We Were Right to Drop the Bomb

[Open Bolt]

"the vibrant city of over a quarter of a million men, women and children was hardly “a military base.”

Hiroshima was a huge military center that was the headquarters in charge of repelling our coming invasion of Japan.

Nagasaki was an industrial center with large weapon factories.

Indeed, less than 10 percent of the individuals killed on Aug. 6, 1945, were Japanese military personnel."

At least 15% of the dead at Hiroshima were soldiers.

Hiroshima and the Myths of Military Targets and Unconditional Surrender

Every year, in early August, new articles appear that debate whether the dropping of the atomic bombs in 1945 was justified. Earlier this month, the 75th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, was no exception.

www.lawfareblog.com

That article is chock full of untrue claims. I advise not relying on it for anything.

 

[JoeB131]

There were many estimates of the casualties that the US would face in an invasion. Some estimates were low. Some estimates were quite high.

Invading Japan would have involved two subsequent "D-Day scale" amphibious invasions, first in southern Kyushu, and then on the Tokyo plain. It is reasonable to suppose that the invasions would have been a horrific bloodbath.

Works on the assumption that the Japanese would have continued to fight, when in fact they were desperately seeking peace terms.

The US military ordered half a million purple hearts in anticipation of the invasion of Japan. There were still leftover medals from this stockpile after the Korean and Vietnam wars. So it can safely be said that the US military was expecting that the invasion of Japan would be more horrific than the entire Korean War and the entire Vietnam War combined.

If you ever worked in military procurement, you'd know the military always orders far more of something than they will actually use.

That is incorrect. The reason why we dropped the atomic bombs was to make Japan surrender, something that Japan was steadfastly refusing to do at the time.

Except they were...

That is incorrect. Japan did not present us with any surrender offers until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

Also, when Japan did finally present that surrender offer to us, their condition was that Hirohito would retain unlimited dictatorial power. We flatly rejected that condition and told them that Hirohito would be subordinate to MacArthur.

Hirohito didn't have dictatorial power before, during the war or after, so that's just silly.

The fact was, Japan sought a surrender but also sought to keep Hirohito, because he was a RELIGIOUS figure in Shintoism, which most Japanese belonged to. Americans insisted on deposing him.

Then the Soviets got into the war, and America started to realize that Stalin wasn't particularly trustworthy, as he was already breaking most of his promises in Europe. Furthermore, the Soviets were making better progress in Manchuria and Korea than anyone thought they would.

The original partition plan would have given the USSR Half of Honshu and all of Hokkaido. Everyone realized what an awful idea that would be. So suddenly, the Americans became kind of cool with keeping Hirohito, who was probably a war criminal, on the throne.

That is incorrect. The Americans would have been delighted to talk peace.

The feelers to the Soviets went nowhere because Stalin stonewalled them.

The feelers to places other than the Soviets went nowhere because Japan stonewalled them, insisting on working only with the Soviets.

Actually, the Japanese also reached out through the Swiss.

The problem you and a lot of people have is you put too much emphasis on the bomb, which is understandable, we've been living in existential terror of nukes for 75 years now.

At the time, they were probably just seen as another weapon. we were doing far more damage to Japan with conventional weapons.

The hope Japan had was they would come out of the war keeping some of what they had gained, which is to hold on to Korea and Taiwan, and to keep the friendly regimes they had installed in Manchuria and China. Then when the Americans got tired and went home, they would be in a dominant position in Asia after the war.

All this became moot when the USSR entered the war and quickly rolled up their empire on the mainland.

Atomic bombs are perfectly defensible. Legitimate acts of war do not require excusing.

Our reason for using atomic bombs was to force Japan to surrender, which they were steadfastly refusing to do.

Except they were, and there was no reason to use them, other than we had them

There is no reason to think that the deaths from the invasion would not have exceeded 250,000. And many of those deaths would have been Americans.

Not that it matters. The true justification for using the atomic bombs was not an attempt to save lives. The true justification for the atomic bombs was the mere fact that Japan was still refusing to surrender.

