so it's 1945, japan is beat, yet refuses to surrender. why is it always presented as if "invasion" and "atomic bombs" were the only options?
more to the point: please tell me why a sea blockade of the japanese mainland untill surrender was no option.

so it's 1945, japan is beat, yet refuses to surrender. why is it always presented as if "invasion" and "atomic bombs" were the only options?
more to the point: please tell me why a sea blockade of the japanese mainland untill surrender was no option.

1. They dindn't know how long if at all it wuold take to starve Japan into submission.

2. Would kill more people than the Atomic Bomb.

what about a a little demonstration 10 miles off Tokyo bay? would have been pretty persuasive I would imagine

That's a decent point and worthy of discussion:

1) Would it have worked.

2) Did we have extra bombs.

3) Was an invasion en route in case they did not surrender and would that invasion be possible if the bomb was dropped in the water.

NOTE: they did not surrender for 3 days after the first bomb. They did not surrender until the second bomb was dropped. Arguing that a demonstration alone would have worked ignores this fact.

10chars....

Originally Posted by Ecofarm
That's a decent point and worthy of discussion:

1) Would it have worked.

there is no way of knowing that for sure, but there was no way of knowing if hiroshima and Nagasaki would have worked either. for all the US knew, they would have kept fighting. Nonetheless, I think the reasons Hiroshima and Nagasaki worked would have transferred over to a huge demostration. It was the sheer terror that made them surrender, not the strategic loss of hiroshima and Nagasaki.

2) Did we have extra bombs.

Just the two IIRC. for a few months anyhow.

3) Was an invasion en route in case they did not surrender and would that invasion be possible if the bomb was dropped in the water.

I used Tokyo bay as a random example, aywhere where it woul;d be seen by the people who needed to see it would do. Mt Fuji, for instance.

NOTE: they did not surrender for 3 days after the first bomb. They did not surrender until the second bomb was dropped. Arguing that a demonstration alone would have worked ignores this fact.

But even if the second bomb hadnt been dropped, they would have sortly afterwards. they were trying to decide how they could surrender and keep the emporor sovreign, not trying to decide if they could somehow stop the nuclear attacks.

they did not surrender for 3 days after the first bomb. They did not surrender until the second bomb was dropped. Arguing that a demonstration alone would have worked ignores this fact.

Some factions in Japan were allready contemplating surrender before the Bomb. I think they were pretty influential, but I don't know which faction and to what extend.

1. They dindn't know how long if at all it wuold take to starve Japan into submission.

2. Would kill more people than the Atomic Bomb.

they could have let food in, but no other ressources at all. (though i guess that would have been a real long term operation)

so it's 1945, japan is beat, yet refuses to surrender. why is it always presented as if "invasion" and "atomic bombs" were the only options?
more to the point: please tell me why a sea blockade of the japanese mainland untill surrender was no option.

The Soviets were advancing on Manchuria and had plans to take Hokkaido. The Americans obviously decided that they need to end the war quickly to prevent further Soviet advances. To do that, they could either invade or use the Nuclear Solution. Invasion would obviously cost a lot of (American) lives, so they chose the other option. There were other, more minor reasons of course.

Some factions in Japan were allready contemplating surrender before the Bomb. I think they were pretty influential, but I don't know which faction and to what extend.

Yes, and they were quite influential. But the pro-war factions are still strong and in fact they attempted a coup the day before Japan surrenders. There were apparantly talks with the Allies on surrender but the Allies insisted on unconditional surrender, to which many of the Japanese did not take well.

more to the point: please tell me why a sea blockade of the japanese mainland untill surrender was no option.
A submarine-induced blockade had been going on for at least two years by August 1945. The effects on Japan were only beginning to tell. The only reason the blockade had any effect at all was that Japan didn't even try to protect its sealanes unlike the British did against the Nazi U-boats. It'd take quite awhile for the Japanese to starve sufficiently for a surrender to be in the works, and by that time...
The Soviets were advancing on Manchuria and had plans to take Hokkaido. The Americans obviously decided that they need to end the war quickly to prevent further Soviet advances. To do that, they could either invade or use the Nuclear Solution. Invasion would obviously cost a lot of (American) lives, so they chose the other option. There were other, more minor reasons of course.
Yes. Time was a critical factor, and the Americans had some inkling that Japan would be better on their side than on that of the Soviets. Unfortunately, Japan ended up being of extremely limited use to the US during the Cold War. Oh well, win some, lose some.

