Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink
The 1945 'A' bombs - any other options?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Monday, 16th August 2010
Was there any real other option in late 1945 to get the stubborn Japanese to cave in?
Brighter and hotter than 10 suns, these two bombs at over 1mΒ° - costing c.$2bn each- wiped out a total of 140,000 people in an instant, many more from the radiation sickness later.
The US had been suffering very heavy casualties during their particularly brutal and costly 'island-hopping' Pacific campaign against the Japs, the Brit-Indians similarly during their jungle campaigns through Burma etc?
With such suicidal and ruthless defence by the japanese with each island nearer Japan itself, it is thought that, to take the mainland herself- where even schoolkids, students and housewives were being conditioned and trained to attack allied soldiers with knives and suicide bomb backpacks etc- allied planners reckoned that would have suffered over 1m casualties? Maybe higher.
Negotiations seemed to be fruitless against the military 'Bushido' regime, allied seaborne/para invasion was dreaded and maybe too costly, and bombing with incenduaries/fragmentation bombs was getting the allies nowhere.
Despite the Soviets also declaring war against the Japs in the Autumn of 1945, the US dropped one of it's lethal new bombs.
Was it right though- militarily or morally? -
Message 2
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Monday, 16th August 2010
Since I have just
a) read "Pacific" and,
b) a few months ago had a remarkable series of conversations with a digger who fought the Japanese at close quarters in New Guinea, and saw what they could do, and did,
I think it was EXACTLY the right decision.
I suppose the alternatives were;
Starve the Japanese into submission - might take 10 years (its quite a fertile and large country).
Invade - this might cost a million Allied lives and upwards of 5 million Japanese.
Stop at the home Islands - this would leave the murderous crew in charge for how long?
Then again I'm an Aussie; we tend to have different views on this than for instance, someone who's family was never involved in that theatre of war.
A mate of mine (Londoner), his father was in the 14th Army. Anthing that stopped the killing before he got killed was probably a good thing. -
Message 3
Posted by youngjerry (U7266788) on Monday, 16th August 2010
I don't think there was much negotiation at the time. I think the Americans were too quick to want to end that war. That atom bomb could surely have been demonstrated to the Japanese first in the Pacific Ocean perhaps.I belive the bomb was dropped as an experiment to show it's effects on a population in general as much for any other reason. Only the Americans wanted it dropped.
-
Message 4
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Monday, 16th August 2010
Hi youngjerry
I doubt if the militarist and nationalistic japanese Empire would have even blinked at a 'show' A-bombing of the 'distant' Pacific ocean?
These were toughened and 'honourable' people who barely shuddered at the series of massive and ferocious US invasions on their small islands- even in the last desperate stages of island-hopping when they sacrificed 90% plus death tolls in bloody defence.
Surrender and bluff were not an issue for them- they refused to even cave in after the Hiroshima bomb? -
Message 5
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Monday, 16th August 2010
Damn right they were quick to want to end the war - every day it went on meant more dead US soldiers, sailoirs and airmen, not to mention Kiwis and Aussies.
-
Message 6
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Monday, 16th August 2010
No nukes?
Then theres fire bombing as they did in Tokyo and several other places. The Tokyo raid actually killed more people than Hiroshima and probably more horribly.
Or theres chemical and biological weapons. All of which you can use to kill civilians and military personel in various entertaining and painfully savage ways.
Take a good look at what could have been done to the Japanese and give thanks that the Americans were gentle and only used atomic weapons. -
Message 7
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 16th August 2010
I don't think there was much negotiation at the time.Μύ
That's because the Japanese government refused any negotiations and arrested prominent Japanese citizens who even talked of surrender.
I think the Americans were too quick to want to end that war.Μύ
Fotunately for hundreds of thousands of allied servicemen, Japanese servicemen and civilians, the US disagreed with your positions. Few allied servicemen from the time have much sympathy for a longer protracted war.
The atomic bombs had the power to shock because they destroyed cities with single bombs. But in terms of deaths, Japan had been the subject of a ferocious conventional bombing campaign. Nor could Japan feed herself and food shortages were kicking in.
That atom bomb could surely have been demonstrated to the Japanese first in the Pacific Ocean perhaps.Μύ
Really? Many in the Japanese government were happy to carry on despite the bombing of Hiroshima, why would they care about an uninhabited island?
