A bombs were not needed to end the war?

someone in another forum suggested that the use of a bombs on japan was not needed as the japanese were actually trying to surrender and we did it to give the soviets a little scare , he assured me it was in all the history books ..any truth to this claim ? i know they werent to keen on surrender at okinawa and even many civillians lept to their deaths from cliffs to escape american capture not to mention makeing tarawa look like small beans in comparison ..ie numbers of us military kias ...

 

I disagree.

 

According to my high school history books Japan did surrender but it was too late to recall the bombs.
...or something like that.

 

Check the dates:

Hiroshima: 6th August 1945
Nagasaki: 9th August 1945
Soviet Declaration of War:9th August 1945
Official Japanese Surrender:15th August 1945

 

Woody i belive that was me. :smok: Most of newer books dealing with the subject deals with this controversy.

Basicly now it is known that Japanese activly seeked surender. The only problem was with unconditional part i.e. fate of the emperor, as US was making demands that emperor Hirohito should be tried and sentanced as war criminal. Japanese asked the only allied country that they were not in war with i.e. SSSR to mediate. The subject did come up on Potsdam conference on the highest level (i.e. Truman and Stalin). At Potsdam decision to drop the A bombs was taken by Truman. Those are known facts.



Regarding bombings itself. Firebombing of Japanese cities was extremly effective and basicly only major japanese cities that were not firebombed were Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At the time even smaller cities with population of mere 90.000 were being firembed. Japan at the time was on it's knees with majority of it's army in China, CBE..., extremly effectivly blockaded by USN subs, industrial base in smoking ruins togather with major cities, no raw materials, no oil... This were the real reasons for cue that removed Tojo & co. from power.

IMHO ratinale that droping A bombs prevented horrifing US losses at invasion doesn't hold water as invasion itself was unnecessary.

Not very accurate school books. Where the hack did you go to school?

 

Regarding bombings itself. Firebombing of Japanese cities was extremly effective and basicly only major japanese cities that were not firebombed were Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At the time even smaller cities with population of mere 90.000 were being firembed. Japan at the time was on it's knees with majority of it's army in China, CBE..., extremly effectivly blockaded by USN subs, industrial base in smoking ruins togather with major cities, no raw materials, no oil... This were the real reasons for cue that removed Tojo & co. from power.

IMHO ratinale that droping A bombs prevented horrifing US losses at invasion doesn't hold water as invasion itself was unnecessary.

------------------
TISO:
Your history books aren't much better.
Thousands upon thousands of American troops were elated when news of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki reached their ears.
You make it sound as though there were no Japanese left to defend their homeland, and that they were beaten, knew it and wanted to surrender.
Invasion of the Home Islands not necessary?
Total CRAP.
I'm of the opinion that history is simply not being taught these days.

Tim

 

As far as I understand it the Japanese were actively seeking peace terms before the point the Atomic bombs were dropped whilst at the same time preparing for a a last ditch defence of the home islands. Whether the latter was just bluster we will never be entirely certain, but it seems that every man, woman and child was being prepared to fight the Allied invaders.

The sticking point does seem to be over the issue of the unconditional surrender, again we will never know for certain whether enough agreeable ground could be found to settle those terms, ultimately Olympic still might have had to go ahead and with it heavy loss of life amongst both the Allies and Japanese.

If Japan had not surrendered in spite of the bombings, both Atomic and firebombing, the Invasion would still have had to have happened. Japan needed to either surrender or be seen to be defeated on the ground.

In those circumstances the Allied invasion forces would still have suffered heavy losses, even the under-armed, underequipped Japanese military could still hurt the Allies even if they could not defeat them.

There is a certain viewpoint that the dropping of the bombs was as much a demonstration by the US to the Soviets as a anything else, again this may or may not be true, we're unlikely to know for certain.

Was the dropping of the Atomic bombs needed?

No. No two ways about it, it wasn't needed and the US could have continued to firebomb cities until the point of annihilation with practical immunity from the Japanese airforces if they so wished and some firebombings caused much greater loss of life than either atomic bombing, this would inevitably increase.

