Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Japan Was Already Beaten and Starving When We Dropped Nukes

Discussion in 'Atomic Bombs In the Pacific' started by Michael Timothy Griffith, Jan 29, 2022.

  1. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    15,667
    Likes Received:
    4,863
    Giangreco and Frank being misquoted? The Japanese had thousands of suicide craft and ~4,000,000 tons of fuel in reserve for the invasion. (Most brain farts come from people who didn't know this was available or deliberately ignored it.)
     
    BFBSM likes this.
  2. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    15,667
    Likes Received:
    4,863
    140 Days to Hiroshima is a good read on this. My copy of that book has dozens of flags sticking out of it.
     
  3. von Poop

    von Poop Waspish

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,252
    Likes Received:
    1,884
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    [​IMG]
     
  4. Michael Timothy Griffith

    Michael Timothy Griffith Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2022
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    2
    HUH??? Just HUH??? It is hard to fathom how you could deduce such claims from Wilson's article.

    Anyway, some two months before Hiroshima, Japan’s leaders had concluded that Soviet entry into the war when determine the course of the war and would mean the defeat of the war effort:

    In a meeting of the Supreme Council in June 1945, they said that Soviet entry into the war “would determine the fate of the Empire.” Army Deputy Chief of Staff Kawabe said, in that same meeting, “The absolute maintenance of peace in our relations with the Soviet Union is imperative for the continuation of the war.” (Ward Wilson, "The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan . . . Stalin Did," Foreign Policy, May 30, 2013, The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan … Stalin Did – Foreign Policy)

    Wilson goes on to make a point that many other scholars have made, namely, that the evidence shows that Japan's leaders, especially the militarists, did not view the atomic bombings as the most pressing problem facing them nor as a reason to surrender:

    If Japan’s leaders were going to surrender because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you would expect to find that they cared about the bombing of cities in general, that the city attacks put pressure on them to surrender. But this doesn’t appear to be so. Two days after the bombing of Tokyo, retired Foreign Minister Shidehara Kijuro expressed a sentiment that was apparently widely held among Japanese high-ranking officials at the time. Shidehara opined that “the people would gradually get used to being bombed daily. In time their unity and resolve would grow stronger.” In a letter to a friend he said it was important for citizens to endure the suffering because “even if hundreds of thousands of noncombatants are killed, injured, or starved, even if millions of buildings are destroyed or burned,” additional time was needed for diplomacy. It is worth remembering that Shidehara was a moderate.

    At the highest levels of government — in the Supreme Council — attitudes were apparently the same. Although the Supreme Council discussed the importance of the Soviet Union remaining neutral, they didn’t have a full-dress discussion about the impact of city bombing. In the records that have been preserved, city bombing doesn’t even get mentioned during Supreme Council discussions except on two occasions: once in passing in May 1945 and once during the wide-ranging discussion on the night of Aug. 9. Based on the evidence, it is difficult to make a case that Japan’s leaders thought that city bombing — compared to the other pressing matters involved in running a war — had much significance at all.

    Gen. Anami on Aug. 13 remarked that the atomic bombings were no more menacing than the fire-bombing that Japan had endured for months. If Hiroshima and Nagasaki were no worse than the fire bombings, and if Japan’s leaders did not consider them important enough to discuss in depth, how can Hiroshima and Nagasaki have coerced them to surrender? (Ward Wilson, "The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan . . . Stalin Did," Foreign Policy, May 30, 2013, The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan … Stalin Did – Foreign Policy)


    We have to keep in mind that the moderates were looking any excuse to surrender. Some of them had begun pushing for surrender over a year earlier. Yes, certainly, the moderates viewed the A-bomb with alarm and tried to make a big deal out of Hiroshima, but the militarists would have none of it. As mentioned above, General Anami said nukes were no more menacing than fire-bombings. In addition, during the 9 August imperial conference, General Umezu said that nukes could be defeated with anti-aircraft measures (Butow, Japan's Decision to Surrender, p. 172).

