborne invasion. The Japanese had indoctrinated their civilian population to fight tooth and nail, with firearms if possible and farming implements if that was all they had. Their men, women, and children were being trained to fight the gaijin invaders. By that phase of the war, moreover, two other items were in effect: 1) much industry was being done "cottage" style, so targeting component producers was problematic, and 2) the total war being waged meant that civilian populations were legitimate targets. Given that one goal of the bombing campaign was to demoralize the population, annihilating previously-untouched cities was calculated to be a devastating psychological blow.

Tokyo was IIRC not targeted for nukes because the Emperor was needed alive to sign the surrender. Personally, I'm damned glad Truman ordered the bombings - my grandfather had finished the war in North Africa and Italy and was slated to be part of the Japan invasion force.

Count Chocula wrote:Tokyo was IIRC not targeted for nukes because the Emperor was needed alive to sign the surrender.

Tokyo is not Kyoto so that doesn't make any sense.

That's actually pretty funny coming from an American. They'd 'indoctrinated' their population to fight tooth and nail against invaders? Inconcievable! I hear civilians are 'legitimate' targets, so long as they're not allied? lol.

The best way to look at it from a 'non-firebomb all of Japan perspective' is that the absolute 'best' end to the war was going to involve a blockade and massive civilian deaths anyway. It's one of those cases where you can kill 150,000 people straight away or kill millions over a few months for the same end, if you assume the Japanese government would never have surrendered otherwise.

Dammit got the city wrong.

lol backatcha, here's a quote from an article in the Omaha World Herald describing the planned invasion of Japan:

Had Olympic come about, the Japanese civilian population, inflamed by a national slogan - "One Hundred Million Will Die for the Emperor and Nation" - were prepared to fight to the death. Twenty Eight Million Japanese had become a part of the National Volunteer Combat Force. They were armed with ancient rifles, lunge mines, satchel charges, Molotov cocktails and one-shot black powder mortars. Others were armed with swords, long bows, axes and bamboo spears. The civilian units were to be used in nighttime attacks, hit and run maneuvers, delaying actions and massive suicide charges at the weaker American positions.

(emphasis added)

Full article here.

"One Hundred Million Will Die..." in 1945 the population of Japan was a bit under 80 million. They had 28 million volunteers for a desperate stand with out-of-date or primitive weapons. This level of commitment smacks of indoctrination to a far greater degree than anything seen in the US.

Thanas wrote:

Count Chocula wrote:Tokyo was IIRC not targeted for nukes because the Emperor was needed alive to sign the surrender.

Tokyo is not Kyoto so that doesn't make any sense.

While Kyoto has an Imperial Palace, the Imperial Palace of Tokyo is where the Emperor actually lives and has lived since the Meiji Restoration.

Count Chocula wrote:"One Hundred Million Will Die..." in 1945 the population of Japan was a bit under 80 million. They had 28 million volunteers for a desperate stand with out-of-date or primitive weapons. This level of commitment smacks of indoctrination to a far greater degree than anything seen in the US.

You're judging the entire civilian population by a government slogan? Clearly, then, all of Australia was 'all the way with LBJ'! Oh wait. Invasion paranoia and last-stand propaganda? Wow, I've never seen that before!

It's hilarious to me that things like the Home Guard in the UK is mocked roundly for being poorly equipped amateurs who would never stop the Germans, while a bunch of Japanese civilians with BAMBOO SPEARS is a source of terror. Yes, the Japanese government busted out plenty of typical dictator-last-stand propaganda - this is why a blockade would have killed so many Japanese civilians, and why the damn country hadn't surrendered already. Taking this propaganda at face value was useful to the Americans (lol American newspaper = best source for Japanese civilian defence capability) but is pretty funny from an objective standpoint.

This kind of broken EVERY JAP WILL STAB A JOE thinking isn't even necessary, since the insane Japanese leaders would never unconditionally surrender, so a blockade (which the Japanese couldn't challenge) would have caused huge amounts of suffering anyway, certainly more than dropping the bombs. The very idea of invading Japan and conquering every square inch against deadly black powder mortars and spears is nuts.