Only the Americans wanted it dropped.Μύ
I'd be willing to bet if you walked into any reunion of British veterans on the war with Japan that you'd find a lot of non-Americans who wanted the bombs dropped. -
Message 8
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 16th August 2010
I don't think there was much negotiation at the time.Μύ
That's because the Japanese government refused any negotiations and arrested prominent Japanese citizens who even talked of surrender.
I think the Americans were too quick to want to end that war.Μύ
Fotunately for hundreds of thousands of allied servicemen, Japanese servicemen and civilians, the US disagreed with your positions. Few allied servicemen from the time have much sympathy for a longer protracted war.
The atomic bombs had the power to shock because they destroyed cities with single bombs. But in terms of deaths, Japan had been the subject of a ferocious conventional bombing campaign. Nor could Japan feed herself and food shortages were kicking in.
That atom bomb could surely have been demonstrated to the Japanese first in the Pacific Ocean perhaps.Μύ
Really? Many in the Japanese government were happy to carry on despite the bombing of Hiroshima, why would they care about an uninhabited island?
Only the Americans wanted it dropped.Μύ
I'd be willing to bet if you walked into any reunion of British veterans on the war with Japan that you'd find a lot of non-Americans who wanted the bombs dropped. -
Message 9
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Monday, 16th August 2010
Cloudy, I heard you the first time!
Seriously though, what was the option other than dropping those bombs which were originally destined for nazi Germany?
After all, Japan was;-
1. A militaristic regime that started the war and refused to end it by negotiation?
2. Preparing it's entire populus to physically resist the proposed allied invasion with any weapons to hand.
3. Stubborn enough to continue their warfare even after the first bomb at Hiroshima? -
Message 10
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 16th August 2010
Cloudy, I heard you the first time! Μύ
If something's worth saying, it's worth saying twice.
Seriously though, what was the option other than dropping those bombs which were originally destined for nazi Germany?
Μύ
None in my view. They provided a quick and efficient end to the war with far fewer deaths all round. The high end estimates of civilian deaths during the capture of Okinawa were more than those from both bombs combined. -
Message 11
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Monday, 16th August 2010
They provided a quick and efficient end to the war with far fewer deaths all round. The high end estimates of civilian deaths during the capture of Okinawa were more than those from both bombs combined.Μύ
Fully agree Cloudy. As for alternatives? I believe that the Tokyo firestorm killed a vast number of Japanese and burnt out half of the city.Would the US have carried out more of the same? -
Message 12
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Monday, 16th August 2010
Starve the Japanese into submission - might take 10 years (its quite a fertile and large country).Μύ
Actually Japan is known for the relatively small size of the available farmland, which has to feed a dense population. Even in the 1940s, Japan could not feed itself, and imported a lot of food; even a third of its rice was imported. The war interrupted these imports as well as that of fertilizer.
By 1945 the Japanese population was, while not actually suffering from famine, certainly malnourished. Government advice ran from the consumption of rats and mice to the addition of sawdust to bread. -
Message 13
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
The figures for civilian casualties for the Tokyo firebomb raid of 9-10 March 1945 in addition to an earlier raid of 24-25 February range from 88,000 to over 100,000 and are almost certainly under-estimates as this points out:
The raid's impact certainly exceeded that of both Hiroshma and Nagasaki. Curtis LeMay had been transferred from Europe to the Pacific and believed that Japan could be brought to surrender by a conventional bombing campaign alone.
The other aspect to be noted is the presence of large Japanese forces in Manchuria and China which continued to fight even after the formal surrender had been signed. This was the reason why the Western Allies were so eager to engage the Soviet Union (which had signed a Non-aggression Pact with Japan in April 1941) in the conflict.
Stalin had promised at Yalta to enter the conflict with Japan at an interval of three months after the conclusion of the war in Europe. The Soviet Union declared war on Japan on 8 August 1945, 2 days after the dropping of the first atomic bomb on Japan and exactly three months after Germany surrendered,
"another example of the fidelity and punctuality with which Marshal Stalin and his valiant armies always keep their military engagements"
according to Churchill in his first speech to the House of Commons as Leader of the Opposition.
The Russo-Japanese War lasted well into the autumn of 1945. On this basis the dropping of the atomic bombs, far from attempting to deter the Soviets, greatly assisted the Red Army in isolating its opponents. -
Message 14
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
Another problem with the idea of 'demonstrating' the nuclear bomb is that the US actually had very few of them. So what happens if, after 'demonstrating' it, the Japanese still refuse (remembering it took two actual bomb attacks) and the US actually have no working bombs left ?