According to some, the Soviet threat was more important to the Japanese decision making than the atomic bombs.

they could have let food in, but no other ressources at all. (though i guess that would have been a real long term operation)

Kinda defeats the purpse of starviong them into submission. Why would they surrender?

Again this discussion. Again my opinion: It was a tremendous warcrime, especially the second bomb. They had to bomb a military target or a non populated target before to show their might. As this didn't happen it was an attrocity.

Adler

Again this discussion. Again my opinion: It was a tremendous warcrime, especially the second bomb. They had to bomb a military target or a non populated target before to show their might. As this didn't happen it was an attrocity.

Adler

I think they should have at least tried to demonstrate the power of the bomb, but how many did they have? Perhaps they didn't want to waste them... With hindsight I would tend to agree that yes it was a war crime, especially the fact that they should have at least ''demonstrated'' the bomb's power on a purely military target.

I think they should have at least tried to demonstrate the power of the bomb, but how many did they have? Perhaps they didn't want to waste them... With hindsight I would tend to agree that yes it was a war crime, especially the fact that they should have at least ''demonstrated'' the bomb's power on a purely military target.

they had two. a third one was months away though.

Again this discussion. Again my opinion: It was a tremendous warcrime, especially the second bomb. They had to bomb a military target or a non populated target before to show their might. As this didn't happen it was an attrocity.

Adler

No. We were already killing more people than that in conventional bombing raids. Anything which had the possibility of ending the war was worth trying.

so it's 1945, japan is beat, yet refuses to surrender. why is it always presented as if "invasion" and "atomic bombs" were the only options?
more to the point: please tell me why a sea blockade of the japanese mainland untill surrender was no option.

An invasion or blockade of Japan would have taken too long and the soviets would have had plenty of time to extend their empire further east.

The nuclear bombs put a sudden end to the war in the pacific - and it scared the soviets at the same time.

2 birds with one stone.

I think they should have at least tried to demonstrate the power of the bomb, but how many did they have? Perhaps they didn't want to waste them... With hindsight I would tend to agree that yes it was a war crime, especially the fact that they should have at least ''demonstrated'' the bomb's power on a purely military target.

They weren't any military targets left in Japan. Why did you think they bombed hiroshima rather than Tokyo? Because there was nothing left in Tokyo worth bombing.

I believe that the 3rd bomb was ~6 months away, and the russians might have already invaded Japan by then.

No. We were already killing more people than that in conventional bombing raids. Anything which had the possibility of ending the war was worth trying.

The Japanese consistently demonstrated a marked reluctance to surrender, either on the battlefield or at the negotiating table. The American people, in light of Germany's surrender in May 1945, were eager to get the war in the Pacific over with as soon as possible. The voters were making this wish quite clear to their elected officials and the chief among these, President Truman, was listening intently. He had been told that a blockade of Japan might have to go on for a year or more before Japan finally gave in. A successful invasion would not be noticeably shorter. The American people would have none of this and wanted something done. Nuclear weapons were simply another incentive for the Japanese to surrender, and no one was sure they would be any more persuasive than the fire bomb raids (which killed more people than the atomic bombs).

so it's 1945, japan is beat, yet refuses to surrender. why is it always presented as if "invasion" and "atomic bombs" were the only options?
more to the point: please tell me why a sea blockade of the japanese mainland untill surrender was no option.
Japan is dependent upon imports and fishing for a great deal of its food. They were just as dependent in 1945. A prolonged sea blockade wouldn't have given the Emperor the impetus to overrule his cabinet and agree to surrender. The war would have dragged on for months, if not years, as the cabinet squabbled - while the common Japanese starved to death.

