Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the Bazillionth Time

[YNCS]

In 1945 an American planning staff estimated that the invasion of Japan would cost between 250,000 and 500,000 casualties. After the war, some politicians casually made this "half a million dead" and later "a million dead." In any event, any estimate of casualties includes killed, wounded and missing. The original estimates were a not-unreasonable figure based on recent American experience with fanatical Japanese defenders of Saipan, the Philippines, Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and one that a postwar examination of Japanese plans for the defense of the home islands tends to bear out. There was no indication that the Japanese would fight any less strenuously if their home islands were invaded. Indeed, it was a safe bet that the fighting would have been even more costly.

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, 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. 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 recent fire bomb raids (which killed more people than the atomic bombs).

In August 1945, as far as the U.S. could tell, Japan was not going to surrender without further encouragement. Considering that the Japanese Army was still making plans and moving troops for the defense of Honshu when the Emperor ordered a surrender, even Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't enough encouragement for some people.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

It is unfortunate that we had to unleash the Nuclear fury, but, as you said, it really saved lives in the end. We still draw flak for using it though, I get it all the time in these forums about how the US cannot lecture Iran about being responsible with nukes when we are the only ones to ever use them. Granted, this is an immature way of looking at it, but if thats how people think, thats how people think.

 

[YNCS]

Originally, there were two strategies for defeating Japan, starvation or outright invasion (we'll get to the third strategy, the one that was finally used, in a while). A couple of things have to be considered while discussing these:

a. Japan was critically short of every kind of raw material, including food, from the first day of the war. After securing the "Southern Resources Area" the Japanese no longer had a problem with regard to access to raw materials, save in the matter of food. The problem was transporting the stuff to the Home Islands, where about 85% of the industry of the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" was located. Since the Japanese had difficulties with shipping availability even before the submarine campaign began to bite, they were never able to import as much as they needed.

b. Food was in short supply in Japan even before Pearl Harbor. Full rationing was introduced in April 1941. Overall, about 20% of Japan's rice, 65% of its soybeans, and 100% of its sugar had to be imported before the war. Korea was the big source of rice and soybeans, the Japanese taking most of the Korean crop. However, Korean harvests were bad in 1939-1941, about 20% less than usual, and they continued poor during the war, even as Japanese agricultural output fell due to mobilization. So although the Japanese just took a larger share of the Korean crop (leaving the Koreans to eat animal-feed or starve), they still didn't have enough food.

By July 1945, between mining, aerial bombing, and submarines, the blockade of Japan was almost totally effective. The official daily food ration for one person was 1200 calories, when 1500 is considered the minimum to sustain an adult. A continuing blockade was very seriously considered as the means to bring about the end of the war. The problem was that it was believed that the Japanese would hang on until 1947 (some estimates said 1949 or even 1950) before surrendering. This was not considered politically acceptable. The American people were tired of war, and wanted it over as soon as possible. Germany had already surrendered, and a plan that involved dragging the war on for several more years would have little chance for public acceptance.

Invasion was the obvious choice. With the forces already in the Pacific reinforced with troops from the European theater, invasion appeared to be the fastest way to end the war. MacArthur wanted to invade Japan. He would finally be in the position of being the Supreme Commander in the Pacific once the invasion started.

You might find references to estimates of only 10,000 American dead for the invasion of Japan. This was a number that Douglas MacArthur proclaimed would be most likely. MacArthur was lying through his teeth with the 10,000 number. He picked the bottom range of an optimistic forecast, pretended that the number was for the entire campaign (Operation Downfall) instead of the first stage (the invasion of the southern Island of Kyushu, Operation Olympic), and made it seem that the word "dead" was actually "total casualties." Marshall, the Army Chief of Staff, told MacArthur to his face that the 10,000 casualties wasn't believable and MacArthur backed down. The only reason for MacArthur using 10,000 was to make it appear that the invasion of Japan would be a walkover and to bolster his chances to become Supreme Commander Pacific.