It sounds like a good and humane idea, but, in the circumstances, it would have been an un-feasible luxury. -
Message 15
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
It is a myth to suppose that the US was short of atomic bombs. The original plan was to continue to target Japan with atomic weapons at regular intervals until the Japanese surrendered. This was why the Nagasaki bomb was dropped only 3 days after the Hiroshima one. It was only when Truman saw the reconnaissance photographs of Hiroshima, after Nagasaki had been bombed, and the devastation it had caused, that he ordered the atomic bombings to cease.
-
Message 16
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
Another problem with the idea of 'demonstrating' the nuclear bomb is that the US actually had very few of them. So what happens if, after 'demonstrating' it, the Japanese still refuse (remembering it took two actual bomb attacks) and the US actually have no working bombs left ?
Μύ
Good point. They did indeed only have two bombs to drop.
As for demonstrating the bomb: the Japanese army in Korea refused to believe/accept the surrender on 15th and it took another five days before they were finally convinced to give up fighting. -
Message 17
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
They did indeed only have two bombs to drop.Μύ
Really? Says who?
The reason it took longer for the Japanese forces to surrender in Korea and Manchuria was because they were engaged in fighting the Red Army at the time. -
Message 18
Posted by faaty (U14586814) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
Americans dropped those bomb to fear the Russians, because the cold war was already started.
It was also a necessary experiment. Because of those two bombs the world did not see any other nukes in anywhere. -
Message 19
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
I pretty sure there was more than just those 2, but not say, another 5 more. Maybe another 1, 2 at most. Reactor B at Hanford was working flat out for sure on plutonium production, but it was a hell of a job. I think though by end of 1945 the 509th might have had 4/5 ready to go....
Just working from memory from 2 of my books;
"The Making Of The Atomic Bomb" - Richard Rhodes (the definative story I think)
"Ruin From the Air" - by some other fella, which is mostly the story of the 509th. -
Message 20
Posted by rooster (U14062359) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
I believe that Japan would never have surrendered if the bombs hadn't been dropped. They were the most fanatical of people at that time, believing their emperor to be a living god and that the Japanese race were superior to all others.
However, the horrendous aftermath of these explosions, was to show the world that there could be no winner in any future nuclear confrontation. Diabolical as these weapons are, and despite the skirmishes here and there,they have kept the world away from all out WW3. -
Message 21
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
because the cold war was already started.Μύ
Not really. Relations between the US and the Soviets were probably closer at the time than they were between the US and Britain (whom the Americans rather mistrusted and simply saw as wishing to retain her imperial possessions). Moreover both western Allies were keen to involve the Soviet Union in the war against Japan to remove the Japanese armies in Manchuria and Korea, as I have stated above.
It is difficult to date the start of the Cold War as the relationship between the Soviets and the West gradually deteriorated over time. George F.Kennan's 'Long Telegram' from the US embassy in Moscow outlining Soviet ambitions was not despatched until February 1946 and Churchill delivered his 'Iron Curtain' speech in Fulton, Missouri a month later (to which there was an unfavourable reaction in the American press at the time).
One might place the tipping point at 24 June 1948 when the Soviets, in defiance of their wartime agreements, began their blockading of Berlin which lasted 11 months and necessitated an Allied airlift in response.
There is no evidence that the Soviets were in any way deterred by the dropping of the atomic bombs either at the time or later. Truman informed Stalin of the existence of the atomic bomb at Potsdam and remarked in his diary how unsurprised Stalin appeared at the news.
Obviously not, since not only was he already aware of the project but Stalin had his own spies supplying Soviet scientists with technical information at the time enabling them to produce their own version. -
Message 22
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
Sounds about right, SS. They were only limited by the amount of plutonium they could produce. However I'm pretty sure the Americans could have targeted more cities but Truman called a halt after seeing the photographs of Hiroshima on or around 10 August.
-
Message 23
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
They did indeed only have two bombs to drop.
Quoted from this message
Really? Says who?
Μύ
John Keegan in his book "The Second World War". They were working on more, ScepticalScotty's references would give better information on how soon these would have been available. -
Message 24
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
Well the Manhattan Project is a subject I have found endlessly fascinating since I was about 14. My interest stops with the development of thermonuclear weapons, as once a few refinements had occured all the interesting stuff was sort of over (the majority of it was over in 1953).