Ultimately the Atomic Bombs probably did Japan as much of a favour as it did the US, it gave Japan a palatable excuse to agree to terms. Ultimately though, Japan still didn't have to accept the unconditional surrender that was demanded of it or that Germany had to.

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHA. Excellent argument. So was quite a number of german troops at start of barbarossa, but that dosn't make it right, or does it?

More or less that's my argument. Majority of trained and battlehardened troops were not in Japan but elswhere. BTW i didn't say that Japan was left undefended. And yes they knew they were beaten and they did want to surrended. Otherwise there would not be much point asking SSSR for mediation (knowing that Stalin had his own plans in far east).
You really should look up a book or two that is not 20 years old or older.

 

There are plenty of contemporary historians (and university patrons) who seem to think that the "atmoic holocaust" should never have happened, but I'm not sure how many of them fought in WW2 :roll: I wonder whether if it was their life on the line they would be so critical of the use of the bombs...

Not wishing to engage in a "crystal ball" discussion, all that needs to be said is that in 1945 it would not have been unreasonable to think that the use of the bombs would have saved American lives, and (quite possibly) Japanese lives... Whether it would have been better/worse if the bombs had never been used is impossible to answer because we don't have a crystal ball. That is was distinguishes it from a war crime. There was a strategic intention to preserve the lives of American citizens. Unlike the Concentration Camps, where the killing of the interned had no bearing on the wellbeing of the German people.

Using weapons to save the lives of your troops is just part of war. If the Americans HAD invaded Japan and the Japanese had resited you can be sure a high number of Japanese would have died, as well as a truckload of American GI's. The number may have in fact surpassed the toll of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, only the public outrage would not be present because a conventional invasion seems more 'fair' than dropping an atom bomb.

And to quote Grieg winning wars isn't about being 'fair'

Its impossible to tell what would have resulted otherwise, but its not unlikely that the outcome may have been far worse had the bombs not been dropped... Who knows?

 

TISO:
Thank you again for making my point.
And a Bwahahahahah back at you.


Tim

 

The Japanese were not trying to surrender. That would have been as easy as sending the message "we give up". They were tring to find out what terms that might get, were they to surrender.
Tojo and co. had resigned not long after Saipan and the Marianna's were lost in the summer of 1944. the Japanese realized that would not win the war, but couldn't quite face the fact that they had lost it.
The best Japanese troops were not all elsewhere. Many (if not most) of the battle hardened elements, such as large portions the Kwantung army, has already been shipped back to Japan for the ultimate battle. This made it even less of a contest when the Soviets violated there non-agreesion pact with the Japanese and honored thier agreemnet ot join the Asian-Pacific war three months after the end of the war in Europe. The Japanese were trying to see if the Soviets would help broker a peace deal with the US and BCW.
Most of the newer books deal with controversy? What controversy are you referring to? Most deal with the decisions that lead to the dropping of the A-bombs, only the most biased anit-US revisionists give credence to the idea that the primary reason to use them was other than to shorten the war and save lives. ostly American, but it had the happy side effect of saving millions of Japanese as well. That the west was concerned about the Soviets over running China, Korea, japan and other major parts of Asia probably did figure into the decision, but was unlikely a major consideration.
Was it absolutely necessary to drop the bombs? No, the US could have continued to use 500 - 1000 B-29s to raze Japanese cities and wait for starvation to kill off the majority of the Japanese civilians. Or the US could have invaded and suffered huge casualties, 250,000 KIA and three times that wounded. If other battles are any gauge, the Japanese would have lost four to ten times that number. You could argue that dropping the A-bombs benefited the japaese far more than the US.
Did it make sense to use the bombs? Absolutely. The Japanese leaders themselves, starting with the Emperor, pointed out that it here was a weapon they could't fight, and that this allowed them to "endure the unendurable".