More realistic estimates were for 250,000 to 500,000 American casualties. These numbers are quite reasonable. First of all, that's total casualties, i.e., dead, wounded, and missing. In WW2 there were approximately 4 wounded for every death, so the figures for deaths would be ~62,500 to ~125,000. The numbers were derived by the joint CINCPAC [Nimitz]/CINCSWPAC [MacArthur] planning staffs and by the Joint Chiefs of Staff J-3 staff in Washington. That's why Marshall told MacArthur his 10,000 number was bogus, because both Marshall's staff and MacArthur's staff had said so. The 250,000 to 500,000 casualties were derived from studies of the casualty rates at Saipan, the Philippines, Okinawa and Iwo Jima.

A good discussion of these numbers is found in John Ray Skate's The Invasion of Japan: Alternative to the Bomb (Columbia, University of South Carolina Press: 1994), particularly Chapter 6.

The main purpose for dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to prevent upwards of half a million American casualties.

 

[Speedo]

It's one of those things that fall under "hindsight is 20/20".

How many casualties would Operation Olymic have caused (for both sides)? Impossible to really know.

How long would the war have gone on without the bombs? Would Olympic even be necessary? Again, impossible to really know.

Couldn't you just blockade the Japanese islands? Sure, but if you're worried about human suffering, how many tens or hundreds of thousands would have died of starvation, disease or etc before the country folded?

IMO, from Truman's chair at that time, dropping the bombs was the best option.

 

[devin23]

Truman is my favorite president. Ultimately, he had to make the decision. The bombing ended the war, yes the casualties were great, but as mentioned, many more could have died had the bomb not been dropped. Japan had the "Never Surrender" creed ever since the samurai era. If it was a land invasion, they would have fought to the last man, or commit suicide rather than surrender to "outsiders".

 

[Adler17]

YNCS, why did you open this topic again? We discussed that before again and again. it always ended in a stalemate between the supporters and the foes of that action.
However I think Truman was a war criminal dropping the bombs. And his main reason doing so was to show Stalin his new toy. Also the bomb was a radical weapon. The causes were not totally known but in some way predictable.
But we should at first start the reasons why dropping a bomb:
1. Operation Olympic. I do not doubt in the casuality predictions of 250000- 500000 dead. In fact I think ot might be higher and perhaps also the whole operation might have failed. Also not included the Japanese losses. So it would be legitime to reach the target with other means.
2. To impress Stalin. The cold war was just beginning when Hitler died. He was the connection and without that the alliance broke. Such a motive is not legitime.
But even if we accept both as valid motives, we have to see if this was neccessary to achieve with dropping the bombs on the cities.
1. If you bomb another town with nukes you have good reasons for doing so. It must be the ultima ratio (better but wrong Latin: Ultissima ratio). If there are other means they have to be taken. Also if they seem not so useful as the consequence of a nuke are way too great. So were there any other means available?
Yes. Truman could have ordered to bomb an uninhabitant or only slightly populated island near to the Japanese home islands. Perhaps also one of the Kurile islands (to make sure Stalin saw the causes himself). That would have caused the same: If the Japanese knew about the new weapon and about the destruction abilities they would have surrendered and Stalin saw it, too. However the toy had to be tested before.
You might now say again, yes, but the Japanese could have intercepted the bomber, or the bomb might not have worked or it would not be enough. While the first two can be denied by the fact that this possibility existed also before, and indeed the US had the possibilities to minimize that risk, we have as only valid, as it seems now, reason, that it might not be enough. Also the japanese did not surrender even after Hiroshima. Yes, true. But the time for doing so was just too little. Two days. Heck, no real government can make a decision after such an attack within two days! Also I suspect the US only wanting to test a new weapon.
Additionally the Japanese were already willing to surrender. Only one condition was sent: To keep the emperor. This was also caused by the Shinto religion. This was granted later by MacArthur. So even before dropping the bomb a surrender could have happened, but was indeed not accepted by the US.
O know about the concerns of some generals, but even if we say a surrender was not possible, a bombing of an uninhabitant island had to be done before. And only after that the nuking of a city.
At least Nagasaki was a crime.
2. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were attacked totally. I mean not only a factory or yard but the whole city. As such the Hague Conventions of 1907, as the US were and are member of it, forbid in Art. 25 the attacks on undefended cities, this was against international law and a war crime.

I know we will now discuss here endless the nuking. We will come to Dresden, Warsaw and Rotterdam. And we will have great disputes.

