Hiroshima

[TerryMiller]

I believe we did the right thing in dropping the bombs, but there was no way we would have had a million casualties. If you look at last ditch Japanese rifles the Japanese were just about done with making weapons to fight with.

I seem to remember seeing a video where the citizens of Japan were training to be the "last line of defense" in an invasion. They were training with what appeared to be pikes. Now, the question would have to be whether those citizens would have thrown down their "weapons" or not, but my guess is that there would have been soldiers behind those civilians with weapons to kill said civilians if they didn't fight.

So, yeah, the million casualties very well could have been a valid number.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I understand the happiness for not losing more lives. But celebrating anything as horrible as a nuclear bomb killing civilians is distasteful.

Would it have been less distasteful if 15 kilotons of TNT was detonated 1500 feet in the air killing the same number of people? How about killing a million by other means? Just curious.

Woody

 

[Dave70968]

Would it have been less distasteful if 15 kilotons of TNT was detonated 1500 feet in the air killing the same number of people? How about killing a million by other means? Just curious.

Woody

Speaking only for myself, I'm going to say yes, just because of the radioactive contamination.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Speaking only for myself, I'm going to say yes, just because of the radioactive contamination.

No doubt there was some contamination, but how does it compare to Chernobyl and Fukushima?

NOTE: I am not opposed to nuclear energy. I'm in favor of it.

Woody

 

[Dave70968]

No doubt there was some contamination, but how does it compare to Chernobyl and Fukushima?

NOTE: I am not opposed to nuclear energy. I'm in favor of it.

Woody

Favorably to Chernobyl, unfavorably to Fukushima, I think.

I'm a huge proponent of nuclear power too, but essentially "salting the earth" as a parting shot is a low blow. But then, I've heard several people advance the theory that the real reason for dropping the bombs wasn't so much to end the war as it was to put a shot across the Soviets' bow. Remember, many people--including Gen. Patton--advocated taking the war to Russia while it was still weakened.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Favorably to Chernobyl, unfavorably to Fukushima, I think.I agree.

I'm a huge proponent of nuclear power too, but essentially "salting the earth" as a parting shot is a low blow. But then, I've heard several people advance the theory that the real reason for dropping the bombs wasn't so much to end the war as it was to put a shot across the Soviets' bow. Remember, many people--including Gen. Patton--advocated taking the war to Russia while it was still weakened.

I've heard the same about Patton wanting to take on the Soviets, however, the shot across the Soviet's bow theory is new to me but quite believable. I've never known of a war without political ends.

Woody

 

[mugsy]

This discussion of the Soviets is a valid discussion but like much historical criticism it tends to focus too much on isolated influences and magnify them by focused study. I have no doubt that was an influence but so was the stark reality of the fighting that was ahead for an already war weary country and world. I find it astounding that historians can credibly claim that the geo-political concerns about Soviet advancement were more important than the fight right in front of the US and its Pacific allies. Few decisions are made with only one influence but the previous 3 years of war and the impending fight were clearly and obviously the primary interests. There is also a good argument to be made that our use of the A-bomb considerably accelerated Soviet activities along the same line (certainly their espionage accelerated) and thus we lost an advantage by revealing it too soon.

 

[donner]

This discussion of the Soviets is a valid discussion but like much historical criticism it tends to focus too much on isolated influences and magnify them by focused study. I have no doubt that was an influence but so was the stark reality of the fighting that was ahead for an already war weary country and world. I find it astounding that historians can credibly claim that the geo-political concerns about Soviet advancement were more important than the fight right in front of the US and its Pacific allies. Few decisions are made with only one influence but the previous 3 years of war and the impending fight were clearly and obviously the primary interests. There is also a good argument to be made that our use of the A-bomb considerably accelerated Soviet activities along the same line (certainly their espionage accelerated) and thus we lost an advantage by revealing it too soon.

I agree it's impossible to say any one thing forced a surrender, but i do think the author makes some interesting points in regards to the japanese concerns about the soviets. The article i linked to is a very interesting read. I'll include a long, but relevant section below, discussing two options that Japanese had before the soviets entered the fight. (which, as you noted, does not point to a single moment, but rather a drastic change is circumstances and options).