    So what pushed the hardliners to agree to convene the Big Six/Supreme War Council on 9 August? Anyone who has done their homework knows the answer: the Soviet entry into the war. And why didn't the militarists use their power to force the resignation of the cabinet, whcih would have halted any surrender action? Keep in mind that after the moderates forced Tojo to resign, the militarists toppled the cabinet of his successor, Kuniaki Koiso, and forced Suzuki to pledge in writing that he would continue the war if they allowed him to become prime minister. Okay, so why didn't the militarists do the same thing to block the 9 August Big Six meeting? Why didn't they topple the cabinet after they realized they had been tricked into attending the 9 August imperial conference? Why didn't they do the same thing when the Byrnes Note arrived and the emperor called his second unprecedented imperial conference in four days? It certainly wasn't because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was plainly and clearly because of the Soviet invasion. If there had been no Hiroshima, the moderates would have pushed just as urgently for surrender after learning of the Soviet invasion, and the militarists would have gone along with the surrender because they feared a Soviet occupation of Japan far more than they feared an American occupation.

    Finally, a quick note about the book Japan's Longest Day. It is a very useful book, but it is also very limited in scope, dealing almost exclusively with 15 August. I recommend the book because, for one thing, it destroys the traditionalist claim that Hirohito was really just another militarist.
     
  5. Otto

    Otto Spambot Nemesis Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    9,722
    Likes Received:
    1,772
    Location:
    DFW, Texas
    :tombstone:

    This is what is known in internet parlance as a zombie thread. The discussion is over and dead, save for one person who thinks it is still alive.
     
    Kai-Petri, A-58, RichTO90 and 3 others like this.
  6. Biak

    Biak Adjutant Staff Member Patron  

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    7,562
    Likes Received:
    1,712
    At least this one convinced me that it was not the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki itself but that the US dropped one bomb from one plane. Smart military thinking if you factor in the cost savings and massive utilization of forces.
     
  7. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,850
    Likes Received:
    1,855
    Location:
    God's Country
    What he doesn't seem to understand is that the hardliner faction was still not willing to accept surrender, even after Hroshima, the Soviet intervention and Nagasaki. It was Hirohito that decided it had to end. It was Hirohito that held an Imperial Conference late on 9-10 August. It was Hirohito that decided to accept terms. So, it only matters what caused Hirohito to make his decision. 1.) His lack of confidence that Ketsu Go was a viable plan, 2.) The effects of the atomic bombs and the firebombings, 3.) Fear of an internal revolt by Japanese citizens due to their privations, and starvation. This is what he stated contemporaneously.
    While the Soviets were a threat to China, Manchuria and Korea, they lacked the sealift to invade the home islands. Something the Japanese military understood because they had executed so many themselves.
     
  8. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    15,667
    Likes Received:
    4,863
    Little Timmy One Note can't change his position to fit the facts, so he changes the facts to fit his position. Been dealin' with this shit for near on sixty years.
     
  9. Biak

    Biak Adjutant Staff Member Patron  

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    7,562
    Likes Received:
    1,712
    I've found the best defense for my sanity, what's left of it, is not engage. But sometimes I can't help myself o_O
     
  10. A-58

    A-58 Cool Dude

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Messages:
    8,905
    Likes Received:
    1,727
    Location:
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana
    Yes but it is very entertaining and adds a bit of other viewpoints over and over and over and over....
     
  11. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    15,667
    Likes Received:
    4,863
    The Red Army's top man in Manchuria, Aleksandr Mikhaylovich Vasilevsky (Russian: Александр Михайлович Василевский), told Stalin he planned to put a division onto Hokkaido by late August/early September 1945. Stalin canceled the attack the day before it was to go down. Project Hula would have helped.
     
  12. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    26,462
    Likes Received:
    2,196
    I understood from a document Stalin and Attlee were confused why Hirohito was not put to court and condemned to death for starting the war??
     
  13. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    15,667
    Likes Received:
    4,863
    Attlee recommended changes to the proposed response to the Japanese offer to surrender. He softened it so as allow Hirohito to stay on the throne, making it easier for the military to accept the situation. (And perhaps dream of restarting the war later?) Soviets had no complaints to Truman.
     
