Why Nagasaki? (2013)(blog.nuclearsecrecy.com)
blog.nuclearsecrecy.com
Why Nagasaki? (2013)
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/08/09/why-nagasaki/
93 comments
> I always wonder why the second nuclear bomb in particular isn't much more prevalent in the Zeitgeist as the atrocity that it was.
I think the simple answer is that before the scale of Hiroshima was really understood, everyone though of it as mostly just a more efficient way to perform the atrocity that they were already doing. On this point check out Wellersteins earlier text on the 67:th anniversary: http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/08/06/hiroshima-at-67-th...
I think the simple answer is that before the scale of Hiroshima was really understood, everyone though of it as mostly just a more efficient way to perform the atrocity that they were already doing. On this point check out Wellersteins earlier text on the 67:th anniversary: http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/08/06/hiroshima-at-67-th...
> mostly just a more efficient way to perform the atrocity that they were already doing.
Yes. These nuclear weapons were a more efficient way of obliterating a city through fire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_(10_March_194...
It turns out that if you drop thousands of tons of incendiaries on a city made from wood and paper, you can kill a really large number of people at once.
We can re-litigate these questions, but I'm not sure we'll reach any answers. A more salient one is "how can we prevent this from ever happening again?" including "how can we prevent states from launching wars of aggression?"
Yes. These nuclear weapons were a more efficient way of obliterating a city through fire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_(10_March_194...
It turns out that if you drop thousands of tons of incendiaries on a city made from wood and paper, you can kill a really large number of people at once.
We can re-litigate these questions, but I'm not sure we'll reach any answers. A more salient one is "how can we prevent this from ever happening again?" including "how can we prevent states from launching wars of aggression?"
One step that may be good is clearly defining where a war stops being a retaliation for something in the past and becomes a war of aggression. Whether or not the current situation in Ukraine is one of aggression depends largely on whether or not you feel that the Western involvement in the Orange and Maidan revolutions were aggressive in the first place, and whether or not the response to their aftermath is warranted.
All sides are probably at least a little wrong here, and ultimately, it probably boils down to a feud between Russia and various aspects of the West going at least back to the Crimean war, if not earlier, and the back and forth animosity that has perpetuated the cycle over that time. Perhaps the question then isn't "how can we prevent launching wars of aggression," but rather "how can we successfully reach an agreement where all sides agree to finally bury the hatchet."
As long as we refuse to consider the longer cycle of revenge and posturing at play we'll likely continue to be confused in the face of it perpetuating itself.
All sides are probably at least a little wrong here, and ultimately, it probably boils down to a feud between Russia and various aspects of the West going at least back to the Crimean war, if not earlier, and the back and forth animosity that has perpetuated the cycle over that time. Perhaps the question then isn't "how can we prevent launching wars of aggression," but rather "how can we successfully reach an agreement where all sides agree to finally bury the hatchet."
As long as we refuse to consider the longer cycle of revenge and posturing at play we'll likely continue to be confused in the face of it perpetuating itself.
It's worth pointing out that the conventional bombing raid of Tokyo on March 9, 1945 was deadlier than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki, depending on whose counts you use...
[deleted]
Their expectation was that if they tried to invade Japan there would be way more casualties on both sides than were killed at Nagasaki [1].
I think you may be underestimating the scope of WWII in the Pacific. The battles to retake islands had often been extremely bloody. The battle for Okinawa for example cost 14k Allied soldiers and 77k Japanese soldiers, and well over 100k civilians. I don't think any other island came close in total numbers, but only because they didn't have high populations.
Any reasonable extrapolation of those invasions to an invasion of mainland Japan would have far more civilian deaths than using both atomic bombs, even if you projected lower casualty rates than there had been in the island campaigns.
A blockade instead of an invasion might have worked, but that too would likely have a very large number of civilian casualties. Blockades work by either making it so bad that the civilians rise up and force a change in policy, or so many civilians die that the government runs out of people to draft into the army. The last to actually personally feel the effects of a blockade are the people in power.
Even after the second bomb there were highly placed military offices who were so determined to continue the war that they attempted a coup to stop the Emperor from surrendering [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident
I think you may be underestimating the scope of WWII in the Pacific. The battles to retake islands had often been extremely bloody. The battle for Okinawa for example cost 14k Allied soldiers and 77k Japanese soldiers, and well over 100k civilians. I don't think any other island came close in total numbers, but only because they didn't have high populations.
Any reasonable extrapolation of those invasions to an invasion of mainland Japan would have far more civilian deaths than using both atomic bombs, even if you projected lower casualty rates than there had been in the island campaigns.
A blockade instead of an invasion might have worked, but that too would likely have a very large number of civilian casualties. Blockades work by either making it so bad that the civilians rise up and force a change in policy, or so many civilians die that the government runs out of people to draft into the army. The last to actually personally feel the effects of a blockade are the people in power.
Even after the second bomb there were highly placed military offices who were so determined to continue the war that they attempted a coup to stop the Emperor from surrendering [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident
I mean they didn't surrender for 6 days after Nagasaki. Clearly not in any rush and if you read about the details, there was quite an internal struggle within the Japanese government whether to accept surrender or fight on.
And even if we accept that "Japan was beaten". What the next move? A naval blockade? Starve Japan into submission?
How many tens of thousands of civilian deaths due to famine would make the leadership break? Would that have been better than tens of thousands of civilian deaths due to nuclear bombs?
And even if we accept that "Japan was beaten". What the next move? A naval blockade? Starve Japan into submission?
How many tens of thousands of civilian deaths due to famine would make the leadership break? Would that have been better than tens of thousands of civilian deaths due to nuclear bombs?
Firebombing cities was a thing. There is little difference in firebombing Tokyo with 200 planes and dropping one "special" bomb.
Second bomb (Nagasaki) was not authorized in some special way. Air force had two bombs available and planned to drop them a week apart. Due to weather it ended up being 3 days. After Nagasaki Truman ordered them to need explicit approval of the president to drop future bombs (appalled at civilian deaths).
Second bomb (Nagasaki) was not authorized in some special way. Air force had two bombs available and planned to drop them a week apart. Due to weather it ended up being 3 days. After Nagasaki Truman ordered them to need explicit approval of the president to drop future bombs (appalled at civilian deaths).
You're looking at it with the deeply ingrained belief that nuclear bombs are a uniquely horrifying thing, something that should automatically warrant special consideration, and where merely threatening its use was obviously something no enemy could ignore.
The people who made the decisions back then did not have, could not have that belief. They had been fighting a brutal war for years, and it was just a bomb. A bigger, more powerful bomb that they hoped would help win the war, but without the hindsight that informs your view, it would not at all have been obvious to them that this bomb could end the war all by itself. Because a weapon that could force a surrender merely through a demonstration of its power had never before existed.
The point of view you can't find is simply this: "We have to hit them what everything we have, as hard as possible, as quickly as possible, until they can't fight back anymore, because that's the only thing that's worked so far."
The people who made the decisions back then did not have, could not have that belief. They had been fighting a brutal war for years, and it was just a bomb. A bigger, more powerful bomb that they hoped would help win the war, but without the hindsight that informs your view, it would not at all have been obvious to them that this bomb could end the war all by itself. Because a weapon that could force a surrender merely through a demonstration of its power had never before existed.
The point of view you can't find is simply this: "We have to hit them what everything we have, as hard as possible, as quickly as possible, until they can't fight back anymore, because that's the only thing that's worked so far."
Moreover, that was generally a time of war i.e. dying in a war was normal. Nobody under age ~60 can directly relate.
I mean... it was a time, when even the americans used concentration camps in US to lock up the japanese, and people didn't mind. The war lasted long enough, that the propaganda machine did it's job and noone (inside usa, and many other countries) really cared about 'a few' japanese lives, even if "a few" means tens of thousands... some even rooted for more.
Plenty of people minded in the US, including the first lady. And in modern times it's considered a shameful black mark on FDR's presidency.