Except again, why did they need to "surrender"? The concept of "unconditional surrender" dragged WWII out longer than it needed to go and gave us 40 years of Cold War. We devastated Germany and Japan and then had to invest billions rebuilding them to keep them as bulwarks against communism.

Our position remained the same when the Soviets entered the war against Japan.

Our main sticking point was Japan's continued refusal to surrender. We never insisted that the Emperor abdicate.

We insisted on "unconditional surrender". Hirohito keeping his job was a condition.

 

[Open Bolt]

Works on the assumption that the Japanese would have continued to fight,

True. Invasion casualty estimates work on the assumption that an invasion will happen.

when in fact they were desperately seeking peace terms.

Japan already had the peace terms. We provided them in the Potsdam Proclamation.

If you ever worked in military procurement, you'd know the military always orders far more of something than they will actually use.

They never overordered purple hearts at any other point in time.

One estimate said that conquering Japan would cost up to a million American dead and millions more maimed and wounded.

Except they were...

That is incorrect. Japan refused to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

Hirohito didn't have dictatorial power before, during the war or after, so that's just silly.

That is incorrect. That is where the dictatorial power of the Japanese Army came from. They exercised their power in the name of the Emperor.

The fact was, Japan sought a surrender but also sought to keep Hirohito, because he was a RELIGIOUS figure in Shintoism, which most Japanese belonged to.

What Japan asked for was that he retain unlimited dictatorial power.

Except they were, and there was no reason to use them, other than we had them

That is incorrect. Japan was not offering to surrender when the atomic bombs were used.

The fact that Japan had not yet surrendered was very much a reason to use atomic bombs.

Except again, why did they need to "surrender"?

Because we were going to reshape their society into something more to our liking.

The concept of "unconditional surrender" dragged WWII out longer than it needed to go and gave us 40 years of Cold War. We devastated Germany and Japan and then had to invest billions rebuilding them to keep them as bulwarks against communism.

We got the Cold War because Russia is an evil dictatorship.

We insisted on "unconditional surrender".

Not really. The Potsdam Proclamation (which was issued well before the atomic bombs were dropped) was a list of generous surrender terms.

Hirohito keeping his job was a condition.

The actual condition requested that Hirohito retain unlimited dictatorial power.

We refused and told them that Hirohito would be subordinate to MacArthur.

 

[Mushroom]

Works on the assumption that the Japanese would have continued to fight, when in fact they were desperately seeking peace terms.

They would continue to fight, that is obvious. And they were not seeking "peace terms", they were seeking an armistice. The two are not the same thing.

Except they were...

No, they were not.

Japan was trying to act like they were winning the war. They literally were trying to dictate a peace agreement that would have had most of the battle lines restored to 1941 levels. In other words, pretend the war had never happened, a hard reset.

But worse for the Allies! Allied powers would have to leave all Japanese soil they occupied, And land that Japan occupied would become demilitarized and under joint Japan-Allied control. That was absolute insanity, and they tried to get several countries to present those terms for them. Sweden, and the Swiss all refused to even consider it once they knew what Japan was proposing. Stalin ordered his Ambassador to stall the Japanese, but said that presenting those terms to the Allies would have been political suicide for him.

Hell, the Japanese Foreign Minister and Ambassador to the Soviet Union both told their own governments they were insane, and should get serious about trying to surrender before it was too late.

To make a comparison, that would be like Germany trying to dictate terms as the Red Army is battling inside Berlin. And yes, early Showa era Japan was when they were more than slightly crazy.

Hirohito didn't have dictatorial power before, during the war or after, so that's just silly.

The fact was, Japan sought a surrender but also sought to keep Hirohito, because he was a RELIGIOUS figure in Shintoism, which most Japanese belonged to. Americans insisted on deposing him.

He never did, that is not how the Japanese Emperors rule.

And no, they wanted an armistice as I described. And no, the Americans never insisted on deposing him. Holy hell, what was demanded was already in their hands by then, the Potsdam Declaration

We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.