I do recall Allan and Cloudyj that in "Ruin From The Air" LeMay had tasked Tibbets with the job of systematically atom bombing the few remaining un-devastated Japanese cities through 1945-46 as the bombs came through. He thought this would bring victory at some point.... I can't recall if there were even any plans for large gun-type U235 weapons after Little Boy in the same design; maybe not as the 235 could feed the reactors at Hanford and the gun type was very very inneficient at converting mass to energy.
Aside from all that "stuff" although the bombs were horrible things, they allowed Hirohito to step outside convention and say that these things are beyond our knowledge, and that its "ok" to surrender in the face of such an unprecedented threat. He as not a stupid man after all, and he showed some backbone at the end there. -
Message 25
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
Pity he didn't show it in 1931, 1937 or 1941 when he might have saved countless more lives.
-
Message 26
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 18th August 2010
Allan D,
Pity he didn't show it in 1931, 1937 or 1941 when he might have saved countless more lives.Μύ
As much a pity as George VI not showing resolve at Munich in 1938. Such shows of resolve aren't the job of constitutional monarchs.
We now return you to our original scheduled thread topic, already in progress. -
Message 27
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Wednesday, 18th August 2010
Someone posted about George VI and our really democratic Royal family elsewhere-
"It is of course well documented that the royal family originally came from Germany and changed its name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor during the First World War. This is of course irrelevant, if we are going to have a royal family, I see nothing wrong in getting them from Germany. If talent does not matter, why should we bother about nationality.
The problem was not that the royal family was German in the 1930s but that several of its members were sympathetic towards Hitler. We all know about the activities of the Duke of Windsor (the former Edward VIII). One of the main reasons why he was forced to abdicate was his close relationship with Hitlerβs government. Even as late at 1970 the Duke of Windsor was saying that he βnever thought Hitler was such a bad chapβ. After all, he was anti-communist wasnβt he?
Recently released files (2003) show that the Nazis planned to reinstall Edward as king in order that he could become βdirector of Englandβs destiny after the warβ.
Edward was not the only member of the royal family who was sympathetic to Hitler. George VIβs diaries and letters written in the 1930s make a fascinating read. They show that George was not concerned with the atrocities being committed by Hitler and was doing everything he could to support Neville Chamberlainβs appeasement policy. In fact, his campaign was unconstitutional and was the last example in history of the monarchy trying to influence major political decisions in the UK.
George and Edward were not alone in these pro-German views. It was mainstream thought amongst the aristocracy. Recently released files on the Right Club shows a network of aristocrats and retired military officers willing to campaign for a negotiated peace with Germany in 1939 and 1940. Some of these characters were willing to provide Germany with official secrets.
The Right Club, a secret organization, was infiltrated by Joan Miller, the mistress of Maxwell Knight, the head of B5b, a unit of MI5 that conducted the monitoring of political subversion. Knight, the former Director of Intelligence of the British Fascisti (BF), was reluctant to take action against this group. However, someone tipped off Winston Churchill and when he became prime minister he insisted that members of the group should be arrested. Aristocrats like Lord Redesdale, Duke of Wellington, Duke of Westminster, Marquess of Graham, Lord Sempill, Earl of Galloway, etc. were allowed to go free. However, two members, Anna Wolkoff and Tyler Kent, were arrested and convicted for spying. Their main crime was that they had foreign backgrounds. Archibald Ramsay, the Tory MP, was also arrested and although guilty of spying for Germany, his case was covered up and was eventually released from prison in September 1944.
After the war the royal family did what it could to maintain the Nazi connection. Prince Michael married the daughter of Baron Gunther von Reibnitz, a Nazi Party member and an honorary member of the SS.
Elizabeth married Prince Philip. He came from a pro-fascist family. His brother-in-law, Prince Christoph of Hesse was a member of the SS. In fact, Elizabethβs marriage to Philip caused problems and the government refused permission for several of his relatives to enter Britain and attend the wedding. "Μύ -
Message 28
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Wednesday, 18th August 2010
It should be pointed out that Prince Phillip trained as a naval officer before WWII and served with distinction in the Royal Navy, seeing action at the Battle of Cape Matapan in March 1941 and being present in Tokyo Bay when Macarthur took the instrument of surrender from the Japanese authorities on 2 September 1945. 'Guilt by relative' is the hallmark of a totalitarian state.