In modern times also plenty of people mind plenty of war related things, but not enough people mind enough to actually stop US messing all around the middle east, south america, africa, etc. Even "before modern times", there was a lot of anti-vietnam-war sentiment, and the war still lasted a long time... even the afghanistan war lasted 20 years, a few people mind, and others wave the flags and use buzzwords like "fighting for freedom" or worse.
[deleted]
The onus was on Japan to surrender immediately, not for the US to be patient. You don’t punch your aggressor once and wait to see what he’s going to do next. You beat him with overwhelming force until he’s incapacitated or he waves the white flag.
This isn't simply "your aggressor" this is hundreds of thousands of people, mostly civilians like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a...
Plenty of civilians have paid for their government’s own poor choices. I’m not sorry we did this. We were at war, a war we didn’t ask for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
The war needed to end immediately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
The war needed to end immediately.
While i understand the rationale, ive come to question if "fighting fire with napalm" is such a good idea, from ethics perspective.
Is it not a duty to not fall prey to indulge in mass killing even if it may seem justified by the barbarity of the opposing side?
It’s easy to question the decision when you’re not responsible for making it. When you’re not responsible for your soldiers’ lives it’s easy to talk about ethics. Invading Japan would have killed tens of thousands of US soldiers, easily. When it comes right down to it, you’ll always prefer the option that’s spares more of your countrymen than the enemy (who started the war against the US.) That’s perfectly ethical as far as I’m concerned - as ethical as anything can be in war.
That is true. I was not there and im of a completely different world.
Well, to be honest i ended up agreeing atleast partly too.
For context im from europe, and a small country arrayed against a historically and currently aggressive and strong neighbor, aaand i was conscript officer in charge of a few hundred men total.
Believe me that im not that detached from this question, however my concience about bombing civilians is also quite conflicted but heavily leaning towards the Geneva Conventions.
In conclusion; no, i dont agree that it was be "perfectly ethical" or even simply ethical, but rather a neccesity born of the lack of efficacy in the firebombing campaing. And yes, a top-down hierarchical militant society like imperial japan of the time would not have surrendered without significant show of power, of imminent destruction, demonstrated. Im personally more convinced that Hirohito only issued the decree to surrender unconditionally due to the fear of imminent destruction of the capital, since a military society would always expect an attack on the command structure.
In conclusion; no, i dont agree that it was be "perfectly ethical" or even simply ethical, but rather a neccesity born of the lack of efficacy in the firebombing campaing. And yes, a top-down hierarchical militant society like imperial japan of the time would not have surrendered without significant show of power, of imminent destruction, demonstrated. Im personally more convinced that Hirohito only issued the decree to surrender unconditionally due to the fear of imminent destruction of the capital, since a military society would always expect an attack on the command structure.
Allied casualties were expected to be in the high hundreds of thousands. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall)
It is a duty to make mass murder stop in the most efficient way possible. The Japanese would not have surrendered for anything less than what happened to them, so this was proportionate and reasonable violence.
Nuking Nagasaki wouldn't do much to stop the holocaust. The Germans were already three months defeated at that point.
They were ready for a conditional surrender before even the first bomb was dropped; the bombs facilitated an unconditional surrender.
At the end of the day, they seem to have had more to do with letting the Soviets know the time of day more than anything pertaining to Japan. The whole event is a reminder of why having a figurehead president with all the real decisions made by military leadership is rarely a good way to run the country.
At the end of the day, they seem to have had more to do with letting the Soviets know the time of day more than anything pertaining to Japan. The whole event is a reminder of why having a figurehead president with all the real decisions made by military leadership is rarely a good way to run the country.
>At the end of the day, they seem to have had more to do with letting the Soviets know the time of day more than anything pertaining to Japan.
This is a very popular historical revisionist argument which seems to have little if any credible evidence to back it up[0]. It's just something that feels true to people when they consider the evil of the American military industrial complex, can't accept any Western historical narrative at face value, and require a conspiracy behind everything.
But what documentary evidence does exist, as far as I can tell, supports the status quo version of events[1].
[0] https://www.bu.edu/historic/hs/kort.html
[1] https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Event...
This is a very popular historical revisionist argument which seems to have little if any credible evidence to back it up[0]. It's just something that feels true to people when they consider the evil of the American military industrial complex, can't accept any Western historical narrative at face value, and require a conspiracy behind everything.
But what documentary evidence does exist, as far as I can tell, supports the status quo version of events[1].
[0] https://www.bu.edu/historic/hs/kort.html
[1] https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Event...
[deleted]
piyushpr134(2)
In fairness, neither bomb caused Japan to surrender, it was the USSR's entry into the war that triggered that.
In the second world war the japanese acted unequivocally as absolute monsters. It is not an atrocity that they were nuked and it is not an atrocity that they were nuked twice. If anything, it should have happened far earlier.
I'd phrase it differently, but I think it's basically what happened.
Japanese atrocities against civilians in China and Korea were enormous. Japanese treatment of US PoWs was horrendous. Japanese troops continued to fight literally to the last man, just to try and kill as many Americans as they could. I think when fighting an all-out war against an opponent like this, it's hard to self-limit.
Further, the Japanese approach of never surrendering produced some gargantuan casualties. The Battle of Iwo Jima [1] was apparently the turning point in American thinking. After breaking the back of Japanese Imperial Fleet, Americans figured they need to start taking territory, which meant mostly invading islands. Iwo Jima had notable, but not extreme importance. And again, the Japanese would just not surrender. Quoting Wikipedia, of the 21,000 Japanese troops, only 216 were taken prisoner, and these were mostly unconscious or disabled soldiers who could physically not fight. The rest fought tooth, nail and bayonet against each and every American, and died eventually.
Add 6k American soldiers who died in that one battle, and suddenly dropping an extra nuke on a city of 100,000 looks, weirdly, like a life-saving manoeuvre. And Iwo Jima wasn't even that important, or particularly close to Japan proper, you could expect casualties to only get significantly worse. This doesn't even count the wounded, which in a military context doesn't usually mean a bloody nose.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima
Japanese atrocities against civilians in China and Korea were enormous. Japanese treatment of US PoWs was horrendous. Japanese troops continued to fight literally to the last man, just to try and kill as many Americans as they could. I think when fighting an all-out war against an opponent like this, it's hard to self-limit.
Further, the Japanese approach of never surrendering produced some gargantuan casualties. The Battle of Iwo Jima [1] was apparently the turning point in American thinking. After breaking the back of Japanese Imperial Fleet, Americans figured they need to start taking territory, which meant mostly invading islands. Iwo Jima had notable, but not extreme importance. And again, the Japanese would just not surrender. Quoting Wikipedia, of the 21,000 Japanese troops, only 216 were taken prisoner, and these were mostly unconscious or disabled soldiers who could physically not fight. The rest fought tooth, nail and bayonet against each and every American, and died eventually.
Add 6k American soldiers who died in that one battle, and suddenly dropping an extra nuke on a city of 100,000 looks, weirdly, like a life-saving manoeuvre. And Iwo Jima wasn't even that important, or particularly close to Japan proper, you could expect casualties to only get significantly worse. This doesn't even count the wounded, which in a military context doesn't usually mean a bloody nose.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima
> acted unequivocally as absolute monsters
I'll never forget the day a friend told me: "the Japanese were absolutely ruthless. I mean, these guys made the _nazis_ say 'what the hell is wrong with the Japanese?'"
Which led me to read about this man:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rabe
I'll never forget the day a friend told me: "the Japanese were absolutely ruthless. I mean, these guys made the _nazis_ say 'what the hell is wrong with the Japanese?'"
Which led me to read about this man:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rabe
> It is not an atrocity that they were nuked and it is not an atrocity that they were nuked twice
Yeah, the civilians and especially the children should've overthrown the government. They were totally asking to get nuked.
Using nukes may have been the least-bad long term option. That doesn't change that it was an atrocity.