That was the closing line of Potsdam. Nowhere did it even discuss the Emperor. It did not even demand the surrender of "Japan", only of the armed forces.

Actually, the Japanese also reached out through the Swiss.

Which I discussed. And the Swedish, and the Soviets. None of which would even present the terms that Japan wanted. Because they knew they would be rejected, and their standing among the Allied nations would fall.

They actually expected to retain their previously agreed occupation of China, demilitarize the Philippines, Singapore, Dutch Indonesia, and French Indochina. Yet all allied forces would immediately leave Okinawa, Saipan, and all Japanese territory they occupied. That there would be no war crime trials, and not one foreign soldier would set foot on Japan. The Swiss and everybody else knew that was insanity, and would never be accepted.

The hope Japan had was they would come out of the war keeping some of what they had gained, which is to hold on to Korea and Taiwan, and to keep the friendly regimes they had installed in Manchuria and China. Then when the Americans got tired and went home, they would be in a dominant position in Asia after the war.

All this became moot when the USSR entered the war and quickly rolled up their empire on the mainland.

They owned Korea and Taiwan long before the war even began. So that is nonsensical.

And you are basically trying to say exactly what I am. That they wanted to pretend they were winning, and could dictate the terms. That screams that they were not even close to "surrender". And all of the Allied Powers knew that and would have rejected outright any such offer even if Japan found somebody to present it for them.

Except they were, and there was no reason to use them, other than we had them

You just said basically that their idea of "surrender" was a lie, But yes, there was a reason, the Shockley Report.

If the study shows that the behavior of nations in all historical cases comparable to Japan's has in fact been invariably consistent with the behavior of the troops in battle, then it means that the Japanese dead and ineffectives at the time of the defeat will exceed the corresponding number for the Germans. In other words, we shall probably have to kill at least 5 to 10 million Japanese. This might cost us between 1.7 and 4 million casualties including 400,000 to 800,000 killed.

That report sent shockwaves through the upper levels of the US military and Government. Because it took into account the deaths at Saipan and Okinawa, Something previous estimates did not.

Hell, many Japanese did not surrender until the 1970s. Decades after the war ended.

Except again, why did they need to "surrender"? The concept of "unconditional surrender" dragged WWII out longer than it needed to go and gave us 40 years of Cold War. We devastated Germany and Japan and then had to invest billions rebuilding them to keep them as bulwarks against communism.

We insisted on "unconditional surrender". Hirohito keeping his job was a condition.

Because both sides learned the mistake of WWI. That not insisting on a change in the country itself only ensures as you yourself said that they would return even more determined in the future. Funny, you yourself commented on that, you forget already? You do not think that the Allied Powers already knew that?

And no, the demand was never "unconditional surrender". Read the Potsdam Declaration, they made their demands quite clear.

Potsdam Declaration | Birth of the Constitution of Japan

The Japanese Government not only ignored Potsdam (as do you apparently), they said it was outright ignoring it because it was not worth even talking about. But at any time they could have reached out to the Allied Powers directly or through an intermediary to request a clarification.

They were not yet willing to surrender. The fact that even after the first bomb was dropped only a single member of the War Cabinet stated that he was willing to see Japan surrender screams that.

 

[JoeB131]

Japan already had the peace terms. We provided them in the Potsdam Proclamation.

Which they found unacceptable, and they were right. Which is why we had to give in on the Emperor issue.

They never overordered purple hearts at any other point in time.

That's not true. I can tell you they did for the Gulf war when I was in.

 

[Open Bolt]

Which they found unacceptable,

That lack of acceptance got them nuked twice.

and they were right.

Not really. They would have been better off surrendering before they were nuked.

Which is why we had to give in on the Emperor issue.

We didn't give in on the Emperor issue. Japan surrendered without Hirohito retaining unlimited dictatorial power.

That's not true. I can tell you they did for the Gulf war when I was in.

How did they overorder?

 

[JoeB131]

That lack of acceptance got them nuked twice.

Do you go around telling rape victims that they had it coming for wearing a short dress?