George VI also trained at Dartmouth as a naval officer and served in WWI seeing action at the Battle of Jutland in May 1916. Unlike Hirohito he did not claim divine status and whilst he sympathised with Chamberlain's policy in his wish to avoid it is highly improbable that he could have dissuaded or overruled Chamberlain from his course had he taken a contrary view. Hirohito's position was quite different and to compare him with the British monarchy is to compare chalk and cheese. -
Message 29
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Wednesday, 18th August 2010
And even to add further to this, I have recently been re-reading my 4 volume collection of George Orwells non-fiction works (I'm off work with pneumonia) and he states that although Halifax and his ilk wanted some sort of accomodation with Hitler after the fall of France, he was of the opinion that Halifax, no less than Churchill would fight to the last drop of his own blood should german soldiers invate Britain....
-
Message 30
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Wednesday, 18th August 2010
Halifax fight the Germans at all?
To his last drop of blood? -
Message 31
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Wednesday, 18th August 2010
Yep - if they stepped foot on British, or more particularly English soil....
-
Message 32
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Wednesday, 18th August 2010
And the mostly pro-German royals and nobility would have wrapped themselves around such a cause- suddenly and without question? I doubt it.
As it was during the summer of 1940, everyone thought that the nazis WOULD invade, yet still they, and Halifax et al, were almost 'neutral', at best.
Your sources could well be 100% correct, and we'll never know, but it smacks of retrospective opinion. -
Message 33
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Wednesday, 18th August 2010
Retrospective??? It was George Orwells opinion in 1940! His "take" was that the whole huntin' shootin' and German lovin' aristocracy were happy to let the germans kill and do whatever they wanted to over on the Continent; that was "foreigners business" and as long as the left the UK alone they could do what they liked. Remember that Halifax and his ilk were NOT members of the BUF, and should not be confused with them.
I'll find the exact quote if you like.
-
Message 34
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Wednesday, 18th August 2010
20-20 Hindsight at work again?
Do not forget that people in the 1930s did not know what we now know about Hitler. A lot of people admired what he was doing for Germany - discipline, organization, jobs, etc, in the early days, before the more extreme elements became obvious. A lot of people in other countries (eg the USA) supported his anti-comunist stance. The fact that someone said some nice, or even fairly neutral, things about Hitler in the early 1930s does not necessarily make them a NAZI war criminal.
Remember - a lot of UK and US businessmen and others went to Iraq to sell guns to that nice Mr Hussain in the 1980s, before he became 'the Devil'. Some of the leaders we are 'fairly nice' about these days are no saints either - maybe one of them will be the next 'Devil Incarnate', and everyone who spoke well of him will be ripped to shreds by the tabloids in the future!
As for the upper classes 'not caring what Hitler did on the continent', I doubt if they were the only ones in Britain who felt that way! -
Message 35
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Wednesday, 18th August 2010
Scotty, I don't doubt your sources etc, just the position of our beloved elite.
giraffe- many, not all, members of the British aristocracy and ruling elite knew exactly of Hitler's explicit intentions from Mein Kampf, written in jail during the 20's, and so were either pro-German/nazi, or anti-semitic, and not merely innocent folks of happy times.
Many of that same upper crust and MP's were members of the Right Club.
-
Message 36
Posted by slippybee (U14590417) on Friday, 20th August 2010
In addition to the A-Bombs or invasion the Allies could have chosen to starve the Japanese into submission.
As I understand at the time of the bombing the Japanese Merchant fleet had been almost totally destroyed. This negated their ability to import food and, more importantly, meant that the rice crop, which was grown on the less populated of the home islands could not be transported to the main population centres (no bridges between the islands existed at that time).
The Japanese civilian population were already very near starvation. Many of them had fled the urban centres leading to a likely collapse in manufacturing had these conditions continued or worsened.
I assume that the US did not want a lengthy "siege" of this type as it would have allowed a potential advance into the Japanese mainland by the Russians and gave them a chance to flex their Atomic muscle in advance of the likely Cold War to follow.
Just my 2 bob's worth.
I wrote a lengthy and no douby very dull piece on here under another User name 4 or 5 years ago which included a little more detail - I'll hunt it down if anyone is remotely interested in more of my warble. -
Message 37
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 20th August 2010
Given the choice between slow starvation and instant incineration, whilst neither option was desirable, I know which I would deem preferable. Your option still doesn't solve the problems of the PoWs who were also starving to death and the Japanese armies on the Asian mainland who were living off the land.
-
Message 38
Posted by slippybee (U14590417) on Saturday, 21st August 2010
Hi Allan D,
apologies if my post confused. I wasn't advocating a starvation approach but stating it was an alternative to bombing or invading.