Yeah, the civilians and especially the children should've overthrown the government. They were totally asking to get nuked.
Using nukes may have been the least-bad long term option. That doesn't change that it was an atrocity.
To be an atrocity, it has to be extremely ethically wrong for some reason. I do not think it was, so I do not agree it was an atrocity.
If it is the least-bad long term option, that makes it in context the ethical choice. Hence, not an atrocity.
If it is the least-bad long term option, that makes it in context the ethical choice. Hence, not an atrocity.
> If it is the least-bad long term option
The thing is you have no way to know that in advance. And people may disagree what "least-bad" even means, it's extremely subjective.
I'm gonna disagree that deliberately killing innocent people is ever an ethically correct choice.
The thing is you have no way to know that in advance. And people may disagree what "least-bad" even means, it's extremely subjective.
I'm gonna disagree that deliberately killing innocent people is ever an ethically correct choice.
> I'm gonna disagree that deliberately killing innocent people is ever an ethically correct choice.
This is more or less the trolley problem, so as you say it is entirely subjective. We're just going to have to agree to disagree :)
This is more or less the trolley problem, so as you say it is entirely subjective. We're just going to have to agree to disagree :)
In an alternate ending, Japan would not have surrendered, and, like in Berlin, fought till the end. Every large city would have been bombed, one after another. Only the military would have been far enough from cities to live.
I can add something relevant to this bit:
One wonders, of course, why anyone would think the Japanese would think the atomic bomb was a one-off thing, or that the Americans wouldn't have the resolve to use it again.
When I was a student studying the Japanese side of WW2, one of my histories quoted a memo to the Japanese high command arguing that since producing nuclear weapons was such an expensive and lengthy process, it was almost certain that the USA had only two bombs and that their threat to continue with them was a bluff.
It was not unreasonable for the Americans to expect the Japanese to be skeptical.
Down in the comments section, the author makes this point:
One of the very best points that Hasegawa makes in his work is that there is no single "Japanese" or "American" policy opinion -- because both governments involved rather complicated balances of power within their cabinets.
Something usually ignored when discussing American decision making about the bomb is the actual state of their knowledge of Japanese thinking. We now have 70-odd years of studying Japanese documents and interviews with key Japanese and there is still nothing close to a consensus on how the Japanese would have reacted to different situations. Yet people criticize the American leadership for lacking that same insight into the mind of the enemy during the war.
One wonders, of course, why anyone would think the Japanese would think the atomic bomb was a one-off thing, or that the Americans wouldn't have the resolve to use it again.
When I was a student studying the Japanese side of WW2, one of my histories quoted a memo to the Japanese high command arguing that since producing nuclear weapons was such an expensive and lengthy process, it was almost certain that the USA had only two bombs and that their threat to continue with them was a bluff.
It was not unreasonable for the Americans to expect the Japanese to be skeptical.
Down in the comments section, the author makes this point:
One of the very best points that Hasegawa makes in his work is that there is no single "Japanese" or "American" policy opinion -- because both governments involved rather complicated balances of power within their cabinets.
Something usually ignored when discussing American decision making about the bomb is the actual state of their knowledge of Japanese thinking. We now have 70-odd years of studying Japanese documents and interviews with key Japanese and there is still nothing close to a consensus on how the Japanese would have reacted to different situations. Yet people criticize the American leadership for lacking that same insight into the mind of the enemy during the war.
I find the phrasing of the question annoying and left the article without having my curiosity satisfied.
The question phrased as "Why Nagasaki?" is actually "Why a second nuclear bomb?"
But why was it Nagasaki? The closest to an answer the article seems to give is "Because Kokura was clouded" or "Because they wanted to spare Kyoto", neither of which really satisfies why Nagasaki (or Kokura, or Hiroshima for that matter) made the list in the first place.
I largely only know of Hiroshima and Nagasaki because of the nuclear bombings. So why wasn't it Tokyo or Osaka?
Annoyingly, the author does this phrasing again when linking to a page that he purports answers the question "Why Hiroshima", but in facts discuss "Why throwing a nuclear bomb at all"
The question phrased as "Why Nagasaki?" is actually "Why a second nuclear bomb?"
But why was it Nagasaki? The closest to an answer the article seems to give is "Because Kokura was clouded" or "Because they wanted to spare Kyoto", neither of which really satisfies why Nagasaki (or Kokura, or Hiroshima for that matter) made the list in the first place.
I largely only know of Hiroshima and Nagasaki because of the nuclear bombings. So why wasn't it Tokyo or Osaka?
Annoyingly, the author does this phrasing again when linking to a page that he purports answers the question "Why Hiroshima", but in facts discuss "Why throwing a nuclear bomb at all"
> So why wasn't it Tokyo or Osaka?
Presumably because of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_(10_March_1... and ... can't find the corresponding wikipedia page, but Osaka, Nagoya and Kobe were fire-bombed shortly after. The fire-bombing of Kobe is probably what wad depicted in the animation movie Grave of the fireflies.
This is not talked about much, but led to more deaths than both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined...
Presumably because of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_(10_March_1... and ... can't find the corresponding wikipedia page, but Osaka, Nagoya and Kobe were fire-bombed shortly after. The fire-bombing of Kobe is probably what wad depicted in the animation movie Grave of the fireflies.
This is not talked about much, but led to more deaths than both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined...
Here's the list of why, but I doubt it'll make you any happier:
""" (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. """
http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html#d
The answer really does boil down to the USAF hadn't bombed it by the 10th of August and the more preferred target had bad weather.
""" (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. """
http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html#d
The answer really does boil down to the USAF hadn't bombed it by the 10th of August and the more preferred target had bad weather.
IIRC the imperial palace in Tokyo was nuclear target #3 assuming Japan didnt surrender.
To the assumed question, it was a major port city and the home of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. To the really obvious question the article asks, the second bomb shows you can do it again, and you're ready to do it some more. It's a "surrender today" kind of statement.
This article makes a solid case that not only did the US not need to drop the bomb in order to precipitate Japan's capitulation, but that it did so knowing that it's not necessary:
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-08-05/hiroshima-a...
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-08-05/hiroshima-a...
Yup, else they might try to decide to wait it out and build their own bomb. They were so much against surrendering many committed seppuku or regular suicide when it happened and those were regular people.
It's very interesting how until recently I grew up and believed the bombings should not have happened. Modern ICBMs and hydrogen bombs are much more scary as is nuclear powers going to war but MAD aside there are situations where a single nuke at a strategic location will save many more lives on both sides of a conflict.but it still doesn't feel right saying it.
It's very interesting how until recently I grew up and believed the bombings should not have happened. Modern ICBMs and hydrogen bombs are much more scary as is nuclear powers going to war but MAD aside there are situations where a single nuke at a strategic location will save many more lives on both sides of a conflict.but it still doesn't feel right saying it.
> Yup, else they might try to decide to wait it out and build their own bomb. They were so much against surrendering many committed seppuku or regular suicide when it happened and those were regular people.
The declaration of war by the Soviet Union decided the end of the war. Japan wouldn't have had time to build their own bomb and they would have surrendered anyway.
In fact it is not even proven that the bombings had any meaningful impact to the decisions to surrender. If the Japanese didn't surrender after having whole cities firebombed, it is insane to think the atomic bombings would have had any more impact on moral.
The US did not use the atomic bomb for humanitarian reasons, to end the war earlier or other such other lies. They did it a a show of strength, targeted at the Soviets.
It is sad that even after so many years, the same propaganda lies get repeated. Why are people still defending the use of the atomic bomb?
The declaration of war by the Soviet Union decided the end of the war. Japan wouldn't have had time to build their own bomb and they would have surrendered anyway.
In fact it is not even proven that the bombings had any meaningful impact to the decisions to surrender. If the Japanese didn't surrender after having whole cities firebombed, it is insane to think the atomic bombings would have had any more impact on moral.