I fail to understand how vaporizing several hundred thousand is worse than slowly starving millions to death. Especially when this tactic would hit women, children, and the elderly - the ones least essential to the war effort - the hardest.

Again this discussion. Again my opinion: It was a tremendous warcrime, especially the second bomb. They had to bomb a military target or a non populated target before to show their might. As this didn't happen it was an attrocity.
If I remember corectly from my visit to the Peace Memorial Museum in Hiroshima:
(1) the harbour of Hiroshima WAS a military target
(2) the Americans made a list of several possible targets, according to certain criteria. I think they were all mid-sized cities.
(3) these possible targets were not bombed with regular bombers for a certain periode, because the Americans wanted to be able to compare the results of n atomic bomb to the results of using regular bombs (a la Dresden, Tokyo, ...)
(4) from the list of possible targets, Hiroshima was chosen because it had the right weather conditions.

btw, impressive museum, especially the city maquette before and after...

They weren't any military targets left in Japan. Why did you think they bombed hiroshima rather than Tokyo? Because there was nothing left in Tokyo worth bombing.
Indeed, so the Americans wouldn't have been able to evaluate the "efficiency" of the A-bomb if they had used it on Tokyo.

I think we can all agree that bombing civil targets is wrong and criminal. However, I hope we can also agree to look at facts at the light of WW2 reality. The alternatives didn't look that good. And conventional bombing raids were hitting civil areas for a long time, killing much more people than the two A-bombs combined. So why single out the A-bombs as particularly bad? They are a weapon just like any other. All bombs produce widows, cripples and orphans, and so all bombs produce long term suffering. Starvation on kids compromises the rest of their lifes as they won't develop normally neither their physic nor their intellect.

If it wasn't an atomic bomb we would likely be here discussing the warcrime of starving Japan into submission or of the brutality of the American lead invasion.

Demonstrating an atomic bomb is naive at best as they only had 2, cost several billions of dollars eac h and the other one was months away. Wasting 50% of your firepower was unacceptable politically and wasn't really feasable as the Japanese weren't exactly tripping over themselves to surrender.

Revisionist history 60 years later puts the Allies in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. The responsability of the atomic bombs rests on the WW2 era Japanese government if anything and the suicidal resistence shown on Okinawa and Iwo Jima.

Operation Olympic would have made DDay look like a minor sideshow and probably cost a million allied casulties; cost to the Japanese would have been even higher. Not just from blockade and bombing but also because Japanese command had run out of ideas other than fanatic resistance and suicide tactics.*

Because so many factors were involved in the decision to surrender it is hard to judge the impact of any one:

- The Soviets are the process of overrunning Manchuria

- Most of your Army is stuck in China

- US submarines have shut down all your sea lines of communication and deprived the Home Islands of the resources you went to war to secure. You won't be able to feed your own people soon, let alone build any remotely modern weapons.

- B29s fly at will over your cities and are burning them to ash. The fire raid on Tokyo killed more people than either A-Bomb.

- Some sort of superbomb just destroyed two of your cities

* In fact had it gone ahead we'd have empirical evidence to back up the "Spear beats Tank" debate

One other thing to consider: if they bombed, some unpopulated area would it have shown the true power of the bombs?
Or if they had not dropped them at all, would people have realized the devastation of using them?

In either case, if the governments and people of the US and USSR did not respect the devastation of nuclear weapons on populated areas, would they have avoided using them?

Either way, no matter the horrors of the use of nuclear weapons, it was far better than continuing the massive B-29 raids, invading Japan, or starving the Japanese people, not to mention the many POWs (as for the person saying they could have allowed food through: no way, that would have just allowed japan to stay longer, any blockade had to be total).

The Battle of Okinawa killed almost 300000 people. Why would we want to kill even more? Thre wasn't any other choice.