Ultimately I believe the dropping of the A-Bombs was the quickest and least costly in human life of the three alternatives available. -
Message 39
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 21st August 2010
Quite right, sb. The firebomb raids on Tokyo in February-March 1945 cost more lives than Hiroshima & Nagasaki put together. The ending of the war in Europe necessitated a swift end to the war in Japan. The US casualties incurred in taking Iwojima and Okinawa exceeded the Somme & Verdun in terms of proportionality. Whilst dropping the 2 atomic boms was a terrible thing to have to do having invented a nuclear weapon the US had no alternative but to use it.
-
Message 40
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Sunday, 22nd August 2010
The US indeed only had the two bombs at the time. Fortunately a captured American airman under torture being questioned about the bombs, with no knowledge of what they were asking about, told them that we had 100 of them and were going to drop one every 3 days until they surrendered. People will say anything under torture but this was most fortunate.
The Japanese War Minister reported this to the cabinet, when the Emperor told them that it was now necessary to consider the "unthinkable". He believed that information to be accurate but most tellingly, rejected surrender and advocated fighting on to extermination if need be. The Japanese were already faced with slow starvation and devastation of all of their ciities, yet surrender remained "unthinkable". They were preparing their civllian population to fight to the death as they had trained them to do in Okinawa, where they had sent school girls to their death into the American lines at night with blades and spears. Yet surrender remained "unthinkable".
The bombs were paradoxically a gift to the Japanese people, for they made surrender thinkable before they brought a holocaust onto themselves. Not only would a great many more had died in any alternative path to the end of the war, but little would have been left other than rubble, part would probably have been living under soviet slavery, and the part under American occupation would have fared little better probably being permitted only a primitive agricultural existence.
An Okinawa experience multiplied a thousand fold would have proportionately engendered ill feeling among Americans in like proportion. The nuclear flash marked a sharp emotional turn on both sides of the Pacific, expiating the war fever and hatred from both populations for all but those with the most personal stake, making possible what all must recognize as a remarkably successful peace. Not that anyone planned it that way. They were just taking the cheapest quickest path to peace. -
Message 41
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Sunday, 22nd August 2010
The US indeed only had the two bombs at the timeΜύ
Depends how you define 'time'
The U.S. expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a further three in October.On August 10, Major General Leslie Groves, military director of the Manhattan Project, sent a memorandum to General of the Army George Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, in which he wrote that
"the next bomb . . should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or August 18."
On the same day, Marshall endorsed the memo with the comment,
"It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President."
There was already discussion in the War Department about conserving the bombs in production until Operation Downfall, the projected invasion of Japan, had begun.
"The problem now [August 13] is whether or not, assuming the Japanese do not capitulate, to continue dropping them every time one is made and shipped out there or whether to hold them . . . and then pour them all on in a reasonably short time. Not all in one day, but over a short period. And that also takes into consideration the target that we are after. In other words, should we not concentrate on targets that will be of the greatest assistance to an invasion rather than industry, morale, psychology, and the like? Nearer the tactical use rather than other use."Μύ
Had Hirohito not overruled his War Council and surrendered Japan would have been, quite literally, wiped off the map by the end of autumn 1945. -
Message 42
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Monday, 23rd August 2010
Allan D "...Depends how you define 'time'..."
Well, no, it does not depend on that at all.
Your sources seem to agree that the US did not actually have possession of another bomb after the second one struck Japan. They MAY have built another one. Or they MAY have experienced their own unfortunate accident in putting it together. Perhaps the ship carrying it to the forward air base may have been sunk on the way. These are the un-knowns that the US leadeship had to live with.
At the time the bomb was dropped, then, the actual options would be :
1) Use them as they did.
2) Maintain a conventional attack.
3) Wait until some weeks, possibly months, later, at which point they would indeed have enough bombs to 'demonstrate' it on one or more un-populated places whilst still maintaining enough bombs to actually use them if Japan failed to get the message.
Of course, at the time President Truman could not know Japan would surrender, and we, with 20-20 hindsight, can still only speculate about other possibilities.
However, options 2 and 3 would, of necessity, allow Japan to fight on for a considerable time. Better the deaths be enemy ones, even civilian, than our young men.