The US did not use the atomic bomb for humanitarian reasons, to end the war earlier or other such other lies. They did it a a show of strength, targeted at the Soviets.
It is sad that even after so many years, the same propaganda lies get repeated. Why are people still defending the use of the atomic bomb?
This is is an alternative theory that has gained traction in some contrarian quarters; but holds little weight.
The Soviets invaded territory that the Japanese held; and their actions did remove a possible pathway for Japan to stay in the war, sure.
However -
The US was the main game in the Pacific Theatre and their continuous, rolling campaign of victories - culminating in the bombs - was the primary cause of the end of the war.
This is the general consensus and has been revisited.. and revisited .. and revisited .. mostly by those with a primary motive of discrediting the US for using the bomb.
It’s easier to argue against the use of the bomb when you bluntly reject any positive outcomes; but first one must deal with reality. And the reality is not difficult to discern.
The Soviets invaded Manchuria, meanwhile the US had already taken actual Japanese territory.
While this absolutely made it much more difficult for the Japanese to allocate the resources needed to defend themselves on so many fronts, they were far more interested in defending their homeland than in keeping captured Chinese territory.
If you were to consider two counterfactuals -
- Soviets invade, bombs are not dropped - Soviets don’t invade, bombs are dropped
Only one of these still leads to surrender. Manchuria was a sideshow compared to the real game.
Editing to add -
If you want any further proof, just look at who the Japanese actually surrendered to. There is nothing in their culture (then or now) which would cause them to surrender to anyone besides their actual victor.
The Soviets invaded territory that the Japanese held; and their actions did remove a possible pathway for Japan to stay in the war, sure.
However -
The US was the main game in the Pacific Theatre and their continuous, rolling campaign of victories - culminating in the bombs - was the primary cause of the end of the war.
This is the general consensus and has been revisited.. and revisited .. and revisited .. mostly by those with a primary motive of discrediting the US for using the bomb.
It’s easier to argue against the use of the bomb when you bluntly reject any positive outcomes; but first one must deal with reality. And the reality is not difficult to discern.
The Soviets invaded Manchuria, meanwhile the US had already taken actual Japanese territory.
While this absolutely made it much more difficult for the Japanese to allocate the resources needed to defend themselves on so many fronts, they were far more interested in defending their homeland than in keeping captured Chinese territory.
If you were to consider two counterfactuals -
- Soviets invade, bombs are not dropped - Soviets don’t invade, bombs are dropped
Only one of these still leads to surrender. Manchuria was a sideshow compared to the real game.
Editing to add -
If you want any further proof, just look at who the Japanese actually surrendered to. There is nothing in their culture (then or now) which would cause them to surrender to anyone besides their actual victor.
First of all, we need to differentiate between surrender and unconditional surrender.
Even before the Soviet entry of the war, the situation was hopeless for the Japanese military leadership. Their best case scenario was to somehow avoid unconditional surrender, they would have gladly taken any deal to end the war that avoided that.
So a already devastating situation went from bad to worse when the Soviets entered the war. That was a absolute game changer in terms of strategy and made a conditional surrender pretty unlikely. So clearly were was no point in prolonging the war anymore.
The atomic bombs didn't really enter into the equation.
> If you want any further proof, just look at who the Japanese actually surrendered to. There is nothing in their culture (then or now) which would cause them to surrender to anyone besides their actual victor.
There are obviously good reasons why the leadership preferred to surrender to the US. The Soviets probably would have pushed for bigger societal changes, requiring something like the de-nazification campaign in Germany.
Even before the Soviet entry of the war, the situation was hopeless for the Japanese military leadership. Their best case scenario was to somehow avoid unconditional surrender, they would have gladly taken any deal to end the war that avoided that.
So a already devastating situation went from bad to worse when the Soviets entered the war. That was a absolute game changer in terms of strategy and made a conditional surrender pretty unlikely. So clearly were was no point in prolonging the war anymore.
The atomic bombs didn't really enter into the equation.
> If you want any further proof, just look at who the Japanese actually surrendered to. There is nothing in their culture (then or now) which would cause them to surrender to anyone besides their actual victor.
There are obviously good reasons why the leadership preferred to surrender to the US. The Soviets probably would have pushed for bigger societal changes, requiring something like the de-nazification campaign in Germany.
Perhaps the reason was partially also to make the Japanese surrender to the US, and not have Soviets split Japan as well.
> In fact it is not even proven that the bombings had any meaningful impact to the decisions to surrender. If the Japanese didn't surrender after having whole cities firebombed, it is insane to think the atomic bombings would have had any more impact on moral.
If you look at which shaped fiction the most, there is no doubt that the nuclear bombings had a much greater impact than the fire bombings.
So I don't think it is insane to say that a single bomb with the power of thousands regular bombs can cause a significant impact on morale, compared to the regular bombs.
If you look at which shaped fiction the most, there is no doubt that the nuclear bombings had a much greater impact than the fire bombings.
So I don't think it is insane to say that a single bomb with the power of thousands regular bombs can cause a significant impact on morale, compared to the regular bombs.
Yes, it did have impact in fiction and also on the world stage, I already said that the main goal was to show strength and intimidate the Soviets. For this is served well.
Did it impact the Japanese military leadership, which obviously did not care much about civilian causality, in their decisions much? No.
Did it impact the Japanese military leadership, which obviously did not care much about civilian causality, in their decisions much? No.
I concede the argument about them wanting to build their own bomb, you changed my mind a bit.
As for the rest, I never said the US had humanitarian intent. But the fact is millions more would have died by firebombing just not instantly like with a nuke.
Yes, of course it was a show of strength but also to prevent more US casualties. It just so happened the result of nuking would also mean less japanese casualties as a coincidence. A long protracted campaign would have definetly lead to more casualties. Japan would have never surrendered and allowed an invasion of their land without basically every military aged male fighting to their death.
It is not propaganda at all, nukes save lives in some situations but not in most. There is no morality in war, the moment a decision is made that allows for civilian collateral damage it becomes a immoral but the question is what is the alternative and are you the aggressor. Japan was the aggressor and their people would have fought for and willingly supported their emporer whom they consider their god. Ultimately, whatever the casualty on both sides it is the agressor who is responsible. The decision that led to the nuking of hiroshima and nagasaki was made by japanese military leadership and emperor.
The argument against wmds you and many make naively is that regular people should not be targeted enmasse only as collateral damage. But in war, regardless of the type of government regular people have the responsibility to resist their government that is agressing against a foreign nation. They did not resist the emperor in japan, quite the opposite. As for children it was their parents that made decisinons or indecisions that endangered them. Yes, military targets should be the only targets but the exception is when that means killing a massive portion of your own military who are defending against an agressor. The US government had the responsibility to prioritize US military and civilian lives over any japanese lives because of both countries are sovreign and each is responsible for the safety and security of their people not people of other nations. This works both ways, when you support the US bombing syria or tolerated iraq invasion the US was the agressor and should their people become powerful enough to attack US civilians they are fully justified because it was civiliand that supported the killing of their civilians.
You do not get to expect for your own children to go off and die in a war to avoid civilian casualties of a foreign sovreign state that is the agressor in a war and targeted your civilians to begin with. There is no question that had the Japanese or German obtained a nuke they would not hesitate before using it on america cities. It was a means to an end, it is not justifiable nor does it need to be in a war.
Killing civilians as an act of agression or genocide is intolerable of course. But avoiding an enemy's civilian casualty is not a priority for a defending military. A large majority of americans thought so after 9/11 and the invasion of afghanistan as well. The Iraq war had popular support as well because americand were afraid they would be targeted by wmds.
Here is an analogy that might help reason: If you get in a fight and in defending yourself you kill the other person. The only question is if you had any choice but to fight to defend your life and well being such as running away. If the other person dies you are not a murderer,they killed themselves by acting in agression even though your hand was the cause of death. You have no responsibility to limit your force because your own life is at risk. You don't have to consider what wi happen to that persons family as a result as well (although the law might wrongly sometimes).
