Misgivings about the 1945 nuclear bombing of Japan.

[NJBob]

Article 13

We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.

 

[WisconIndependent]

I have long put forth the idea of we didn't really need to use nuclear weapons against Japan and with that stance I have received much push back. There are other folks who also thought we didn't need to use them, one such person was the supreme commander of allied forces. None other than Eisenhower himself. I learned this just the other evening watching a documentary about him.

Misgivings about the 1945 bombings
As Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during World War II, General Eisenhower learned of plans to use the atomic bomb on Japan. He later recalled having "grave misgivings" and explained his opposition to Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson before the bombing of Hiroshima.
Truman told him in advance and he told truman about his misgivings and thoughts of not using it and why.

• Japan was already defeated: He believed that Japan was already on the verge of surrender, making the use of such a devastating new weapon militarily unnecessary. Admiral William Leahy, President Truman's chief military adviser, shared this view.
• A moral issue: Eisenhower felt that the United States should not be the first country to use such a powerful and terrible weapon against civilians.

Google Search

I always find hindsight to be so clear. The same people mentioned being against the bomb were also telling the president that we might have to invade the country and would lose up to 1 million in doing so. Everything I have read was that many in the Japanese military, who actually ruled the country at that time, were against ending the war even after the bombs. There was even an attempt to take the emperor hostage and have him continue the war.

 

[bongsaway]

I always find hindsight to be so clear. The same people mentioned being against the bomb were also telling the president that we might have to invade the country and would lose up to 1 million in doing so. Everything I have read was that many in the Japanese military, who actually ruled the country at that time, were against ending the war even after the bombs. There was even an attempt to take the emperor hostage and have him continue the war.

I am aware of all of that info.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Part of the challenge here is understanding the context of what actually transpired. The approved targets were Hiroshima and Kokura - chosen for their military importance to the Japanese. The pilots were ordered to return with the bomb if visibility was too poor, but those assigned to bomb Kokura went rogue. When visibility was too poor to drop the bomb of Kokura, they independently decided to drop it on Nagasaki instead - which had comparatively minor military significance.

Hiroshima was no longer on the target list because it had been destroyed by the first atomic bomb. The targets approved for the second atomic bomb were Kokura Arsenal, Niigata, and Nagasaki.

Pretty much everything paled in military significance compared to Kokura Arsenal. It was a massive (4100 feet by 2000 feet) complex of factories that made Japan's light machine guns, heavy machine guns, and 20mm antiaircraft machine guns, as well as the ammo belts for all those machine guns.

But Nagasaki wasn't nothing. It was an industrial center devoted to building battleships and aircraft carriers. It also held the bomb factory that designed and built the special torpedoes that Japan used to defeat Pearl Harbor's defenses.

Nagasaki was also overcast. Their orders were to abort, dump the bomb in the ocean, and land at Okinawa. The pilot later claimed that the heavens miraculously cleared temporarily to allow them to drop the bomb. But we know that’s hokum because they dropped it 2 miles off target and used poor visibility as an excuse.

It is possible that they were off target because that is where the break in the clouds was.

Or it is possible that they made a radar run.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

@Napoleon what is your source for the claim that the Nagasaki mission was told to abort and drop their bomb in the ocean?

I think I've read it before. The hope was that the power of the atomic bombs would shock Japan into surrendering. A missed target would blunt the shock.

I don't know off hand where I read it though.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

The US did not have North Vietnam pinned to the ropes in December 1972. It was the other way round. Nixon already knew he had lost, and had to get out, even if Thieu hated the terms.

We had not even come close to losing. We just pulled out of Vietnam for no reason.

Communication wasn't the problem. Again, Japan was ready to surrender months earlier, just with conditions. Japan fully understood that the US wanted unconditional surrender; the US and USSR knew that Japan wanted conditions; everyone understood that once Russia decalred war, there were no options for conditional surrender.

That is incorrect. Japan was refusing to surrender at all, conditions or otherwise.

Japan did not start offering to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

As to Truman, well... At a White House meeting on June 18th, the US military estimated that US casualties for invading Kyushu would have been around the same as taking Luzhon, i.e. 30,000 casualties.

The June 18th estimate was a limited estimate within a specific time frame, not an estimate for the entire operation.

I.e. Truman wasn't expecting 1 million US soldiers to die invading Japan. Not even close. That's just part of the myth/propaganda.

Not a myth or propaganda. That was an actual estimate for the complete conquest of the entire whole of Japan.