 

every single combat vet of the SWPTO that ive ever talked to has assured me that the A bombs dropped on honshu gave them PERSONALLY a reprieve from a an almost certain death sentence ...in the summer of 45 ,
planners in the usa were greatly vexed by the publicity nightmare of trying to move the veterans of the ETO to the far east WITHOUT ever letting them set foot in america ...finding enough MPs and dobermans to line 3000 miles of rr track from NY to SANFRAN was going to be problematic . the band of brothers standing about in germany and austria haveing felt that they were all paid up on their dues and fines to the laws of averages courthouse
..no doubt their anzac and brit freinds had similar feelings...men already camped out in the ruyukius and luzon knew they were already pretty well f&$%#$...
isnt it too bad we cant majically transport these ageing hippie history profs into the sweating retching platoons aboard the boats motoring thru the last hundred yards of the inland sea in the spring of 46 ..what joy to behold their ashen faces as they weez forward with their brave young fathers and uncles ..their poney tails bouncing merrily under their steel pots ...imo they deserve to dream this same dream night after night after night... to bolt upright slathered in sweat and search for their cigarretts with shaky fingers ...wouldnt that be sweet...

 

The Germans were a defeated country when the Battle of Berlin was fought. I've heard estimates of upwards of 2 million Russian casualties before it was finished. Russian troops were fighting 12-16yr old children... but those kids were tenacious, fought to the death and did so by the thousands if I recall.
I can't imagine it would have been any different under the Bushido-Code kids of the home islands of Japan. It actually did come as a miracle to those veteran Army/USMC troops who fully expected--and rightly so-- to die in a direct invasion of Japan. Truman had a weapon that would end the war, and give the Japanese a way to save-face under the onslaught of an indefensible nuclear mushroom cloud.
Short of an unconditional surrender, an air campaign cannot hold one inch of an enemies territory. It takes boots on the ground to do that.
Perhaps those 20 yr year history books were written and proofread by people that had a better perspective on those events than is recalled today?

That's two million Russian soldiers that gave some, or all to finish-off a beaten Nazi Germany. Would Uncle Joe have used the bomb on Berlin if he had one to drop?
You tell me...


Tim

 

I agree with Blaster (that is to say, I disagree with the question).

:x

 

Without getting into the argument as such (which I find interesting, but don't have the time to pursue at the moment), I just wanted to address the argument, that nuclear weapons were used to scare off Russia.

Since the nuclear bomb was, until the bombing of Nagasaki, a fairly well-kept secret, it seems illogical to reveal such as secret for no reason (assuming the Japanese were about to surrender, as per the foundation of the argument).

By revealing the possession of nuclear weapons, not to mention their potential, the Soviet Union were prompted to enter into a nuclear arms race that could potentially have been avoided. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the Soviet Union managed to acquire basic information about the construction of nuclear weapons in the post-war settlements - something which would obviously have been avoided, had the US not revealed that they owned nuclear weapons. From a military point of view, considering that the military is generally politically conservatives, it would seem strange to aim for deterrence rather than secrecy - especially when the evacuation of German scientists was already an on-going secret project at the time (i.e. Operation Paperclip, initiated some months before the bombings).

On a side note, it would be interesting to know what the lack of nuclear weapons with the Soviet Union would have meant for the Soviet space program. On the one hand, it would free up resources for the program, but on the other hand, ballistic missile research would not be nearly as interesting to the Soviets without the possibility of delivering nuclear warheads with them.

 

if you want to see what an invasion of the homeland would have been like imagine okinawa but Worse!

I believe that the bombs were a lessor evil

FNG

 

if you want to see what an invasion of the homeland would have been like imagine okinawa but Worse!

I believe that the bombs were a lessor evil

FNG

 

Truman only had 2 Atom Bombs and he used them. or thats the story i heard.

 

There was supposedely a third bomb that could have been dropped in September, possibly sooner. The reasoning in dropping the two bombs so close to each other was to convince the Japanese that the US already had a large number of bombs available and that there would be no respite.
Incidentally, not all major Japanese cities ahd been fire bombed prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Kyoto, for example, was spared because of it's extreme cultural value to the Japanese. Nagaaski was actually a secondary target, the city of Kokura was the original target, but escaped due to poor weather conditions.

 

This may be just my stubborness and arrogance talking, but what TISO had been saying is pure CRAP. Nothing more.