Nukes aren't special, firebombing and cluster bombs targeted civilians without discriminating. Both sides of WW2 used indiscriminant attacks like that. Nukes just happen to have an immediate and larger scale. It is not mote wrong to kill millions as opposed to hundreds of civilians to acheive a military goal. They are both just as wrong. My argument is, it is a correct decision to prioritize american military and civilian lives because each sovreign state is responsible only for their own people.
So if it came down to a war with China for example, using nukes is justified if it means avoiding millions of dead americans, although the US is not a first use nation but i believe China is (could be wrong on this).
As for the rest, I never said the US had humanitarian intent. But the fact is millions more would have died by firebombing just not instantly like with a nuke.
Yes, of course it was a show of strength but also to prevent more US casualties. It just so happened the result of nuking would also mean less japanese casualties as a coincidence. A long protracted campaign would have definetly lead to more casualties. Japan would have never surrendered and allowed an invasion of their land without basically every military aged male fighting to their death.
It is not propaganda at all, nukes save lives in some situations but not in most. There is no morality in war, the moment a decision is made that allows for civilian collateral damage it becomes a immoral but the question is what is the alternative and are you the aggressor. Japan was the aggressor and their people would have fought for and willingly supported their emporer whom they consider their god. Ultimately, whatever the casualty on both sides it is the agressor who is responsible. The decision that led to the nuking of hiroshima and nagasaki was made by japanese military leadership and emperor.
The argument against wmds you and many make naively is that regular people should not be targeted enmasse only as collateral damage. But in war, regardless of the type of government regular people have the responsibility to resist their government that is agressing against a foreign nation. They did not resist the emperor in japan, quite the opposite. As for children it was their parents that made decisinons or indecisions that endangered them. Yes, military targets should be the only targets but the exception is when that means killing a massive portion of your own military who are defending against an agressor. The US government had the responsibility to prioritize US military and civilian lives over any japanese lives because of both countries are sovreign and each is responsible for the safety and security of their people not people of other nations. This works both ways, when you support the US bombing syria or tolerated iraq invasion the US was the agressor and should their people become powerful enough to attack US civilians they are fully justified because it was civiliand that supported the killing of their civilians.
You do not get to expect for your own children to go off and die in a war to avoid civilian casualties of a foreign sovreign state that is the agressor in a war and targeted your civilians to begin with. There is no question that had the Japanese or German obtained a nuke they would not hesitate before using it on america cities. It was a means to an end, it is not justifiable nor does it need to be in a war.
Killing civilians as an act of agression or genocide is intolerable of course. But avoiding an enemy's civilian casualty is not a priority for a defending military. A large majority of americans thought so after 9/11 and the invasion of afghanistan as well. The Iraq war had popular support as well because americand were afraid they would be targeted by wmds.
Here is an analogy that might help reason: If you get in a fight and in defending yourself you kill the other person. The only question is if you had any choice but to fight to defend your life and well being such as running away. If the other person dies you are not a murderer,they killed themselves by acting in agression even though your hand was the cause of death. You have no responsibility to limit your force because your own life is at risk. You don't have to consider what wi happen to that persons family as a result as well (although the law might wrongly sometimes).
Nukes aren't special, firebombing and cluster bombs targeted civilians without discriminating. Both sides of WW2 used indiscriminant attacks like that. Nukes just happen to have an immediate and larger scale. It is not mote wrong to kill millions as opposed to hundreds of civilians to acheive a military goal. They are both just as wrong. My argument is, it is a correct decision to prioritize american military and civilian lives because each sovreign state is responsible only for their own people.
So if it came down to a war with China for example, using nukes is justified if it means avoiding millions of dead americans, although the US is not a first use nation but i believe China is (could be wrong on this).
> Yes, of course it was a show of strength but also to prevent more US casualties. It just so happened the result of nuking would also mean less japanese casualties as a coincidence. A long protracted campaign would have definetly lead to more casualties. Japan would have never surrendered and allowed an invasion of their land without basically every military aged male fighting to their death.
I explicitly do NOT subscribe to the fact that the bombing had any meaningful effect on whether and when Japan would surrender. That is the main point we should be arguing about.
You completely ignore any actual points I was making in instead make up stuff like "Japan would have never surrendered". No, they would and they did.
> “The vast destruction wreaked by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the loss of 135,000 people made little impact on the Japanese military. However, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria … changed their minds.”
Source: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-08-05/hiroshima-a...
Now, you might maybe argue that the atomic bombs helped a bit pushing for unconditional surrender and keeping the Soviets out but that would be a vastly different point.
As for the rest of you points, I don't get why you are trying to justify civilian causalities so much. Japan was not a democracy. It had no free press. The average Japanese person did not have much choice or influence. They were victims of the regime as well, regardless whether they were brainwashed to adore the emperor or not. Not to mention obviously there were Japanese people that were against the war, maybe not a relevant amount but it is silly to paint the Japanese people as an hive mind and imply collective guilt.
Yes, civilian casualties are a fact of war but please don't try to justify them or imply civilians would ever deserve it. War is simply horrible and there is no justification.
Yes, sometimes horrible things need to be done and yes nuclear threat can actually serve to keep peace but the atomic bombings of Japan have no justifications.
I explicitly do NOT subscribe to the fact that the bombing had any meaningful effect on whether and when Japan would surrender. That is the main point we should be arguing about.
You completely ignore any actual points I was making in instead make up stuff like "Japan would have never surrendered". No, they would and they did.
> “The vast destruction wreaked by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the loss of 135,000 people made little impact on the Japanese military. However, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria … changed their minds.”
Source: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-08-05/hiroshima-a...
Now, you might maybe argue that the atomic bombs helped a bit pushing for unconditional surrender and keeping the Soviets out but that would be a vastly different point.
As for the rest of you points, I don't get why you are trying to justify civilian causalities so much. Japan was not a democracy. It had no free press. The average Japanese person did not have much choice or influence. They were victims of the regime as well, regardless whether they were brainwashed to adore the emperor or not. Not to mention obviously there were Japanese people that were against the war, maybe not a relevant amount but it is silly to paint the Japanese people as an hive mind and imply collective guilt.
Yes, civilian casualties are a fact of war but please don't try to justify them or imply civilians would ever deserve it. War is simply horrible and there is no justification.
Yes, sometimes horrible things need to be done and yes nuclear threat can actually serve to keep peace but the atomic bombings of Japan have no justifications.
> War is simply horrible and there is no justification.
Let me start here, the first part of course. But there is a justification: self-defense. That is the primary reason any military force exists.
> the atomic bombings of Japan have no justifications.
They require no justification, it is war not a democratic or civil discourse. The only objective is to win not to be moral or just. That is why the military exists, to win wars not to appease the public. And this is precisely why afghanistan and vietnam were lost, because the US military tries to be moral and do right by civilians. It's their country, their problem period and it curs both ways. You and most others living ina democracy under the protection of a superpower are not grasping the concept of sovreignity and what it means to be at war. Sovreignity is not an idea on paper and it does not mean merely "independent". It means the safety, security and prosperity of all under a sovreign as well as the consequence of any action made by that sovreign are their own and no one else. You do not get to tell them what to do in their internal affairs and in return any action made by a sovreign good or bad are for all under the sovreign to bear. You can dislike the outcome as do I but you don't get to pretend sovreignity is nullified when it suits you.
> Japan was not a democracy. It had no free press. The average Japanese person did not have much choice or influence
This is what I mean! I don't care one bit about democracy in this context. We do not live in a golbal sovreign nation where countries are provinces. At the individual level it is very unfortunate what the outcome was, whether or not the people had power to resist is irrelevant, neither is their "brainwashing" (an arrogant dismissal of their beliefs by you) what matters is they are sovreign nation and their agression was as a nation not by rogue individuals. This means every man,woman and child bears the responsibility of the outcome. What if their own government bombed their own people? Stopping their government, refusing to fight in their military or support it with logistical needs is their own choice whether their government killed them directly or by attacking a foreign power and dooming them as a result, it ultimately bears reponsibility. Democracy works for the west and if they want it they will just have to figure it out on their own as a sovreign. Their ability to exist without interference from outsiders or having to answer to an outside power comes with the responsibility that acting in agression means the whole sovreign is responsible. There is no precedent or norm that a country must be democractic in order for it to be a sovreign or for the people to accept the consequence of whatever their government is (which is none of your business because sovreignity means self-determination among other things).