As to the claim that "The scale of damage inflicted on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by a single bomb was unlike anything the world had seen"? Yup, that is correct... but it's not clear that mattered all that much. Japan's leadership didn't accept that the US had used an atomic bomb for several days; some of the civilian leaders didn't even know what that meant (though the military generally did). They thought Hiroshima was hit with conventional bombs.

Japan had our immediate radio announcement to the world that we had destroyed the city with an atomic bomb, and they had confirmation from their own people within 24 hours that the entire city had been destroyed with a single bomb.

FYI... That's incorrect.
We have the declassified notes of the targeting committee from May 1945. They considered multiple first targets, including Yawata, Tokyo and Yokohama. They explicitly state that the 20th Air Force was bombing every city they could, and was not reserving any cities for nuclear attacks. Nagasaki was one of the cities the 20th Air Force was already planning to bomb.

The Air Force received orders quickly after that to hold back their attacks on Hiroshima, Kokura Arsenal and Niigata.

They would have liked to take out Nagasaki, but Nagasaki had topography that was difficult to see on the radar that they used to guide their nighttime bombing raids.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

The bombs really had nothing to do with Japan. It was a message to Russia concerning Europe.

That is incorrect. The atomic bombs were an attempt to shock Japan into surrendering, which up to that point Japan was completely refusing to do.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

I think the use of nuclear weapons on Japan to end WWII was done for a couple of reasons.
First military planners estimated that US casualties in an invasion of Japan would run about 1 million US servicemen and probably an equal amount of Japanese military and civilians.
The use of the nuclear bombs on Japan probably ended the conflict more rapidly.
And second it was becoming clear that the Soviet Union was going to be an emerging power, along with the US, coming out of WWII.
The use of the nuclear bombs on Japan was sending a message to the Soviet Union.

We did hope that the Soviets would be cowed by the atomic bombs. But that is not the reason why the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan.

They were dropped on Japan in the hopes of shocking Japan into surrendering.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Japan in August 1945 did not post an existential threat to the US or the west. They were trying to surrender.

That is incorrect. Japan was refusing to surrender. They did not offer to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

If the scenario was different - the Axis threatening to defeat the west - it would be a different question, but it wasn't. The dropping of the bomb also had nothing to do with Japan's atrocities - that's just feel good propaganda to try to link the bomb and the atrocities.

The reason for dropping justice bombs on Japan was indeed nothing to do with their atrocities. What it was about was trying to shock Japan into surrendering.

But it still feels good that all those horrible war criminals got a taste atomic justice.

You should watch the video above also. It will help you understand the history of their deciding to attack Pearl Harbor. It explains things like how and why they became addicted to colonialism and expansion. They were trying to surrender, but the military was a major obstacle to that. They were concerned the military might not even obey the emperor.

Japan was not trying to surrender. Japan could not surrender without their military, because their military was in charge.

The whole 'but an invasion would have killed many more' is a straw man, propaganda to justify the use of nuclear weapons.

It wasn't propaganda. The war would have continued at the cost of a great many more lives if Japan had continued to refuse to surrender.

But hell, our military leaders wanted nuclear war in the 50's and 60's, they wanted wars such as Cuba and Vietnam and pressured presidents. One example: JFK was worried they would launch nuclear weapons without his approval and ordered codes on missiles to prevent it. The military treasonously made all the codes "000000" so they could launch if they wanted, for over a decade until caught.

Hardly treason. Setting the ICBM launch codes to all zeros was so that the Air Force could still launch if the Soviets took out our leadership.

The alternative to using nuclear weapons, as has been explained, was not invading. That is propaganda.

Not propaganda. Had Japan continued to refuse to surrender, we would have invaded, and the invasion would have been bloody.

 

[Jredbaron96]

We had not even come close to losing. We just pulled out of Vietnam for no reason.

The reasons were numerous, but the biggest military factor was the determination that victory would have required too many troops that would need to be pulled from places like Europe, which was still considered the priority front of the Cold War.

 

[Hamish Howl]

That is incorrect. The atomic bombs were an attempt to shock Japan into surrendering, which up to that point Japan was completely refusing to do.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

The reasons were numerous, but the biggest military factor was the determination that victory would have required too many troops that would need to be pulled from places like Europe, which was still considered the priority front of the Cold War.

It wouldn't have required all that many troops. The Vietcong were gone after the Tet Offensive. All we really needed to do is help South Vietnam defend against aggressive moves from the North. And South Vietnam had their own forces that could help us do that.