Grandmaster Jogurt wrote:

Thanas wrote:

Count Chocula wrote:Tokyo was IIRC not targeted for nukes because the Emperor was needed alive to sign the surrender.

Tokyo is not Kyoto so that doesn't make any sense.

While Kyoto has an Imperial Palace, the Imperial Palace of Tokyo is where the Emperor actually lives and has lived since the Meiji Restoration.

Either way, Kyoto initially topped the target list but was bumped down because Stimson thought it too culturally valuable to be destroyed.

Count Chocula wrote:and 2) the total war being waged meant that civilian populations were legitimate targets

I heard we tried the Nazis and Japanese for assuming your "Number 2" proposal. There's no "war being waged means civilian populations are legitimate targets", no matter how you spin that around. They can be killed by collateral damage from anti-industrial raids, but deliberately slaughtering and mass-murdering civilian populations to "demoralize" the enemy is a war crime. Quite a few people got hanged for that.

Well fuck me sideways, I screwed up the posting link from my last post. Corrected. American planners' principal concerns were the Japanese kamikazes, and the estimated minimum 1 million Japanese soldiers waiting to repel an invasion. The preparations of the civilian populace, who were exhorted to fight to the death, was more of an indicator of resistance than a source of fear.

To Stas' point; well, the Allies got away with Dresden, and Tokyo, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Of course, they won so they got to staff the courts and write the history books.

And BTW, the MAD doctrine deliberately targeted (maybe still does?) civilian populations. Of course, it's not a war crime until or if the balloon goes up, and then the last country standing can decide who was right or wrong.

Count Chocula wrote:To Stas' point; well, the Allies got away with Dresden, and Tokyo, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Dresden was an industrial target, much like most of Germany, and there's even a report which details how imprecise the bombardment was and how this led to massive civilian casualties. Tokyo more of the same. Which action deliberately intended to mass murder civilian populations?

Count Chocula wrote:Of course, they won so they got to staff the courts and write the history books.

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the Allies, even through collateral damage, killed far far less Axis civilians than the Axis killed Allied civilians. Which is startling considering the apparent "indiscriminate" bombing.

Count Chocula wrote:And BTW, the MAD doctrine deliberately targeted (maybe still does?) civilian populations.

Nuclear war is a category of it's own, and it has little to do with pre-1945 realities. Indeed any strategic exchange of nuclear warheads could not probably be counted by even the legal standard of the age as anything but a massive war crime and genocide.

There's a certain legitimacy to the anti-bombing argument, but it's not because it would have saved lives. It's because the Kwantung Army had just been obliterated by Vasilevsky, and Japan's only hope for a negotiated settlement through Moscow had just gone out the window. Japan might have surrendered if we dropped the demand for unconditional surrender, or had at least guaranteed that Hirohito wouldn't be put on trial/deposed.

The Japanese leaders, including the Emperor, were determined to go for the whole "destroy the nation"/"fight to the last man" nonsense Hitler raved on about in the end if they didn't get that. And unlike the Germans, a lot of Japanese might seriously have considered doing just that.

Personally, I think Truman did the right thing. An outright invasion would have been catastrophic for the Japanese, and I might very well never have been born. Instead of stepping off a landing craft to face a nation of suicidal fanatics, my grandfather strolled down a gangplank to join in the occupation.

Saving the lives of American soldiers at the expense of enemy civilians mass murdered is not a valid moral argument, because in that case everything the Nazis did to conquered nations is morally justified - after all, the population are killing German soldiers.

Now, saving more Japanese civilians that would've otherwise died due to prolonged war is a valid one.

Stas Bush wrote:Saving the lives of American soldiers at the expense of enemy civilians mass murdered is not a valid moral argument, because in that case everything the Nazis did to conquered nations is morally justified - after all, the population are killing German soldiers.