To your firsr paragraphs, I was not avoiding your points but adressing them.
Japan would not have surrendered:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
> Faced with the prospect of an invasion of the Home Islands, starting with Kyūshū, and the prospect of a Soviet invasion of Manchuria—Japan's last source of natural resources—the War Journal of the Imperial Headquarters concluded in 1944:
We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight.[9] As a final attempt to stop the Allied advances, the Japanese Imperial High Command planned an all-out defense of Kyūshū codenamed Operation Ketsugō.[10]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Operation...
> While Japan no longer had a realistic prospect of winning the war, Japan's leaders believed they could make the cost of invading and occupying the Home Islands too high for the Allies to accept, which would lead to some sort of armistice rather than total defeat. The Japanese plan for defeating the invasion was called Operation Ketsugō (決号作戦, ketsugō sakusen) ("Operation Codename Decisive"). The Japanese planned to commit the entire population of Japan to resisting the invasion, and from June 1945 onward, a propaganda campaign calling for "The Glorious Death of One Hundred Million" commenced.[48] The main message of "The Glorious Death of One Hundred Million" campaign was that it was "glorious to die for the holy emperor of Japan, and every Japanese man, woman, and child should die for the Emperor when the Allies arrived".[48] While this was not realistic, both American and Japanese officers at the time predicted a Japanese death toll in the millions
While of course they won't succeed in killing all of their own civilians they were comitted to killing a whole lot more than a few million people.
Military planners and intel on both sides concluded millions would die on both sides. If we can agree that you and I do not now know better than they did then, what is our disagreement here? Both outcomes would have been horrible. Less people died with nukes.
Let me start here, the first part of course. But there is a justification: self-defense. That is the primary reason any military force exists.
> the atomic bombings of Japan have no justifications.
They require no justification, it is war not a democratic or civil discourse. The only objective is to win not to be moral or just. That is why the military exists, to win wars not to appease the public. And this is precisely why afghanistan and vietnam were lost, because the US military tries to be moral and do right by civilians. It's their country, their problem period and it curs both ways. You and most others living ina democracy under the protection of a superpower are not grasping the concept of sovreignity and what it means to be at war. Sovreignity is not an idea on paper and it does not mean merely "independent". It means the safety, security and prosperity of all under a sovreign as well as the consequence of any action made by that sovreign are their own and no one else. You do not get to tell them what to do in their internal affairs and in return any action made by a sovreign good or bad are for all under the sovreign to bear. You can dislike the outcome as do I but you don't get to pretend sovreignity is nullified when it suits you.
> Japan was not a democracy. It had no free press. The average Japanese person did not have much choice or influence
This is what I mean! I don't care one bit about democracy in this context. We do not live in a golbal sovreign nation where countries are provinces. At the individual level it is very unfortunate what the outcome was, whether or not the people had power to resist is irrelevant, neither is their "brainwashing" (an arrogant dismissal of their beliefs by you) what matters is they are sovreign nation and their agression was as a nation not by rogue individuals. This means every man,woman and child bears the responsibility of the outcome. What if their own government bombed their own people? Stopping their government, refusing to fight in their military or support it with logistical needs is their own choice whether their government killed them directly or by attacking a foreign power and dooming them as a result, it ultimately bears reponsibility. Democracy works for the west and if they want it they will just have to figure it out on their own as a sovreign. Their ability to exist without interference from outsiders or having to answer to an outside power comes with the responsibility that acting in agression means the whole sovreign is responsible. There is no precedent or norm that a country must be democractic in order for it to be a sovreign or for the people to accept the consequence of whatever their government is (which is none of your business because sovreignity means self-determination among other things).
To your firsr paragraphs, I was not avoiding your points but adressing them.
Japan would not have surrendered:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
> Faced with the prospect of an invasion of the Home Islands, starting with Kyūshū, and the prospect of a Soviet invasion of Manchuria—Japan's last source of natural resources—the War Journal of the Imperial Headquarters concluded in 1944:
We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight.[9] As a final attempt to stop the Allied advances, the Japanese Imperial High Command planned an all-out defense of Kyūshū codenamed Operation Ketsugō.[10]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Operation...
> While Japan no longer had a realistic prospect of winning the war, Japan's leaders believed they could make the cost of invading and occupying the Home Islands too high for the Allies to accept, which would lead to some sort of armistice rather than total defeat. The Japanese plan for defeating the invasion was called Operation Ketsugō (決号作戦, ketsugō sakusen) ("Operation Codename Decisive"). The Japanese planned to commit the entire population of Japan to resisting the invasion, and from June 1945 onward, a propaganda campaign calling for "The Glorious Death of One Hundred Million" commenced.[48] The main message of "The Glorious Death of One Hundred Million" campaign was that it was "glorious to die for the holy emperor of Japan, and every Japanese man, woman, and child should die for the Emperor when the Allies arrived".[48] While this was not realistic, both American and Japanese officers at the time predicted a Japanese death toll in the millions
While of course they won't succeed in killing all of their own civilians they were comitted to killing a whole lot more than a few million people.
Military planners and intel on both sides concluded millions would die on both sides. If we can agree that you and I do not now know better than they did then, what is our disagreement here? Both outcomes would have been horrible. Less people died with nukes.
> although the US is not a first use nation but i believe China is (could be wrong on this).
Both China and the US officially have a "launch on warning" posture, with China only very recently switching from a "no first use" (NFU) policy which they had tried to get the US to adopt.
Formally the US calls its posture "launch on attack", which means they will launch a strike if they get a "tactical warning" of a nuclear strike.
Both China and the US officially have a "launch on warning" posture, with China only very recently switching from a "no first use" (NFU) policy which they had tried to get the US to adopt.
Formally the US calls its posture "launch on attack", which means they will launch a strike if they get a "tactical warning" of a nuclear strike.
> Yup, else they might try to decide to wait it out and build their own bomb
I don't believe this thought crossed the mind of military planners, even the most pessimistic ones. Japan by mid 1945 was reduced to rubble, with nearly zero serious industrial capacity and under a maritime blockade. I think the best they could do is to continue as a semi-destroyed agrarian society with just enough guns and cold weapons to impose unacceptable casualties on would-be occupants - and in that state they would probably be able to last for quite a while. But obtaining a nuclear weapon of their own was out of the question for Japan.
I don't believe this thought crossed the mind of military planners, even the most pessimistic ones. Japan by mid 1945 was reduced to rubble, with nearly zero serious industrial capacity and under a maritime blockade. I think the best they could do is to continue as a semi-destroyed agrarian society with just enough guns and cold weapons to impose unacceptable casualties on would-be occupants - and in that state they would probably be able to last for quite a while. But obtaining a nuclear weapon of their own was out of the question for Japan.
You are right, my speculation was unfounded on that.
That the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki shortened the war is actually highly disputeable. More general, this weighing of lives, especially the lives that might potentially be saved in the future againstvtaking lives now is an extremely slippery slope.
Edit: Both cities were, comparatively, intact at the point the nukes were dropped. e.g. Tokio wouldn't have done any good as it was already completely fire bombed. So Hiroshima and Nagasaki allowed to actually get real live data on the effect of two different nukes on actual cities.
Edit: Both cities were, comparatively, intact at the point the nukes were dropped. e.g. Tokio wouldn't have done any good as it was already completely fire bombed. So Hiroshima and Nagasaki allowed to actually get real live data on the effect of two different nukes on actual cities.