 

[Open Bolt]

Do you go around telling rape victims that they had it coming for wearing a short dress?

Japan was the rapist in this example.

Yes, if a rapist gets shot in self defense, I tell them that they had it coming.

 

[JoeB131]

Japan was the rapist in this example.

Yes, if a rapist gets shot in self defense, I tell them that they had it coming.

The innocent women and Children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the "rapists" in this scenario.

So why do you hate Asian people?

 

[Mushroom]

Which they found unacceptable, and they were right. Which is why we had to give in on the Emperor issue.

Which was the loop they found themselves in. But it was of their own making.

Nowhere in Potsdam did it demand the surrender of the Government of Japan, nor the Emperor. It only stated that the armed forces must surrender. And they rejected it because in their minds, it was impossible for them to lose. That was why on every single War Council meeting prior to the bombing of Hiroshima it was unanimously decided to continue fighting.

But Potsdam never demanded that the Government surrender, or the Emperor step down. And if Japan had been serious about surrendering, then at any time after 26 July 1945 they could have simply requested a clarification through back channels. Instead, the Prime Minister outright rejected it, and announced publicly it was being ignored. Those are not the actions of a nation on the verge of surrender.

 

[Mushroom]

The innocent women and Children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the "rapists" in this scenario.

How about the 300,000 slaughtered by the Japanese in the Rape of Nanking? But even that is a drop in the bucket in the over 10 million Chinese civilians killed in that war.

What about Unit 731? Who primarily used Chinese civilians as experiments not only on biological and chemical warfare experiments, but also for things such as exposure, dehydration, and battlefield injuries. Over 10,000 died during those experiments.

Tell us, who was the "Rapist" in China? You want to weigh this on some kind of scale? Well, then the over 10 million innocent women and children of China far outweigh those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Which were clear military targets. Where as in China they were just trying to create mass terror. Even gleefully reporting in Japanese newspapers a contest created by two IJA officers. To see who would be the first to behead 100 people with a sword.

This contest was reported on in the sports pages of Japanese newspapers, like it was a pennant race in baseball. This is even more clear when it was announced they went into "extra innings" as both soldiers passed 100 at around the same time and the contest would continue.

But I can see your attempt to play this as a racist thing. Sorry, that is a fail. Try learning real history instead of pushing sad old propaganda. In fact, it is rather funny in the wake of what was known as the "Rape of Nanking", and the many atrocities Japan did in the countries they conquered. Like Korea, the Philippines, Manchuria, and more. They might have been even seen as liberators by some, but they were so brutal that even those that might have supported them turned their backs on them.

You talk about rape? Tell us about the Comfort Women. The roughly 200,000 women captured by the Japanese and literally turned into free prostitutes for their soldiers to use. What about the actual systemic Rape by Japanese soldiers?

 

[JoeB131]

Okay, we realize you are slow, but what did the women and children of Hiroshima have to do with any of these.

How about the 300,000 slaughtered by the Japanese in the Rape of Nanking? But even that is a drop in the bucket in the over 10 million Chinese civilians killed in that war.

And the women and children of Hiroshima had nothing to do with that.

What about Unit 731? Who primarily used Chinese civilians as experiments not only on biological and chemical warfare experiments, but also for things such as exposure, dehydration, and battlefield injuries. Over 10,000 died during those experiments.

Unit 731 wasn't in Hiroshima, and the women and children of that city had nothing to do with that.

Tell us, who was the "Rapist" in China? You want to weigh this on some kind of scale? Well, then the over 10 million innocent women and children of China far outweigh those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Which were clear military targets. Where as in China they were just trying to create mass terror. Even gleefully reporting in Japanese newspapers a contest created by two IJA officers. To see who would be the first to behead 100 people with a sword.

Again- women and children of Hiroshima had nothing to do with that. And the world didn't declare war on Japan when it did that, that was the thing. the US and UK were fine with Japan doing that to China. They only got upset when the Japanese started coveting their colonial holdings in Southeast Asia.