 

[Jredbaron96]

It wouldn't have required all that many troops. The Vietcong were gone after the Tet Offensive.

Westmoreland said otherwise and requestes 200,000 more troops.

All we really needed to do is help South Vietnam defend against aggressive moves from the North. And South Vietnam had their own forces that could help us do that.

Later operations would reveal otherwise.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Can you prove that Japan would never have surrendered under any other circumstances other than dropping a weapon of mass destruction on civilians?

I'm of the opinion that the USAAFs bombing campaign would have eventually compelled Japan to surrender without the usage of the atomic bomb, but given that it would have likely killed even more people than the atom bomb I don’t see that as a preferable alternative.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Westmoreland said otherwise and requestes 200,000 more troops.

Then he was doing it wrong.

All he should have kept on the ground was just enough US troops to help the ARVN defend the south against incursions by the NVA.

Later operations would reveal otherwise.

I'm not sure what you are referring to.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

I'm of the opinion that the USAAFs bombing campaign would have eventually compelled Japan to surrender without the usage of the atomic bomb, but given that it would have likely killed even more people than the atom bomb I don’t see that as a preferable alternative.

Really, Japan was compelled to surrender by our victories on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Japan had expected to decisively repel those invasions, and when we completed our takeover of Okinawa, that is when their government started panicking.

But instead of surrendering, they tried to play a gambit where they hoped the Soviets would help them end the war in a draw (like how the Korean War later ended). That gambit became impossible once the Soviets declared war on them, which is likely the reason why they surrendered immediately after the Soviets declared war.

So technically it is likely that nether the atomic bombs nor additional conventional bombing was needed. But that is only clear looking back on it in hindsight. No one knew this when the atomic bombs were being dropped. And I would hate to see how the Cuban Missile Crisis would have turned out had the US and USSR not had the examples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to restrain them.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Then he was doing it wrong.

All he should have kept on the ground was just enough US troops to help the ARVN defend the south against incursions by the NVA.

The incursions of Communist forces was enabled in no small part by the actions of South Vietnam itself. Simply keeping troops there was not really a solution.

I'm not sure what you are referring to.

The ARVN was given multiple opportunities to demonstrate its own skill-at-arms and operational capacity and it came up short. It was not capable of surviving on its own.

 

[Jredbaron96]

But instead of surrendering, they tried to play a gambit where they hoped the Soviets would help them end the war in a draw (like how the Korean War later ended). That gambit became impossible once the Soviets declared war on them, which is likely the reason why they surrendered immediately after the Soviets declared war.

The civilians did. The military half of the Big Six did not seriously consider the proposed Soviet-negotiated as feasible and continued to put stock in repelling the expected invasion of Japan.

 

[southwest88]

You should watch the video above also. It will help you understand the history of their deciding to attack Pearl Harbor. It explains things like how and why they became addicted to colonialism and expansion. They were trying to surrender, but the military was a major obstacle to that. They were concerned the military might not even obey the emperor.

OK, watched the video. A good summary of the history of Imperial Japan, the rise of the IJ military - especially the Young officers movement (?), for lack of a better term. Good on the Big picture, but doesn't have the fine grain of reading through more of the literature on IJ, the US, Allies, Axis, world conditions, the various militaries, intelligence, espionage, coding systems, the vast distances involved in the PTO.

But it's good for starters, for anyone who wants a relatively quick intro to the questions that swirl around the US use of nuclear bombs in WWII.

 

[Craig234]

OK, watched the video. A good summary of the history of Imperial Japan, the rise of the IJ military - especially the Young officers movement (?), for lack of a better term. Good on the Big picture, but doesn't have the fine grain of reading through more of the literature on IJ, the US, Allies, Axis, world conditions, the various militaries, intelligence, espionage, coding systems, the vast distances involved in the PTO.

Thanks for watching it, and I'm glad you found it good. It sounds like it would need to be a lot longer to have some of the details you mention.

 

[southwest88]

Thanks for watching it, and I'm glad you found it good. It sounds like it would need to be a lot longer to have some of the details you mention.

These discussions about the pros & cons of the US nuclear bombing of Japan caught my eye years ago. & usually in August, as the dates roll around. So over time, I've looked into the various POV on the many interlocking subjects involved. There's a lot of information to look at - military, economic, technological, history, geography, cultural takes on war & peace, diplomacy, ...