    Kai-Petri likes this.
  14. Prospero Quevedo

    Prospero Quevedo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2021
    Messages:
    1,077
    Likes Received:
    222
    The people in they Japanese country areas the smaller towns and villages were able to cope with flaming and harvesting wild veggies the cities were in a crises as the bombing destroyed most food storage and processing. During the reconstruction years the government had to open food kitchens to feed the people they decided rice was not economical enough they were able to buy ramen very cheaply from other countries they would serve the ramen with a bit of protein usually porky or fish. Fish was a very cheap source of food then and the Japanese fishing industry grew to be the largest in the world during that period but the Chinese have long overtaken everyone these days. It's funny how the Japanese industry caught up to and surpassed the US but they learned about organization and many of the practices they do today from Americans sent there to help the Japanese rebuild their country. We did a lot to help the Germans. The soviets were demanding a huge war settlement and we're taking a lot of the railroad equiptment as payment they would even have inspectors at the factories seize newly produced equiptment. It was crippling the efforts of the British and American efforts to make Germany self sufficient and that they actually hid things from the soviets they finally got the soviets to back off and recovery was going more smoothly. It really burns me that we help the soviets as much as we did and waited for them to reach Berlin as part of an agreement. Screw Stalin I think we should have taken Berlin months ahead the Germans were actually wanting tonsurrender to us as they feared the reprisals the soviets would do to them. Like Stalin the rat was originally going to dived Europe with Germany Stalin had plans of expanding the Soviet Union and kept control of all the Eastern European nations he liberated and kept by force he had to station large numbers of troops in those countries till he was able to control the local military and the governments. The things the soviet armies did to civilians was just as bad or even worse than the Germans. A mayor of a German town documented everything and hid his papers till the wall fell and Germany was reunited then he got his papers and published a book. I know that Germany did a lot of bad things but the pillaging raping and murdering of innocent civilians most of them children is just not right on any level. They sadisticly tortured and murder lost of children just for sport

    I some times think Patton was right and they should have forced them out of all,those countries he said they were liars and wouldn't give them up and he was right. However I don't think they soviets would have been all that easy to push back they had a huge tank army and their tanks were just as good or better than the Germans and they had an industry that could just about match us as far as production. The soviets would have been a force to reckon with and I think the government knew it and tried to play down the Soviet capabilities as to not alarm the public as the soviets quickly became our rivals.

    Like even when I was a kid I remember how they would say how the Russians were backwards and they couldn't match us in technology. The Russians were always right on our heels. We'd build something they'd build some thing bigger and better then we'd counter it was a crazy game. The money the government spent on weapons research even before Reagan and reaganomics. We were building new long range bombers and new fighters like crazy the whole century series and the b36 then 47 and the 52. Like the 36 and 47 really didn't even have long service lives before they were replaced the 36 and 47 kinda over lapped each other I think the air force kept the 36 in service as long as they did more out of how much money they spent on it over a billion dollar program then to come out with the 47 so quickly although the 47 was already in the works when they were working on the 36 but a lot of new technology was still being developed like the engines. Then the fighter jets they kept getting bigger and faster. It's amazing how huge some of the single engine aircraft were getting the engines must have been enormous. North American, Lockheed, corvair, vought, Douglas, Boeing, and more were cranking out new aircraft every year at a huge amount of investment in R&D and a slew of new technologies especially in micro electronics the US ruled in micro electronics in those days no one came close the soviets diffinately were behind us on that they would diffinately recover a lot of our planes lost in Korea then later wars to study our electronics and even flight control actuators and other components to even copy and adapt for their use. I think it's funny how they would match us by building a similar plane but it had to be bigger and faster or carrier more stores or cargo. Like the black jack looks like our B1 but bigger and the buran orbiter looks just like our shuttle but again bigger, I think their method of planned launch was rather interesting instead of a booster or fuel tank like us they had a larger amount of fuel storage and an AN 225 was to piggy back it to 12000 meters and release then it would fire it's engines and achieve orbit. They say that was the whole put pose of building the two AN225s but when the Russian economy went bust they were put in storage and then restored then back in storage. The AN124 is supposed to be one of Russia's great achievements it can carry a larger load than our C5 and was massed produced in a number of variants cargo, troop carrier and refueler.
     
  15. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,996
    Likes Received:
    2,510
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Buran was slightly smaller...Like the US shuttle, military use dictated it's size.