Where is it disputed? I would like to be informed on this.
Each time I dig into this, both sides at the time believed millions more would die in resistance of a US invasion. The only way less people will die from not nuking them is if the US was to accept an armistice and avoid invading mainland and hope ina few decades the japanese empire will not go at it again.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#
> While Japan no longer had a realistic prospect of winning the war, Japan's leaders believed they could make the cost of invading and occupying the Home Islands too high for the Allies to accept, which would lead to some sort of armistice rather than total defeat. The Japanese plan for defeating the invasion was called Operation Ketsugō (決号作戦, ketsugō sakusen) ("Operation Codename Decisive"). The Japanese planned to commit the entire population of Japan to resisting the invasion, and from June 1945 onward, a propaganda campaign calling for "The Glorious Death of One Hundred Million" commenced.[48] The main message of "The Glorious Death of One Hundred Million" campaign was that it was "glorious to die for the holy emperor of Japan, and every Japanese man, woman, and child should die for the Emperor when the Allies arrived".[48] While this was not realistic, both American and Japanese officers at the time predicted a Japanese death toll in the millions
Each time I dig into this, both sides at the time believed millions more would die in resistance of a US invasion. The only way less people will die from not nuking them is if the US was to accept an armistice and avoid invading mainland and hope ina few decades the japanese empire will not go at it again.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#
> While Japan no longer had a realistic prospect of winning the war, Japan's leaders believed they could make the cost of invading and occupying the Home Islands too high for the Allies to accept, which would lead to some sort of armistice rather than total defeat. The Japanese plan for defeating the invasion was called Operation Ketsugō (決号作戦, ketsugō sakusen) ("Operation Codename Decisive"). The Japanese planned to commit the entire population of Japan to resisting the invasion, and from June 1945 onward, a propaganda campaign calling for "The Glorious Death of One Hundred Million" commenced.[48] The main message of "The Glorious Death of One Hundred Million" campaign was that it was "glorious to die for the holy emperor of Japan, and every Japanese man, woman, and child should die for the Emperor when the Allies arrived".[48] While this was not realistic, both American and Japanese officers at the time predicted a Japanese death toll in the millions
The damage to Tokio was as big as what the nukes did, tye Japanese didn't surrender. Around the time the nukes dropped the USSR finally declared war on Japan, surrendering to the Western Allies, foremost the US, was much more preferable than ending up split in different occupation zones.
They are not a west european country. They don't surrender and accept the shame of defeat to avoid mass casualty. Their plan was to sacrifice as many civilians as possible to prevent an invsion of the mainland. So long as it meant they could resist invasion in a meaningful way they would resist. Millions more would habe died and Japan would be split in two like korea.
Especially since their Surai honor would have meant they use Katanas?
Don't try to justify civilian death, strategic bombing was considered even by the RAF and UAAF a war crime in 1942, with some made up thing based in a fantasy understanding of the enemy.
Don't try to justify civilian death, strategic bombing was considered even by the RAF and UAAF a war crime in 1942, with some made up thing based in a fantasy understanding of the enemy.
Can you back up that claim about strategic bombing being a war crime? Also, do you understand that a war crime only applies between signatories of a treaty and that a nation that is not part of that a sovreign nation has no obligation to follow any authority or rule outside of itself else it wouldn't be a sovreign nation?
Civilian deaths are justified when war is justified. There is no such thing as a clean war or a "genteleman's war" as the brits call it. The idea of rules in war is a western european invention. Outside of that war historically meant murder, rape and pillaging by the victor. Are you familiar with the nanjing massacare by the Japnese? That's their idea of war, ripping out babies with a bayonet from pregnant women and making people beg for death as they force them to rape their own family members and hunt them like animals. The very fact that you think actions can be unjust or just after you started waging war shows you are only looking at it from a western/modern perspective. This is why afghanistan and vietnam were lost by the US. As a democracy the people's naive opinion of war was the ultimate cause of defeat. Even genocide is a modern post worldwar2 invention. Trough most of human history if the other guys won there is a chance they will kill all your people if they don't keep them for raping and enslavement. That is why when your guys get a chance they won't even consider the concept of rules only victory. War itself is a horrible and unjustifiable thing, it does not suddenly become just and fair because a you are killing a conscripted child with a uniform. Soldiers are human and civilians are participants in war by the mere fact that their economic output us being used to support the military by way of taxation. What is justifiable is avoiding war to begin with and changing your own governmenr even at the cost of a civil war so that it never becomes the agressor in war (coughiraq*cough).
The fact is you need one side to declare war before the other and regardless of who wins it is that first side that is responsible for the entire unjust and cruel outcome of a war. And as a sovreign nation, the people are responsible for the government they pay taxes to and tolerate when it declares war first on another country.
Civilian deaths are justified when war is justified. There is no such thing as a clean war or a "genteleman's war" as the brits call it. The idea of rules in war is a western european invention. Outside of that war historically meant murder, rape and pillaging by the victor. Are you familiar with the nanjing massacare by the Japnese? That's their idea of war, ripping out babies with a bayonet from pregnant women and making people beg for death as they force them to rape their own family members and hunt them like animals. The very fact that you think actions can be unjust or just after you started waging war shows you are only looking at it from a western/modern perspective. This is why afghanistan and vietnam were lost by the US. As a democracy the people's naive opinion of war was the ultimate cause of defeat. Even genocide is a modern post worldwar2 invention. Trough most of human history if the other guys won there is a chance they will kill all your people if they don't keep them for raping and enslavement. That is why when your guys get a chance they won't even consider the concept of rules only victory. War itself is a horrible and unjustifiable thing, it does not suddenly become just and fair because a you are killing a conscripted child with a uniform. Soldiers are human and civilians are participants in war by the mere fact that their economic output us being used to support the military by way of taxation. What is justifiable is avoiding war to begin with and changing your own governmenr even at the cost of a civil war so that it never becomes the agressor in war (coughiraq*cough).
The fact is you need one side to declare war before the other and regardless of who wins it is that first side that is responsible for the entire unjust and cruel outcome of a war. And as a sovreign nation, the people are responsible for the government they pay taxes to and tolerate when it declares war first on another country.
There are a couple of interal memos of RAF bomber command, some from Churchil hinslef, some from the USAAF and soke from Roosevelt.
Civilian deaths are never justified in war, they are, unfortunately, inevitable so. What the strategic bombing did was explicitly targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. Which is a war crime. That it was never tried, not even for the Blitz, was because the Allies did it themselves. Same for unrestricted u-boat warefare by the way.
Genocides are no post WW2 invention, plenty of examples throughout history, e.g. the one on the Armenians by the Ottoman Empire or the one on the Native Americans.
One last thing regarding strategic bombing of civilians and cities. It was clear to everyone that it sinoly doesn't work, morale isn't reduced, industrial output of Nazi Germany didn't drop. And still it was carried out. Partially as a revenge thing, partially to appease Stalin for the lack of Western Front in Europe. But mostly because people like Harris pushed and lobbied like crazy for it. Never mind that long range bombers would have been better used by coastal command for u-boat hunting and patrol duty.
Worth noting, the Nazis never had a clear majority during the last free election. They got one in a totally unfree election. Punishing a whole population for that, including children, elderly and other non-combatants, is wrong. Regardles of which side is doing it.
Civilian deaths are never justified in war, they are, unfortunately, inevitable so. What the strategic bombing did was explicitly targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. Which is a war crime. That it was never tried, not even for the Blitz, was because the Allies did it themselves. Same for unrestricted u-boat warefare by the way.
Genocides are no post WW2 invention, plenty of examples throughout history, e.g. the one on the Armenians by the Ottoman Empire or the one on the Native Americans.