YNCS you knew about the consequences, why did you reopen such a debate?

Adler

 

[Verbose]

And you do realise that by using the nukes the US made a world history first, one that is inherently problematic, as long as we consider nukes to be weapons of a different order than what we previously had?

Which is why the Japanese feel they have been singeled out for special treatment, i.e. been victimised.

The fact that people in the US still will defend it and people in Japan will use it as a building block in their modern sense of a national identity is testament to the fact that this isn't just an "historical fact" (and "historical" here in the sense of "no longer relevant for the present situation").

This is about how people use history. All involved are doing it. Here the nukes are assumed to potentially say something relevant about both the US and Japan, but the perspectives aren't really reconcileable. Which is often the case with the parts of our past that are still being kept "hot".

I know how the justification for the US using them looks of old. We all do by now. It's rather a good one I think. Now, how do you propose to sell it to the Japanese who think differently? Or is that not your concern, as long as you have demonstrated that the use was justified to yourself?

Don't take this wrong. It's a devil of a question. As far as I'm concerned no one here's beholden to actually bite on this, unless they feel like it.

But it does relate to the problem of how we use history and what it means for different people in the here and now. Which is the reason the WWII nukes keep cropping up with regular intervalls, with more or less pulling of beards and umbrage taken each time.

 

[El Justo]

this topic has been beaten to death i think...

don't get me wrong, i've got my own opinions about it. however, i also see absolutely no reason why such a thread should've been opened. been there - done that and it ain't pretty...

 

[nonconformist]

I did my A-Level history dissertation on this very subject, 3000 words including evidence, if anyone's interested.

 

[C~G]

This should be interesting.

*Grabs the popcorn*

 

[privatehudson]

Verbose raises a new and interesting point - How I'd sell it to the Japanese?

I'd point out that the alternatives would have caused as many if not more civilian and military losses. Oh and remind them that their own military and government probably wouldn't have thought twice about doing it to the USA if they got the chance. I also very much doubt you'd see the same agonising in Japan afterwards given that there would have been no post war occupation and for want of a better word re-education. In other words if the Japanese had dropped the bomb you'd find that most modern Japanese people would be quite happily justifying the attack too. They'd probably argue that in light of the Tokyo fire raids and the destruction of their fleet they were merely acting in self defence in order to achieve a reasonable peace.

In war you do what you think is necessary to win it as soon as possible with as few casualties as possible whilst still achieving your aims. If the Japanese think they were victimised then they need to go and find other history books to understand what their country did that made the Allies go to that extreme in the first place. Perhaps its not only the west that needs to try and understand the others motives...

I also don't really consider my thoughts on the events to be a justification or otherwise of the bombings. They are merely an opinion and each person must form their own based on all of the available evidence. I can no more justify the bombings than I can fly to the moon by flapping my arms. Its my opinion that on the balance of things the bombs were the best way of ending the war, whether anyone else agrees is entirely their choice. I'd merely tell them why I believe that and let them judge for themselves. What I dislike is people who don't study the subject very much or people who misrepresent the facts to suit their argument.

I won't bother with other discussions much since its hard sometimes to get people to agree on evidence such as what the Japanese wanted before surrendering, even when you link to sources to support your point.

 

[Plotinus]

I can't believe that yet again we see people trying to defend the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The use of atomic weapons in this way was obviously completely indefensible, even taking into account what the US forces knew or believed about Japan and the war at the time.

Let's grant that both a protracted blockade and an amphibious invasion were highly undesirable (and, yes, let's grant that the entire Japanese nation would have committed suicide before surrender, as some Americans still seem to think, even though it's absolute rubbish). Let's also grant the incredibly contentious principle that in war, when trying to minimise casualties, the life of an innocent civilian child takes no higher priority than that of an adult professional soldier (a principle that presumably underlies all claims that the bombings were justified because they saved lives, since they saved the lives of American soldiers at the cost of the lives of Japanese civilians). As Adler17 points out, the obvious thing to do then would be to drop an atomic bomb on an uninhabited island and say to the Japanese, "If you lot don't surrender right now we'll drop one of these on you." Then, if they failed to do this, this might be the time to start thinking about dropping one on Japan itself. But to do this first, without giving any indication of the power of the weapon beforehand, is absolute insanity. I can't believe anyone could think otherwise.