True, but that's not what I'm saying. Civilians would have been mass-murdered either way, either through battle casualties, strategic bombing, starvation, atrocities, etc. I just prefer the way that doesn't put one or two of my family at risk because some prissy divine-right monarch didn't know when he was beaten.

Now, saving more Japanese civilians that would've otherwise died due to prolonged war is a valid one.

Yep, that's what I'm saying.

Stas, I figured you'd know and I don't have the time to look it up for a while (lots of things on my plate, so I have neither the time nor inclination to google it for hours), anyway: how true is it that Japan would have surrendered for fear of a Soviet invasion?

The Japanese hated communism like the plague. Though I imagine the chance of the Soviets actually being capable of invading the Home Islands is something approaching zero, but their crushing victory in Manchuria was as big a factor, if not moreso, as the atomic bombings in convinging Hirohito to finally surrender.

They were more afraid of a communist revolution from within than an outright communist invasion.

The USSR contemplated a naval assault and landing on Hokkaido IRL if Japan would not surrender. That also had the potential to turn into a bloodbath. But yeah, Japan was pretty damn afraid of the USSR and the crushing push it delivered to it's Machurian holdings.

I'd advise reading "Racing the Enemy" which gives quite a few good bits on how powerful the impact of Kwantung army's utter defeat and destruction was on the Japanese generals, and if you're looking at a quick statement, yeah it's a great factor right up there with the atomic bomb.

1. Why Nagasaki? Was one bombing not enough?
2. This may sound absurd, but is there a reason why they just couldn't have dropped the bombs off the coast or warned them about the new weapons?

Grandmaster Jogurt wrote:

Thanas wrote:

Count Chocula wrote:Tokyo was IIRC not targeted for nukes because the Emperor was needed alive to sign the surrender.

Tokyo is not Kyoto so that doesn't make any sense.

While Kyoto has an Imperial Palace, the Imperial Palace of Tokyo is where the Emperor actually lives and has lived since the Meiji Restoration.

I stand corrected.

Hongi asked:

1. Why Nagasaki? Was one bombing not enough?
2. This may sound absurd, but is there a reason why they just couldn't have dropped the bombs off the coast or warned them about the new weapons?

1. The US published the Potsdam Declaration in July of 1945 calling for unconditional surrender, which Japan refused. By the time the atomic bombs were ready, the decision had been made in the US to end the Pacific war as quickly as possible. After the bombing, Truman called for their surrender and, if they did not, promised more attacks until Japan capitulated. Japan did not reply to the call for surrender, as they were still trying to figure out what terms they wanted to sue for. Three days after Hiroshima, on August 9, Bockscar dropped the second atomic bomb on Nagasaki.

2. Dropping the bombs off the coast would not have had any effect on either Japanese production capacity or morale. The Tokyo bombings of March 1945 actually killed more people than were killed in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but hundreds of B-29s were used over three days for that "accomplishment." The first atom bombs were not all that powerful by our standards, but extraordinary by WWII standards; a flight of 100 B-29s could carry a total of 2.5 kilotons, whereas a single B-29 with an atom bomb could carry the equivalent of over 300 conventionally-armed B-29s. Atom bombs were a very effective use of American resources, and risked fewer airmen in a strike for devastating results to the enemy.

In addition, those were the only atom bombs the US had, and production was only 3 atom bombs a month. The US didn't have any to waste, especially when they could be used to force a surrender and forestall the invasion of Japan.

It's been suggested that part of the American sense of urgency in forcing an unconditional Japanese surrender was a fear that, if the war continued long enough and the USSR became involved in fighting Japan outside Manchuria, the Soviets would have basis for greater territorial claims against Japan come the cease-fire. Which of course was not something that anyone outside the USSR wanted to see happen.

