(no title)
didroe | 4 years ago
> “the vast destruction wreaked by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the loss of 135,000 people made little impact on the Japanese military.”
- Plaque hanging in the National Museum of the US Navy
> In its one paragraph, it makes clear that Truman’s political advisers overruled the military in determining how the end of the war with Japan would be approached.
> "the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan"
- Truman's chief of staff
> “the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.”
- Commanding general of the US Army Air Forces
> “[Byrnes] was concerned about Russia’s postwar behavior…[and thought] that Russia might be more manageable if impressed by American military might, and that a demonstration of the bomb might impress Russia.”
- Manhattan Project scientist Leo Szilard, talking about Secretary of State James Byrnes
It doesn't seem like dropping the bombs served any military purpose.
nickik|4 years ago
The military capability being broken was not the goal, and it also not what decided the war.
> made little impact on the Japanese military
That would matter if the goal of the bomb or impact had been about 'material' but it wasn't, and its not how the war was decided.
> the Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell, because the Japanese had lost control of their own air
Again, that doesn't matter. Their position was hopeless literally the second they started the war. They literally started the war knowing they couldn't win.
The bomb was not there for military impact as militarily japan had already been beaten along every possible measure of such things. Japan was surrounded, had no food import its navy and air force were done.
> It doesn't seem like dropping the bombs served any military purpose.
The military purpose was ending the war. And in fact it did exactly that. You can actually go read about the highest level of Japan decision making. This is well researched now. Not a single member of the high highest decision council was for ending the war or even negotiation. Literally nobody. Despite starvation, fire bombings and military defeat.
After first bomb fell the they were starting to have meeting where they discussed the situation and the waste majority of them still were absolutely against ending the war.
After the second bomb the mood shifted, multiple members changed there position and with support from the emperor managed to overrule the still considerable opposition to peace from many of the military leaders.
The idea that this would have been possible without the bomb is simply not historical. Some people claim the Soviet invasion was the deciding factor, but just like losing territory to the East and South, losing territory in the West would not have changed them.
Here are the alternative options:
- Surround Japan for extended period of time
- Full invasion of Japan
The first option would have been essentially a 10+ year genocide of much of Japans population and transforming it back into an agricultural society. The government would simply not have given up, they knew about the starvation that would happen in Japan and they were perfectly willing to endure that.
The second would have cost the US 10s to 100s of men, and the Japanese likely 10x as much.
There were 1000s of civilians suicides even in some of the outer islands, and 10-100s of soldiers who essentially committed suicide by attack. What do you think would happen when a US army went from village to village, city by city threw Japan following a retreating Japanese army and government north right across all of Japan.
The Japanese army was willing to turn every city int Stalingrad. Endless bonsi charges where US soldiers would have to basically mass execute 1000s of Japanese soldiers who had run out of ammo.
So what would your solution have been?