Then, of course, even if the bombing of Hiroshima were defensible, what on earth is the justification for bombing Nagasaki immediately afterwards? Even if annihilating hundreds of thousands of civilians in the blink of an eye is justifiable, I can't quite see the logic behind doing it again before anyone's had a chance to surrender.

Claims along the lines of saying that the Japanese did terrible things to people they invaded, or that they'd have done the same if they'd had the bomb, don't seem to me to be very strong points. If the Americans had argued like that then they'd have just abandoned any pretence to moral high ground in the war. Saying that it's all right to do to someone else what you think they might do to you doesn't strike me as a very moral way of arguing.

It may be worth considering that the only people I've ever heard try to defend the atomic bombings today are Americans, which suggests to me that the attempt isn't exactly objective. I'd recommend to those who try this that they go and watch Barefoot Gen and then see what they think.

 

[privatehudson]

Just to clarify somewhat my last post was not related to justifying the bombings. Rather it was part of showing Japanese people that the bombings weren't something that only America would have done, nor is the support for the bombings anything that wouldn't be seen in Japan had they carried them out. In other words trying to make them understand the reasons why the bombings occurred.

Oh and as you well know I'm not American, I don't agree with Nagasaki though.

 

[Plotinus]

Ah well, I wasn't including you in my over-generalisation, since you'd said you weren't trying to justify it!

But still, I'm not sure what the point is of saying that it's not something that only America would have done. Given that we can probably all agree that there's nothing peculiarly evil about Americans, I'm not sure why anyone would think otherwise to start with. Besides, I don't really think that speculating about what a certain government would have done in very different circumstances really counts as history, which is what this forum is meant to be about. In fact there's a strong case for saying that counterfactual conditionals don't have truth values at all - but that's really going OT.

 

[El Justo]

privatehudson,

that was a fine post you made there. well put. i'd have to say that i am in agreement w/ your points as any type of carange like that is dicey.

this is an ugly topic i think and it often develoves into 'high horse' mentalities w/ some people...

 

[privatehudson]

Plotinus:

It was an attempt to respond to Verbose and explain the bombings to Japan as I said. You'd be suprised at just how many people are convinced the Americans only bombed Japan purely to play with their new toys. If they'd done as you suggested and bombed an isolated island you'd still find people miffed at the thoughtless Trueman and the environmental issues he caused.

I don't subcribe to the theory that either "they would have done it" or "they did just as bad" justifies a damn thing but I do happen to think that it shows up some of the reasoning used by the Allies and demonstrates that the belligerent and (by 1945) desperate Japanese government did not think so very different from the US one. How else should we explain to Japanese people if not by explaining the reasons behind the bombings, be they justified or percieved?

We speculate on alternatives all the time, given the nature of the Japanese government and their actions in the war to that point I doubt that my speculation is especially far fetched. Of course the concept of them having a nuke is but... well it was only a throw-away point really. No more extreme a concept certainly than assuming the Japanese would consider surrender upon seeing an isolated island nuked. I think that if we restricted ourselves to non-speculative history we quickly bore ourselves by only discussing articles or "what's the best tank" threads.

That what-if's make history interesting IMO as long as the discussion is informed. Why it could be argued that its one of the major reasons to play CIV after all

 

[Plotinus]

Well, it doesn't demonstrate that the Japanese government would have done anything; it's only a consideration that they would have. At best, it's a motive for the Americans at the time. Which, presumably, is your point.

And yes, of course if Truman had dropped a bomb on an uninhabited island it would have been a Bad Thing from an environmental point of view, but it would have clearly been a lot less of a Bad Thing from every other point of view. Of course we don't know how the Japanese government would have reacted to such an action, although I don't see why they would have been less prepared to surrender in the face of a nil-casualty detonation than they would in the face of a detonation that killed many tens of thousands - surely the rationale behind surrendering is to prevent it happening again, a rationale which is constant irrespective how many people die in the first blast.