But I can see your attempt to play this as a racist thing. Sorry, that is a fail. Try learning real history instead of pushing sad old propaganda. In fact, it is rather funny in the wake of what was known as the "Rape of Nanking", and the many atrocities Japan did in the countries they conquered. Like Korea, the Philippines, Manchuria, and more. They might have been even seen as liberators by some, but they were so brutal that even those that might have supported them turned their backs on them.

Actually, a lot of those countries DID see the Japanese as liberators at the time. For instance, the Japanese founded the Second Philippine Republic and a lot of Filipinos embraced it. Many of the politicians who served in that government went on to have careers in the Third Philippine Republic after the war.

For those playing along at home, the First Philippine Republic was established in 1899 after the US defeated Spain, and was quickly crushed by American forces. In the resulting Philippine War, Americans killed up to 200,000 Filipinos.

The end result of the Japanese liberation was when the British, Dutch and French tried to reestablish their "empires", the Malaysian, Indonesians and Vietnamese were having none of it.

You talk about rape? Tell us about the Comfort Women. The roughly 200,000 women captured by the Japanese and literally turned into free prostitutes for their soldiers to use. What about the actual systemic Rape by Japanese soldiers?

 

[Open Bolt]

The innocent women and Children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the "rapists" in this scenario.

They were stand-ins for the rapists though. They answered for the crimes that the rapists committed.

So why do you hate Asian people?

Don't be silly. I don't hate Asians.

WWII Japan was the biggest scourge against Asian people in the 20th century.

And the world didn't declare war on Japan when it did that, that was the thing. the US and UK were fine with Japan doing that to China. They only got upset when the Japanese started coveting their colonial holdings in Southeast Asia.

I recall hearing that we embargoed Japan when they started committing horrific crimes against their Asian neighbors.

 

[JoeB131]

I recall hearing that we embargoed Japan when they started committing horrific crimes against their Asian neighbors.

Oooooh, an "Embargo". Let's ask Putin how bad that is.

 

[Open Bolt]

Oooooh, an "Embargo". Let's ask Putin how bad that is.

It prevented our goods from being used to perpetrate the genocide that Japan was committing.

 

[JoeB131]

It prevented our goods from being used to perpetrate the genocide that Japan was committing.

Um, okay. Point was, we didn't go to war with Japan over it... because we didn't consider it a big deal.

Instead, we put on an embargo, which just drove them to attack us so we wouldn't interfere when they went to Southeast Asia for those resources.

 

[Mack Brazile]

Good job Bomb Wing from Roswell! Fuck Japan

 

[Mushroom]

Instead, we put on an embargo, which just drove them to attack us so we wouldn't interfere when they went to Southeast Asia for those resources.

No, it did not cause them to attack us. They were already planning on attacking even before the first embargo was announced.

The "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" was a concept they developed in the early 1930s, and they envisioned their Empire expanding to cover all of the Western Pacific, from the Arctic to Australia. From Midway all the way across Asia to the border of China.

Basically everything within 4,000 kilometers of Japan was theirs. Including the Dutch East Indies, British Singapore, the Philippines, and everywhere else. But what they needed at the time was the Southern islands, for oil and rubber.

But it is stupid to think it is because of the embargos, as on the same day they declared war against the UK. And had already declared war on the Dutch and French.

No, what really caused the war is that they needed to eliminate the US garrison and presence on the Philippines. That was a key choke point for any forces and supplies to and from modern Indonesia and other islands in that area. If the US did not enter the war when they attacked UK territory but instead joined later in mid-1942, they could have cut the Empire in half from the Philippines. But they had been planning on that since early 1941. Long before the steel or oil embargos were even considered, let alone enacted.

The oil embargo was in August 1941. Do you really think that Japan was able to plan, train for, modify equipment for, then execute three simultaneous attacks in 4 months? And why attack the UK, if it was just about oil and steel?

No, that is yet another stupid belief that a lot of people seem to have, but looking into the facts shows that it makes no sense at all. They were simply trying to grab once and for all their GEACPS. And could not leave the US where it was. The oil and steel embargos were just an excuse.