    The Soviets had actually designed a shuttle that did not look like the Space Shuttle, but the program fell through...When it was restarted, the Space Shuttle had been perfected, and was unclassified, making the acquisition of data easy.

    Do you have a source for that? Every thing I have says that it was to be rocket boosted to achieve orbit. And that the AN-225 was to only transport the Buran & it's booster rockets.
     
  16. Michael Timothy Griffith

    Michael Timothy Griffith Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2022
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    2
    No, it's just that this timeworn argument was answered decades ago. It is a silly, deceptive argument, and the fact that you would repeat suggests you have read nothing but pro-bomb research. The suicide planes and small boats were a joke, especially the boats. It is doubtful that more than 1 in 100 of those boats would have ever gotten to within 100 yards of a U.S. Navy ship. Most of the planes were not fit for service, not to mention that few trained pilots were left to fly them, not to mention that the AA flak they would have encountered off Kyushu would have dwarfed what they faced off Okinawa, and not to mention the question of how the Japanese would have gotten that reserve fuel to the planes and small boats since the Japanese were severely low on transport vehicles and since the American invasion plan called for decimating Japan's major rail lines in advance of troop landings.

    Anyway--and this is relevant--in 1997, Dr. J. Samuel Walker, the historian of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, described the points of agreement that had been reached up to that point in time among specialists on the decision to use the atomic bomb. I emphasize the word “specialists” because many of the scholars who have written on the subject have not been specialists/experts on the subject. This is true of many other subjects. For example, many of the scholars who’ve written about the American Civil War are not actually experts on the subject. They haven’t spent years studying the topic, nor have they personally examined the primary sources, and the Civil War is not their primary or one of their few primary areas of focus. With this understood, here’s what Dr. Walker said (and, by the way, Dr. Walker is not considered to be a revisionist):

    By the late 1980s, specialists who studied the available evidence reached a broad, though hardly unanimous, consensus on some key issues surrounding the use of the bomb. One point of agreement was that Truman and his advisers were well aware of alternatives to the bomb that seemed likely, but not certain, to end the war within a relatively short time. Another was that an invasion of Japan would probably have not been necessary to achieve victory. A third point of general agreement in the scholarly literature on the decision to use the bomb was that the post-war claims that the bomb prevented hundreds of thousands of American combat deaths could not be sustained with the available evidence. Most students of the subject also concurred that political considerations figured in the deliberations about the implications of the bomb and the end of the war with Japan. On all of those points, the scholarly consensus rejected the traditional view that the bomb was the only alternative to an invasion of Japan that would have cost a huge number of American lives. (J. Samuel Walker, Prompt and Utter Destruction, 1997, pp. 105-106, quoted in Lawrence Lifschultz and Kai Bird, “The Legend of Hiroshima,” in Hiroshima’s Shadow: Writings on the Denial of History and the Smithsonian Controversy, 1998, p. xlvii)

    Incidentally, over the last three decades, public opinion surveys have found a marked decline in the percentage of Americans who believe that nuking Japan was justified/necessary.
     
  17. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    15,667
    Likes Received:
    4,863
    K-12.net is leaking again.
     
  18. R Leonard

    R Leonard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,049
    Likes Received:
    693
    Location:
    The Old Dominion
    Timmy, you need to get it through your head that no one gives a rat's patooty what you post since all you post are the half truths and out right lies from your sources. You really should have vetted them first before you started cutting and pasting. What anyone thought after August 1945 about the use of these weapons is just so much BS to make them feel good about themselves in their nice modern takes. If your source was not actually part of the decision process then what they think, including yourself, and what they've had published is just make feel warm and fuzzy nonsense and has nothing to do with reality and history.

    You are toast.
     
  19. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    15,667
    Likes Received:
    4,863
    "No, it's just that this timeworn argument was answered decades ago. It is a silly, deceptive argument, and the fact that you would repeat suggests you have read nothing but pro-bomb research."

    Of course that's not true. I have to read oral fecals like you post as well.
     
    BFBSM likes this.
  20. Prospero Quevedo

    Prospero Quevedo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2021
    Messages:
    1,077
    Likes Received:
    222
    I'll see if I can find it again and post it
     

Share This Page