But even so, if there were a good chance (or indeed a slim chance) that a nil-casualty detonation would spur them to surrender, this is clearly the thing to do before you start blowing the skin off civilians and melting children's eyeballs. And that's why I don't think any attempt to "sell" the action could be successful, irrespective of the nationality of the person doing the buying.

 

[privatehudson]

I don't think you understand the point I've been trying to make.

Its got nothing to do with wether the bombing was right or wrong but entirely about trying to make Japanese people see why the action was taken by showing them all the facts around the case. Its to show Japanese people that had it been the other way around they would probably now be defending the action rather than the Americans. If they can understand that they'd have supported a similar action they may come to understand why Americans support Hiroshima.

I'm not interested in discussions on if its sellable because I'm not selling. I'm trying to explain how I would try to make a Japanese person understand why it occurred and why I take the view that I do, that's all.

To draw a comparison, explaining to a German why the Red Army rampaged across East Prussia is not the same as defending it.

 

[Plotinus]

I understand entirely that you're not seeking to justify the bombings. But it seems to me that you're saying two different things and you're rather confused about what you are trying to do. On the one hand, there's the claim that the American government in 1945 believed that, had the shoe been on the other foot, the Japanese would have used the bomb. And on the other hand, there's the claim that, in fact, had the shoe been on the other foot, the Japanese would have used the bomb. The first claim is a historical claim that may help to explain the decision to use the bomb. The second is a speculative claim that has no bearing whatsoever on the decision to use the bomb. But you seem to be switching between them. For example, you say you want Japanese to understand all the facts about the case. The first claim, if it is true, is one of those facts, and it may help to explain the decision to use the bomb (irrespective of whether that decision was justified in any sense). But the second claim isn't one of those facts, and I don't see its relevance to anything. And the claim that you make in your last post is the second claim, not the first. Even if your Japanese interlocutor agreed that it were true - which he might well do - where would that get you? It wouldn't, in itself, explain Truman's decision. The only thing that can explain Truman's decision is what Truman believed, not what anyone believes now.

Besides which, are you trying to explain why President Truman ordered the bombing, or why many Americans today think he was right to do so? In your last post you mention trying to show "why the action was taken" but then say that this might help people "understand why Americans support Hiroshima". Well, I hope even most Americans today don't, but whether they do or not, that's clearly a completely different thing. Presumably the second claim I identified above is meant to address the attitude of contemporary Americans rather than the actions of Truman, but as I've already said, I don't think that it does so very adequately.

 

[privatehudson]

If I'm unclear its because people keep confusing me by trying to drag me into the wrong type of discussion

I wouldn't say I'm switching between them because they're two seperate and in their context valid points that I've tried to make clear. The first establishes part of the American reasoning and therefore shows part of why it happened. This is important in showing that American actions were not without entirely irrational, nor where they taken in isolation, they were impacted on by Japanese attitudes and actions.

The second may not be a fact but it is reasonable speculation based on Japanese actions during the war, which can be used to demonstrate that it was not just the west that posessed the mentality to make use of such a weapon. It is sometimes easy to dismiss another culture or country who comitted a great crime with the idea that it could never have happened here, however in most cases it quite easily could have. The speculative point is part of this in a similar way that speculation about Mosely suggests that anti-semetism and Facist ideology was not isolated to Italy, Spain, Portugal and Germany.

I would mostly explain why the bombings occurred. I didn't really suggest much about modern Americans other than as a related point about showing that if, under certain circumstances a counter-factual modern Japanese person might support a nuclear attack they may understand better why some modern americans support the actual attacks. Sometimes you have to go to extremes in order that the other person can comprehend a situation where they would take an opposing viewpoint and then work from there.. Although I haven't spoken much about Modern american supporters I would have gone onto that later in any such theoretical discussion explaining about the different types of supporters and their reasoning. Which of these are irrational fools akin to the counter-factual Japanese supporter and which are more rational and have decent reasons for their beliefs.

The overall aim is not to justify or persuade but to show why the pro-bomb westerners feel that way as Verbose posed. You may not especially like counter-factual discussions but I would see this as a valuble asset such a discussion. Demonstrating the facts is but one part of the issue, at some point speculation is necessary and done by everybody on some level.

The second claim has nothing to do with Modern Americans at all by the way.

I need some sleep.