The numbers of dead if options 2 or 3 were opted for would most likely outnumber the dead from destroying a couple of cities. -
Message 43
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Monday, 23rd August 2010
The fact is that as the links from the Wiki article show the military were treating the A-bombs as conventional weapons and simply a magnification of the firepower previously available enabling 1 plane to deliver a destructive force that would have previously required several fleets of aircraft. Despite the scientific work that had been done the radiation effects were not considered until the aftermath had to be dealt with.
As McCullough's biography and many other sources have shown it was only when Truman saw the reconnaissance photographs of Hiroshima, brought to him after the Nagasaki bomb had been dropped, that he realised that the new weapon was different in kind as well as degree and ordered a halt to the programme to give the Japanese time to consider surrender, hence Marshall's note in one of the documents that no further bombs could be dropped without Presidential authorisation.
6 days after Nagasaki and after the Japanese had received US assurances regarding the position of the Emperor Hirohito overrode his War Council and surrendered. It is clear, however, that had he not done so the atomic bombing of Japan would have resumed, presumably by the end of August. -
Message 44
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Monday, 23rd August 2010
Thats about right Allan - as far as I can recall from my reading LeMay thought he had control of the bombs, just as he had control of the conventional forces. There is a bit of evidence that there was to say the least "tension" between him and Tibbets as to who actually had control. They were both very strong personalities, but Tibbets without a doubt was the worlds expert on the Silverplate B29s and how to make the whole mission work. Probably the only person who could stand up to him legitimately was Deke Parsons. After Truman was fully appraised of the effects - HE took control.
Tim there is no need to transport the pu-238 pits by ship - they are after all quite compact and fit in a container the size of a bucket. The explosive lenses and casings, as well as the radar fusing could all go by air in C54s. -
Message 45
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 23rd August 2010
Re: Message 40.
Kurt,
as an aside and nothing to do with the thread, but while you are up here.
You remember our discussions about Social-Darwinism and Euthanasy. I will try to find the thread back. You said that it was nearly a taboo to start a discussion about it nowadays and you are right.
This afternoon I started in the local library to read a book from the Dutch historian Cor Hermans, which says it nearly all and in depth: I translate the title in English: "The wrong track of the Social-Darwinism".
I didn't find that much about the book in English, but nevertheless found this:
BTW: "Visualizing Utopia" seems also to be an interesting book.
Will seek if I have time to revive the thread from some years ago...
And I forgot: Do you remember the discussion about Darwin in the forum "The greatest Britain" (or was it Englishman?). It can have been on the old messageboard. Some rather "vitriolic" exchanges...as some contributor, who said to a female contributor: I know where you live I will find you..Those were the times...
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 46
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 31st August 2010
I think that the whole issue raises very worrying questions about whether a democratic country is actually capable of ending a major war by negotiation and diplomacy rather than by total victory and unconditional surrender..
The experience of the two World Wars has been that the level of war effort and commitment necessary to wage war on this scale is only possible by means of massive publicity and propaganda that demonises the enemy. Only then can "Joe Public" become reconciled to the "body bags" coming home, and the bloody deeds being carried out in their name.
It is true that the First World War ended with an Armistice and the Germans seem to have assumed that it would have been followed by principled negotiations betwen diplomats and politicians on the basis of Wilson's Fourteen Points. But the candidates standing in the British General Election were left in no doubt over the public mood that demanded that Germany should be treated as if it had been defeated,condemned as uniquely guilty of causing the war, and confronted with a dictated peace. In a situation when government policy is dictated by whoever can muster the support of the largest crowd, when the whole population has been whipped up into war hysteria and the justness of its Holy Crusade against evil, the whole prospect of civilized negotiations is likely to get thrown out of the window.
I suppose the Americans were forced to accept an "unsatisfactory" end to the War in Vietnam; but the problems, amounting it seems almost to a kind of national denial, experienced by Vietnam veterans seems to confirm rather more than contradict my initial suggestion.
As Churchill said "Democracy is the very worst form of government, apart from all the others."
Cass -
Message 47
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 31st August 2010
I think that the whole issue raises very worrying questions about whether a democratic country is actually capable of ending a major war by negotiation and diplomacy rather than by total victory and unconditional surrender.. Μύ
Does it? The USA would have accepted a much more equitable peace in 1919 and opinion in Britain was much more split in 1919. The Korean war was ended by negotiation, as was the French withdrawal and later American withdrawals from Vietnam. The British Empire negotiated independence across the world.
The experience of the two World Wars has been that the level of war effort and commitment necessary to wage war on this scale is only possible by means of massive publicity and propaganda that demonises the enemy.Μύ
The utter refusal of the Japanese to even contemplate negotiations has to be considered before condemning democracies.