Anyone who researches this topic (as I suggest to the OP) would know that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were home to imporatant, major military centers and complexes and were hardly civilian targets. At least not in the sense of other allied "terror bombings" like Dresden or Tokyo.

In the context of what had already been going on during WWII, they were legitimate targets.

But facts? What are those? And lets only focus on how "evil" these two bombs where while completely ignore the far more devastating conventional bombings. Lers ignore the fact that millions would have perished in an invasion of Japan and occupied China. Lets ignore that tens of thousands of people were dying each day all over Asia in July and August of 1945 due to the continuation of the war. Lets ignore the fact that there were +2,000,000 Japanese soldiers outside of Japan still fighting across Asia when the bombs were dropped.

So we explode one near the coast of Japan? (Keep in mind that there are only two A-bombs in existence) And Japan doesn't respond? Then it would be OK to vaporize a city? There is only one bomb left. What if Japan doesn't surrender even after its dropped on a city? What then?

There were only two bombs in existence and it would have been the stupidest event in the history of warfare to waste such a weapon on a remote outpost or an empty ocean.

Although it sounds strange, the atomic bomb was the "humane" choice.

You cannot apply normal day morals to war situations. They are completely different circumstances.

so it's 1945, japan is beat, yet refuses to surrender. why is it always presented as if "invasion" and "atomic bombs" were the only options?
more to the point: please tell me why a sea blockade of the japanese mainland untill surrender was no option.

Invasion and atomic bombings were the only options.

The Soviet Union would have invaded in 1945 regardless of any allied attempt to maticulously starve the Japanese to death. If the Soviets Union invades then so would the US.

So that takes care of why a blockade would have been pointless other than to aid communist expansion.

While I agree that the bombs were preferrable to a much greater slaughter by other means, I'm of the opinion that peace could have been reached had it not been for the desire of the Americans to demontrate their new weapon to the Soviet Union. The Japanese feared a Soviet invasion much more than the Americans did.

While I agree that the bombs were preferrable to a much greater slaughter by other means, I'm of the opinion that peace could have been reached had it not been for the desire of the Americans to demontrate their new weapon to the Soviet Union. The Japanese feared a Soviet invasion much more than the Americans did.

I don't think Truman was all that concerned with the Sovs until later after the war. The goal was to end the war without the price an invasion would cost. And the Japanese were unwilling to negotiate or surrender. They were clearly beaten in 1943. If they had any interest in ending the war, they had every opportunity to do so.

had we not droped the bomb then we would had to invade a fortified island of fanatic jap defenders which would have resulted in the unnecessary death of more americans, as evil as it was i guess the japs should have thought about awakening a sleeping giant before pearl harbor

I would like to point out that the Japs would almost certainly have accepted a conditional surrender agreement that allowed Hirohito to keep his position (and head). This fact was known to the US and since the US ultimately ended up leaving the horrible little man alive anyway it made sense to simply ask for conditional surrender.

Given this it seems clear that alternate motives besides ending the war quickly were dominating the US decision-making process. The highly over-estimated aim to intimidate Stalin was one, the need to show to both Japan and the US voters that the Japs had been totally defeated and that the US was not "negotiating with terrorists", so to speak, was another.

Good old-fashioned politics is what caused the bombs to be dropped, not any need to sway the "never-surrender" Japs, who were in fact quite ready to do so.

^ Truest post in this thread.

I would like to point out that the Japs would almost certainly have accepted a conditional surrender agreement that allowed Hirohito to keep his position (and head). This fact was known to the US and since the US ultimately ended up leaving the horrible little man alive anyway it made sense to simply ask for conditional surrender.

Given this it seems clear that alternate motives besides ending the war quickly were dominating the US decision-making process. The highly over-estimated aim to intimidate Stalin was one, the need to show to both Japan and the US voters that the Japs had been totally defeated and that the US was not "negotiating with terrorists", so to speak, was another.

Good old-fashioned politics is what caused the bombs to be dropped, not any need to sway the "never-surrender" Japs, who were in fact quite ready to do so.

