End of the War in the Pacific

[Chris Allen]

I saw a program recently about the final week or so of hostilities in
the Pacific. The main theme was why the atomic bomb was used.

The program notes the plan to invade main islands of Japan by
coventiaonl warfare would have created enormous allied causalties.
It then alleges Truman used the bombs to save AMERICAN lives and did not
care how many Japanese would suffer in these attacks.
I've heard this "argument" a few times in other venues.

No one ever asks how many Japunes might have died if coventional
amphibious invasions had proceeded.

I understand that 2 months earlier, in Okinawa, Japanises casualties
totalled about the same as both atomic bombs combined. This was just
for a SMALL island. On the main "home" islnads, casualties would be
much greater.

Two invasions were planned, in the south in Nov 45, then near Tokyo
early in 46, the only places in Japan where topography permited any
landings. Had these gone ahead, I suspect Japan would have lost 5 to 10
MILLION people.

If so, the ataomic bomns saved MORE Japanese than allies.
Am I right?

[Don Phillipson]

I saw a program recently about the final week or so of hostilities in the
Pacific. The main theme was why the atomic bomb was used.
The program notes the plan to invade main islands of Japan by coventiaonl
warfare would have created enormous allied causalties.
It then alleges Truman used the bombs to save AMERICAN lives and did not
care how many Japanese would suffer in these attacks.
I've heard this "argument" a few times in other venues.
No one ever asks how many Japunes might have died if coventional
amphibious invasions had proceeded.

Forecast casualties would be 100 per cent, according to the plans
of War Minister Anami, who in July 1945 started drilling the civilian
population, armed with bamboo spears, so that the whole nation
could die gloriously in combat, including women and children.

I understand that 2 months earlier, in Okinawa, Japanises casualties
totalled about the same as both atomic bombs combined. This was just for
a SMALL island. On the main "home" islnads, casualties would be much
greater.

Okinawa casualies also included the suicide of many of the
resident civilians, encouraged by the Japanese army (which preferred
death to surrender.)

Two invasions were planned, in the south in Nov 45, then near Tokyo early
in 46, the only places in Japan where topography permited any landings.
Had these gone ahead, I suspect Japan would have lost 5 to 10 MILLION
people.
If so, the ataomic bomns saved MORE Japanese than allies.
Am I right?

This is the conclusion of most historians. The formal surrender
of Japan also stopped the Japanese army killing local (civilian)
populations in China, Malaya, Thailand, and the East Indies.

[Michele]

Post by Don Phillipson
This is the conclusion of most historians. The formal surrender
of Japan also stopped the Japanese army killing local (civilian)
populations in China, Malaya, Thailand, and the East Indies.

As well as Westerners in those areas, both POWs and civilian internees.
The Japanese had contingency plan especially with regard to the POWs.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by Chris Allen
I understand that 2 months earlier, in Okinawa, Japanises casualties
totalled about the same as both atomic bombs combined. This was just for
a SMALL island. On the main "home" islnads, casualties would be much
greater.

Okinawa casualies also included the suicide of many of the
resident civilians, encouraged by the Japanese army (which preferred
death to surrender.)

If by "encouraged", you mean "on occasion, carried out by", that would
be more correct. The IJA in some cases grenaded or shot civilians, one of
the reasons the Tokyo government is resented so deeply in Okinawa today.

Mike

[GFH]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by Chris Allen
I understand that 2 months earlier, in Okinawa, Japanises casualties
totalled about the same as both atomic bombs combined. This was just for
a SMALL island. On the main "home" islnads, casualties would be much
greater.

Okinawa casualies also included the suicide of many of the
resident civilians, encouraged by the Japanese army (which preferred
death to surrender.)

If by "encouraged", you mean "on occasion, carried out by", that would
be more correct. The IJA in some cases grenaded or shot civilians, one of
the reasons the Tokyo government is resented so deeply in Okinawa today.

The Japanese had a "man man" strategy. Man = 10,000,
so "man man" = 100,000,000. Their way of saying that
everyone was to die killing the invaders.

And, do not forget the USSR-Japanese war. It did
not end until September 2nd. During this short (3
weeks) war the Soviets captured more than 600,000
IJA soldiers. These PoWs were held for about 10
years.