One last thing regarding strategic bombing of civilians and cities. It was clear to everyone that it sinoly doesn't work, morale isn't reduced, industrial output of Nazi Germany didn't drop. And still it was carried out. Partially as a revenge thing, partially to appease Stalin for the lack of Western Front in Europe. But mostly because people like Harris pushed and lobbied like crazy for it. Never mind that long range bombers would have been better used by coastal command for u-boat hunting and patrol duty.
Worth noting, the Nazis never had a clear majority during the last free election. They got one in a totally unfree election. Punishing a whole population for that, including children, elderly and other non-combatants, is wrong. Regardles of which side is doing it.
See, you noted two things there I agree with. One is that in reality if your goal isn't genocide, targeting civilians does not help your efforts before or after victory. Second is that UN security concil members after WW2 and "war crimes" being a thing commit war crimes without accountability, these days it only applies to weak countries. Who will prosecute the victor? Anothe nation by means of another war?
When I said genocide is a modern invention I meant it being a specially clasiffied crime. Of course it happened plenty? Natives in the americas and australia can tell you so as well but it was just war at the time. As recently as the 1800s it was not a crime to go hunting for indians without provocation.
> Punishing a whole population for that, including children, elderly and other non-combatants, is wrong. Regardles of which side is doing it.
Again, I find myself explaining that right and wrong are out of the window at that point. You have such views because in the west it is rare to be afraid that you as a civilian and your family will be killed by the other side. When your whole country is in the fear and terror of war, killing civilians becomes very popular. The US has not fought a single war of self-defense since WW2 so I see why this sentiment is popular. Nuking japan did have popular support and was a celebrated thing afterwards as well by the majority.
Your hindsight judgement is irrelevant and for future wars you should understand that when it is a war of self defense and survival there are no rules similar to how when a person is fighting for their lives they will not and cannot be expected to follow any rules.
In general, I agree with you that killing unarmed people is wrong, even as collateral damage. My point on this thread is that such opinions of morality are vain and even damaging against the ultimate goal of victory and survival in war. The unclean way I would put it is: polishing turd won't make it clean.
When I said genocide is a modern invention I meant it being a specially clasiffied crime. Of course it happened plenty? Natives in the americas and australia can tell you so as well but it was just war at the time. As recently as the 1800s it was not a crime to go hunting for indians without provocation.
> Punishing a whole population for that, including children, elderly and other non-combatants, is wrong. Regardles of which side is doing it.
Again, I find myself explaining that right and wrong are out of the window at that point. You have such views because in the west it is rare to be afraid that you as a civilian and your family will be killed by the other side. When your whole country is in the fear and terror of war, killing civilians becomes very popular. The US has not fought a single war of self-defense since WW2 so I see why this sentiment is popular. Nuking japan did have popular support and was a celebrated thing afterwards as well by the majority.
Your hindsight judgement is irrelevant and for future wars you should understand that when it is a war of self defense and survival there are no rules similar to how when a person is fighting for their lives they will not and cannot be expected to follow any rules.
In general, I agree with you that killing unarmed people is wrong, even as collateral damage. My point on this thread is that such opinions of morality are vain and even damaging against the ultimate goal of victory and survival in war. The unclean way I would put it is: polishing turd won't make it clean.
We do not know the end game of nukes. Whatever life is "saved" can easily be obliterated further down the line.
orionion(4)
> It's a "surrender today" kind of statement
And Japan still didn’t.
And Japan still didn’t.
I've been to the USAF Museum in Dayton, Ohio, where they have the B-29 that dropped the bomb on Nagasaki.
At first glance, it's just another plane in the museum. But if you actually let yourself think about it, it's somewhat more sobering: you're looking at the actual plane that actually flew and did it. It really brings home the reality of it. And it's a bit disturbing to think that a piece of machinery can end the lives of tens of thousands of people all at once, and that humans are even capable of building such things.
Anyway just thought I'd share my experience.
At first glance, it's just another plane in the museum. But if you actually let yourself think about it, it's somewhat more sobering: you're looking at the actual plane that actually flew and did it. It really brings home the reality of it. And it's a bit disturbing to think that a piece of machinery can end the lives of tens of thousands of people all at once, and that humans are even capable of building such things.
Anyway just thought I'd share my experience.
Kind of reminds me of 9/11 actually. The first plane hit and everyone was kind of in a stupor, but when that second plane hit the urgency of the situation comes into sharp focus
I've visited Nagasaki - it does seem like a poor choice - the city is a series of valleys - they shielded much of the city from the bomb. Ground zero was the largest Christian cathedral in the Far East, closest war related govt facility housed PoWs. Hiroshima in comparison is on a flat plain.
The reason is simple. If hypothetically speaking, someone had conducted a poll in the US in July '45 (after almost years of hard war in the Pacific) with the single question "are you ok with killing one million Japanese people to save one hundred thousand American boys?", I think the vast majority of the people would have answered yes.
America had just lost more than 20000 killed at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and many more wounded. That's almost exactly the same number as those killed in the whole battle of Normandy (not just on D-day, but during the whole 3 month campaign). Iwo Jima was a tiny speck of land of less than 10 square miles, Okinawa is less than 500 sq miles. For comparison Normandy has an area of more than 10000 square miles. The Japanese were able to draw as much blood while surrendering 500 square miles as the Germans surrendering 20 times as much.
Oh, and the Japanese had the kamikazes.
I don't think the American's feared the Japanese by this time. After all, in all the battles the casualty ratio was between 1-to-3 and 1-to-10 US vs Japanese casualties. It was a given that they will crush Japan, and it had been so for 2 years already. But war is war, and people die in war. If there was something that could stop the war and save American lives, then Americans wanted it.
The alternative to a land invasion was total psychological shock. A few hours after Hiroshima Truman gave his "rain of ruin" speach [1]. He implied that America will drop numerous atomic bombs over Japan (if you pay attention he never says that directly, but it's easy to think he does)
[1] https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeche...
America had just lost more than 20000 killed at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and many more wounded. That's almost exactly the same number as those killed in the whole battle of Normandy (not just on D-day, but during the whole 3 month campaign). Iwo Jima was a tiny speck of land of less than 10 square miles, Okinawa is less than 500 sq miles. For comparison Normandy has an area of more than 10000 square miles. The Japanese were able to draw as much blood while surrendering 500 square miles as the Germans surrendering 20 times as much.
Oh, and the Japanese had the kamikazes.
I don't think the American's feared the Japanese by this time. After all, in all the battles the casualty ratio was between 1-to-3 and 1-to-10 US vs Japanese casualties. It was a given that they will crush Japan, and it had been so for 2 years already. But war is war, and people die in war. If there was something that could stop the war and save American lives, then Americans wanted it.
The alternative to a land invasion was total psychological shock. A few hours after Hiroshima Truman gave his "rain of ruin" speach [1]. He implied that America will drop numerous atomic bombs over Japan (if you pay attention he never says that directly, but it's easy to think he does)
We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan's power to make war.
It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware.
[1] https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeche...
Sadly, the answer has nothing to do with Japan and everything to do with the Soviet Union:
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-08-05/hiroshima-a...
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-08-05/hiroshima-a...
Contrarian counterfactual myth
Waste of time. The article is long and doesn't answer the question.
[deleted]
Why?
There is Urakami cathedral. Render unto Caesar.
The first bomb is somewhat understandable, still you could argue that the US might have figured out a way to demonstrate its destructive power to the Japanese without killing over 100,000 mostly innocent people in an instant. Maybe at the trade-off of temporarily risking US soldier lifes and resources of the general public. Still, you can argue the other way and see it as a terrible conclusion to a terrible war.
But the second one? I've seen many docs and historians perspectives on why it was considered necessary, but I can't find the point of view from which it was anything but a total atrocity for which the people who made it happen should be remembered in shame forever. So much of Japan not immediately surrendering after the first bomb dropped was down to the fog of war, to simple and understandable slow speed in government decisionmaking, etc.
Even if you can't be sure that the first bomb would have been enough to have them surrender, just the chance of it should have been enough to pick a different strategy, at the chance of saving a couple of dozen thousand innocent lives.