Only partly true. Those seeking a negotiated surrender primarily came from civilian circles, whilst the military sought to impose a further three points, namely:

1) Leave disarnament and demobilization to the Imperial Army Headquarters
2) No occupation of Japan
3) War Criminals to be punished by Japan

The military leaders seeking the above terms were almost all in favour of a fight to the finish if they could not be obtained. You may ask why this matters, but since the Imperial Cabinet could not exist without a representative from the army and navy this meant that the "hawks" on the cabinet could effectively veto any suggestion of surrender. Why does the cabinet matter so much? Japan being a constitutional monarchy could not surrender without the unanimous agreement of those on the cabinet.

The "doves" simply could not order a surrender by themselves, and without the outspoken support of the Emperor its unlikely that the army and navy would pay any heed to it if the "doves" had tried to do so anyway. From what I understand even after the first bomb the emperor still had to personally intervene to persuade some of the "hawks" to moderate their demands.

Whether the Americans knew about the extent of the peace movement is a pretty moot point since without some sort of short sharp shock Truman was powerless to persuade the hawks in Japan to see sense.

You cannot apply normal day morals to war situations. They are completely different circumstances.
These people disagree (http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm), as Hiroshima and Nagasaki are concerned.

The ideas that Hirohito needed the support of the hawks and that their support was contingent on your 3 conditions (plus the emperor), seem to be damaged by the fact that the day after Nagasaki (10th August) the Japanese proposed a surrender with just the emperor secured. When the allies refused that proposal, only then did Hirohito actually intervene directly and force unconditional surrender.

While the atomic bombs obviously had an effect on the balance of power in Japan it seems clear that the emperor would have been able to bring the military leaders into line before Hiroshima had he been thrown a bone by the allies.

It is speculation whether he would have done so, but he would have been able to do so and that to me means that dropping the bombs while the chance was there was a major mistake. If Hirohito didn't surrender with the monarchy secured, then and only then could it be argued that the nukes were a valid option.

The emperor refused to intervene before the bombs were dropped though. So the point hardly matters that he could have and probably would have prevailed.

It was very clear through all of 1944-5 that Japan was going to lose. Yet they behaved as though they were going to fight to the death. FDR may have said "unconditional surrender", but that's not proof to anyone that some negotiated peace might have happened earlier. Except that the people running Japan were unwilling to consider anything other than a fight to the death. So that's what they got.

Criticizing the means if bringing them to sanity serves no purpose.

We'll never know what could have been achieved through negotiations prior to the bombs being dropped, and those claiming that Japan was unwilling to surrender are at best making a massive over-simplification. Of course some hardliners were unwilling to surrender, but they were just as stubborn after the bombings and were forced to back down by the Emperor.

It strikes me as uncontroversial that America's insistence on an unconditional surrender with no negotiations was, with hindsight, a tragic mistake, since they ended up granting the Japanese most of what would have been their terms in an earlier negotiated peace anyway. Hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved. But then the decision to retain the Emperor wasn't made until some time after the occupation began. If only post war plans had been better thought through. Sounds familiar.

If the allies had offered to not touch the Emperor, it would have been immensely difficult for the military to hold out against those pushing for a surrender, since they would have been seen as acting against the institution that they relied on almost entirely for legitimacy. And Japan would have literally sold their sons and daughters to the Americans to avoid a Soviet invasion.

I would like to point out that the Japs would almost certainly have accepted a conditional surrender agreement that allowed Hirohito to keep his position (and head). This fact was known to the US and since the US ultimately ended up leaving the horrible little man alive anyway it made sense to simply ask for conditional surrender.

Given this it seems clear that alternate motives besides ending the war quickly were dominating the US decision-making process. The highly over-estimated aim to intimidate Stalin was one, the need to show to both Japan and the US voters that the Japs had been totally defeated and that the US was not "negotiating with terrorists", so to speak, was another.