The Soviets demonized the Germans even more than the allies despite having the totalitarian might to impose the war on its citizens. Yet the demonizing Allies failed to retaliate against German and Japanese citizens and ordinary soldiers. I'd certainly say that the US was better at demonizing regimes than populations.
I'd say the only conclusion is that all forms of government win if they think they can and negotiate when they don't. -
Message 48
Posted by caveman1944 (U11305692) on Wednesday, 1st September 2010
Go the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ's Peoples WAr. GO to World and select French Indo China and read the account of Mountbatten flying in to accept a surrender as the Jap had suffered a stroke.
Read what the writer said in respect of MOuntbatten's urging them not to believe what the papers were saying. Read the writer's concern that there had been nothing thereafter in the media .
THe use of them was disgraceful and served, in my opinion, a purpose which had nothing to do with the war.
So, you slaughter old men women and children to save the lives of fully trained and armed to the teeth men ?
John ( FEPOW )
JOhn -
Message 49
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 1st September 2010
Cloudyj
I am not sure that the USA public sense of involvement in the First World War is really comparable with that of say the UK or France. Anyway by 1919 the war was over-- and the question I was raising was how a war may end.. I am sure that my enduring childhood sense of grim responsibility for Hiroshima was not a purely personal one. Any killer may regret afterwards: that does not necessarily mean that they will not kill again.
The Korean War was not ended by negotiation, since as far as I am aware there is still just an armistice and an occupied front-line.. And in any case it was never a purely national war but a strange new kind of UN action that was owned by no nation.
I mentioned the US withdrawal from Vietnam before, which seems to have led to a kind of public denial which is very hard for "Nam" veterans, who made sacrifices and endured like heroes of other wars, to take.
And remembering my wife's France back in 1963 and 1965 under De Gaulle I am not sure that it really fullfiled my definition of democracy: and in fact what I still see of the State dependent mentality of the French still applies. In my English idea democracy is when the people exercise their sovereignty- not when they are constantly running to the State asking for others to sort out their lives for them.
As for the end of the British Empire again the point that I was making was democracy at war, not democracy 'per se'. Nevertheless in that story I believe that the precipitate and premature withdrawals of British power and authority from both the Indian sub-continent and Palestine reflected a failure of a duty of care within the British electorate who probably voted Churchill out of office partly because his electioneering seemed to suggest that he was not prepared to abandon Britain's responsibilities to people in far off lands of whom we (the British public) know nothing.
Your point about the Soviet demonisation of Gemany in fact illustrates my point, because in 1939 Stalin- as a totalitarian ruler- could carry out his complete about turn and suddenly for reasons of short-term expediency "do a deal" with Hitler though the Soviet regime had demonised the Nazis.
When you are in a crisis situation the immediate imperative is to get out of it, and a massive political machine is likely to miss such an opportunity to change direction so opportunistically.
As for retaliatory measures by the troops, usually any sensible commander will not encourage men in combat to underestimate their enemy; and I was referring to the pressure of public opinion at home. The feeling of being brothers in arms often crosses the conflict divide. An American journalist had to have it spelled out to him that the British had not photos of the sinking of the Bismarck because the sight of the death of a great ship and all its crew could give no pleasure to Englishmen.
But what we know is the story we have been told. Peter Ustinov tells in his autobiography how he was given a special job in early 1945 that consisted in watching all the film that came back from the front- to see what could be made public. He was thus perhaps the first person to see the film of the entry of the British into Belsen. He describes the impact of the silent film as a Sergeant Major stood his unit to attention and marched them through the gates in full order. He saw battle-hardened veterans who had fought across Europe fainting and collapsing. And then they saw a German guard sitting in a doorway. They broke discipline and rushed to beat him up.
What Ustinov saw in the German's eyes was gratitude. But Ustinov's father was a German diplomat in London so perhaps he was particularly well qualified to see the sense of human tragedy in the whole Nazi episode. However, I do not think that they have that piece of film in the Imperial War Museum permanent exhibition of the Belsen film.
Cass -
Message 50
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Wednesday, 1st September 2010
Well said Cass. At present I am reading some of my Orwell stuff from 1945 and he said something along the lines of "we all thirst for revenge when its not possible - but when it becomes possible its merely tawdry and disgusting". There is a part where SS officers are lined up and one is supposed to think they are horrible beasts, but one cannot have any other feeling than disgust...
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.