The atomic bombing probably saved lives no matter how you cut it. The target was never just Hiroshima and Nagasaki; it was Hiroshima, Kokura, Nagasaki and Koyto in that order of priority. Nagasaki was bombed only because that fateful day Kokura, was clouded over, and the atomic bomb was only to be dropped by optical sighting, radar bombing was not allowed. Bockscar attempted three bomb runs over Kokura before diverting to Nagasaki as fuel was becoming critical. All four cities were secretly kept off the list of conventional firebombing targets in ordered to ensure we had something suitably impressive to destroy with the nukes.

By August 1945 the USAAF had destroyed over 99 square miles of Japanese urban areas with conventional bombing, killing over 1 million people. All four reserved cities would have been high priority targets had attacks been allowed. Each would have easily suffered 50% destruction. The death toll in each city would most likely have been lower then atomic bombings, but collectively with four cities burned instead of two it is almost certain to be higher. In fact by August 1945 the US was bombing quite minor cities, barely worthy of the name, and many of them suffered destruction on the lines of 80-90%, literally they could be carpeted with napalm end to end. With some 1000 B-29s flying each with a payload of up to 20,000lb the US could drop as much explosive on Japan in a single air raid as the firepower of a nuke already!

So for the residents of Kokura and Koyto, the atomic bomb saved them. Never mind all the Japanese who would have starved to death or died otherwise from a war that continued even a few more months, let alone the year a blockade strategy would have taken to be effective (estimates of the death toll from a 1 year extension of the war are 17-40 million, potentially over 1/3rd the entire Japanese population). An invasion probably just wasn’t going to happen.

Every Japanese city was a major and valid military target. Japan had mainly distributed industry, its big factories were mainly just assembly halls and depended on parts produced by a huge number of small shops and fabrication plants spread throughout residential areas. Targeting one but not the other was physically impossible with WW2 technology, and this is exactly why the firebombing strategy was adapted. None the less Hiroshima and Nagasaki also each had several major war plants, the shipyard which built the battleship Musashi was in Nagasaki for example, only by 1945 it was busy churning out suicide submarines. Both were also major transportation hubs, made all the more important by the destruction of docks and railways elsewhere in Japan, and Hiroshima was headquarters of the Japanese 2nd Area Army as well as home to several major training bases. Indeed a large portion of the entire death toll at that city was military.

The US used two bombs, and indeed when the war ended a third bomb was being shipped out to Tinian to take another crack at Kokura, because we had no reason to assume that just one would be effective. Japan had at all points n the war confronted America with fanaticism and a complete disregard for its own personal. It had continued to hold out despite the effective collapse of its empire, the blockade of the home islands and the death of a million civilians already. Tokyo had been more then 50% destroyed… some [/b]56 square miles[/b] of the city burned to the ground right in front of the eyes of Japans leadership. Its coastal trade, vital the to the basic functioning of its economy had been stangled by mining, and by July and August American and British battleships had even begun bombarding the coastline. Okinawa had only concluded in June, where 2,000 kamikaze planes had inflicted more casualties on the US navy then Pearl Harbor, besides 75,000 army and marines losses, the highest for any battle of the Pacific campaign.

It was not a time to be weak or to hesitate, not a time to give Japan time to adapt to the reality of atomic attacks which in actuality weren’t that much worse then the firebombing they had already so long endured. The only hope was the shock effect could make Japans leadership hesitate themselves in demanding a last battle on Japanese soil, and you don’t increase shock by giving nice big breathing spaces. Three days was quite enough for Japan to decide to surrender, and we gave them that, indeed we suspended all naval and air attacks during the period to ensure the Japanese would be well able to understand what was happening. The Japanese stuck to wanting conditions, so they took another punch. Fuck them for having launched such a pointlessly brutal and hopeless war in the first place. They made bombing residential areas a deliberate policy of war years before even the Germans did, and raided Chunking hundreds of times as well as numerous other Chinese cities. They bombed Singapore, Manila, Rangoon and Hong Kong, and forced Thailand to ally with them on threat of burning Bangkok to the ground. They reaped what they sowed.