Good old-fashioned politics is what caused the bombs to be dropped, not any need to sway the "never-surrender" Japs, who were in fact quite ready to do so.

Who are the Japs ?

Who are the Japs ?
A race of people from the mythical land of Xipangu, now called Japan. They are known for their small size, cruelty to sealife, poor grasp of the English language, tendency to kill themselves, late though enthusiastic adoption of the flushing toilet, traditional domination of the video games market, efficient car designs and high property prices among other things.

A race of people from the mythical land of Xipangu, now called Japan. They are known for their small size, cruelty to sealife, poor grasp of the English language, tendency to kill themselves, late though enthusiastic adoption of the flushing toilet, traditional domination of the video games market, efficient car designs and high property prices among other things.

These guys sound awfully familiar with Japanese but they can't be from Japan because there is not one mention of a giant Mech army So are Japs Japanese ? Are you from the tribe of Ukoms , then ? I am a Cyp (Cypriot) .

The ideas that Hirohito needed the support of the hawks and that their support was contingent on your 3 conditions (plus the emperor), seem to be damaged by the fact that the day after Nagasaki (10th August) the Japanese proposed a surrender with just the emperor secured. When the allies refused that proposal, only then did Hirohito actually intervene directly and force unconditional surrender.

While the atomic bombs obviously had an effect on the balance of power in Japan it seems clear that the emperor would have been able to bring the military leaders into line before Hiroshima had he been thrown a bone by the allies.

It is speculation whether he would have done so, but he would have been able to do so and that to me means that dropping the bombs while the chance was there was a major mistake. If Hirohito didn't surrender with the monarchy secured, then and only then could it be argued that the nukes were a valid option.

Its not really damaged since people's opinions and conditions can change over time and don't have to remain static in light of changing events. Just because the hawks could see the writing on the wall after two atom bombs doesn't mean they could see it beforehand. Prior to the atom bombs the hawks saw no reason to surrender since they believed they could inflict enough damage on any US invasion that the US public would turn against the war. Its not hard to understand why they'd take such a position since many of them could expect to be charged with warcrimes if the war ended unconditionally.

Even after Hiroshima their reluctance wouldn't be that suprising since for all they knew that was the only weapon the US had at the time. The Japanese minister for war didn't believe at first that the attack was atomic, but after the second bomb said the Americans appeared to have one hundred atomic bombs . . . they could drop three per day. The next target might well be Tokyo.

There was an attempted coup against the decision to surrender despite the atom bombs and the emperor being in favour of it. I find it a stretch to suggest that the military would happily support surrender without the atom bombs just to preserve the Emperor.

Besides which merely offering to preserve the emperor probably wouldn't have been enough. When the foreign ministry offered to surrender (after both bombs had been dropped) they did so with the understanding that the said declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler.

This doesn't merely mean the retention of the emperor but also of veto power over occupation reforms which in effect meant the retention of the old rule system in Japan. The Allied response emphasised that the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers.

There's a subtle but important difference between the two.

This discussion is all well and good, but there is no way the Allies would have accepted anything but unconditional surrender.

This plan was stated, officially at the latest in 1943. And even if it hadn't I doubt the American people would have accepted anything less, and let the government survive.

And in the grand scheme of things:
If negotiations had delayed the surrender by a couple weeks, how many would be killed in the bomber raids? And fighting on the mainland?

The only real problem with the use of nuclear weapons was the radiation poisoning. And I don't know how well understood this was at the time.

According to me, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of cruelty and revenge.
The situiation of Japan was helpless. The bombs weren't needed to make Japan surrender.
But we can add that it's pumping muscles in the dawn of the cold war.

How dare the Allies use any weapon at all vs the kind peace loving Japanese. Its also the Allies fault thousands of POWs died and how dare the Chinese live in China once the Japanese arrived.

The Allies shuld have immediately surrendered in 45 so no Japanese would have been hurt. Wars dangerous don't you know someone could get hurt.

I just wished they had used the bat bombs instead of resorting to nukes.