And like all things, i think the reality is complicated and somewhere in between. I just thought it an interesting counterpoint to the 'the bomb won the war' argument that we've always been taught.

They had two plans for getting better surrender terms; they had, in other words, two strategic options. The first was diplomatic. Japan had signed a five-year neutrality pact with the Soviets in April of 1941, which would expire in 1946. A group consisting mostly of civilian leaders and led by Foreign Minister Togo Shigenori hoped that Stalin might be convinced to mediate a settlement between the United States and its allies on the one hand, and Japan on the other. Even though this plan was a long shot, it reflected sound strategic thinking. After all, it would be in the Soviet Union’s interest to make sure that the terms of the settlement were not too favorable to the United States: any increase in U.S. influence and power in Asia would mean a decrease in Russian power and influence.

The second plan was military, and most of its proponents, led by the Army Minister Anami Korechika, were military men. They hoped to use Imperial Army ground troops to inflict high casualties on U.S. forces when they invaded. If they succeeded, they felt, they might be able to get the United States to offer better terms. This strategy was also a long shot. The United States seemed deeply committed to unconditional surrender. But since there was, in fact, concern in U.S. military circles that the casualties in an invasion would be prohibitive, the Japanese high command’s strategy was not entirely off the mark.

One way to gauge whether it was the bombing of Hiroshima or the invasion and declaration of war by the Soviet Union that caused Japan’s surrender is to compare the way in which these two events affected the strategic situation. After Hiroshima was bombed on Aug. 6, both options were still alive. It would still have been possible to ask Stalin to mediate (and Takagi’s diary entries from Aug. 8 show that at least some of Japan’s leaders were still thinking about the effort to get Stalin involved). It would also still have been possible to try to fight one last decisive battle and inflict heavy casualties. The destruction of Hiroshima had done nothing to reduce the preparedness of the troops dug in on the beaches of Japan’s home islands. There was now one fewer city behind them, but they were still dug in, they still had ammunition, and their military strength had not been diminished in any important way. Bombing Hiroshima did not foreclose either of Japan’s strategic options.

The impact of the Soviet declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria and Sakhalin Island was quite different, however. Once the Soviet Union had declared war, Stalin could no longer act as a mediator — he was now a belligerent. So the diplomatic option was wiped out by the Soviet move. The effect on the military situation was equally dramatic. Most of Japan’s best troops had been shifted to the southern part of the home islands. Japan’s military had correctly guessed that the likely first target of an American invasion would be the southernmost island of Kyushu. The once proud Kwangtung army in Manchuria, for example, was a shell of its former self because its best units had been shifted away to defend Japan itself. When the Russians invaded Manchuria, they sliced through what had once been an elite army and many Russian units only stopped when they ran out of gas. The Soviet 16th Army — 100,000 strong — launched an invasion of the southern half of Sakhalin Island. Their orders were to mop up Japanese resistance there, and then — within 10 to 14 days — be prepared to invade Hokkaido, the northernmost of Japan’s home islands. The Japanese force tasked with defending Hokkaido, the 5th Area Army, was under strength at two divisions and two brigades, and was in fortified positions on the east side of the island. The Soviet plan of attack called for an invasion of Hokkaido from the west.

It didn’t take a military genius to see that, while it might be possible to fight a decisive battle against one great power invading from one direction, it would not be possible to fight off two great powers attacking from two different directions.

 

[MacFromOK]

Imagine how things would have went down if the Axis powers had nuclear weapons... :/

 

[filbert]

I seem to remember seeing a video where the citizens of Japan were training to be the "last line of defense" in an invasion. They were training with what appeared to be pikes. Now, the question would have to be whether those citizens would have thrown down their "weapons" or not, but my guess is that there would have been soldiers behind those civilians with weapons to kill said civilians if they didn't fight.

So, yeah, the million casualties very well could have been a valid number.

Ok, are you talking about total casualties on both sides? Or are you saying American casualties? Or Japanese casualties? I am talking about American casualties, and no, there would have never been a million American casualties. You consider pikes a legitimate weapon against an M1 rifle, flame throwers, grenades, bombers, attack aircraft, tanks, battleships, artillery, machine guns? You are hilarious!