GFH

[Rich Rostrom]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[Scott M. Kozel]

Post by Rich Rostrom
Besides this, much of the fighting would take place
in heavily populated areas of Japan. Great numbers
of civilians would be killed by stray bullets and
shells. One of the ways American troops had learned
to minimize casualties against Japanese forces was
to use _lots_ of ammunition. Any area American forces
were going to enter would be intensively bombed and
shelled before hand, and American troops advancing
would shell and strafe any position that might
shelter Japanese troops.

Plus lots of napalm bombs dropped from aircraft,
that was starting to come into regular use.

[Dave Smith]

Post by Rich Rostrom
Any area American forces

Post by Rich Rostrom
were going to enter would be intensively bombed and
shelled before hand, and American troops advancing
would shell and strafe any position that might
shelter Japanese troops.

Plus lots of napalm bombs dropped from aircraft,
that was starting to come into regular use.

They had certainly been using a lot of it, conducting a campaign of fire
bombing Japanese cities. Sixty seven cities had been firebombed. Among
the reasons for Hiroshima and Nagasaki being targeted for nuclear
strikes is that they were among the few Japanese cities that had not
been devastated by fire bombs.

[Don Phillipson]

. . . a campaign of fire bombing Japanese cities. Sixty seven cities had
been firebombed. Among the reasons for Hiroshima and Nagasaki being
targeted for nuclear strikes is that they were among the few Japanese
cities that had not been devastated by fire bombs.

It was the other way round: in case atomic bombs were
to be used, five target cities were reserved from LeMay's
general target list (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Kokura, Yokohama
and Niigata.) Kyoto was originally on the list, but generally
excluded because of its cultural importance.

[Paul F Austin]

Post by Chris Allen
I saw a program recently about the final week or so of hostilities in
the Pacific. The main theme was why the atomic bomb was used.
The program notes the plan to invade main islands of Japan by
coventiaonl warfare would have created enormous allied causalties.
It then alleges Truman used the bombs to save AMERICAN lives and did not
care how many Japanese would suffer in these attacks.
I've heard this "argument" a few times in other venues.
No one ever asks how many Japunes might have died if coventional
amphibious invasions had proceeded.
I understand that 2 months earlier, in Okinawa, Japanises casualties
totalled about the same as both atomic bombs combined. This was just
for a SMALL island. On the main "home" islnads, casualties would be
much greater.
Two invasions were planned, in the south in Nov 45, then near Tokyo
early in 46, the only places in Japan where topography permited any
landings. Had these gone ahead, I suspect Japan would have lost 5 to 10
MILLION people.
If so, the ataomic bomns saved MORE Japanese than allies.
Am I right?

You're right but Truman undoubtedly made his decision based mostly or
entirely on US interests, the reduction in casualties that would come
from early termination of the War..

Paul

[a425couple]

Post by Chris Allen
I saw a program recently about the final week or so of hostilities in
the Pacific. The main theme was why the atomic bomb was used.

Yes, it is a very interesting (and emotional) topic that
regularly comes up in discussion.

I strongly suggest you get and read Richard Franks "Downfall".
Or even Max Hastings "Retribution".
Both are very interesting, and very informative reads.

Post by Chris Allen
If so, the ataomic bomns saved MORE Japanese than allies.
Am I right?

Probably.
But the math gets complicated by the fact that
every month the war continued, about 200,000 more
allied citizens (mostly Chinese) died under Japan's rule.

Also, if events had not turned out the way they did,
it is very difficult to predict how far the USSR would
have pushed & captured Japanese (mostly civilians).
As it was, they captured 2.7 million Japanese nationals,
At least 347,000 died or went permenently missing.

[john szalay]

Post by a425couple

Post by Chris Allen
I saw a program recently about the final week or so of hostilities in
the Pacific. The main theme was why the atomic bomb was used.

Yes, it is a very interesting (and emotional) topic that
regularly comes up in discussion.
I strongly suggest you get and read Richard Franks "Downfall".
Or even Max Hastings "Retribution".
Both are very interesting, and very informative reads.

Post by Chris Allen
If so, the ataomic bomns saved MORE Japanese than allies.
Am I right?

Probably.
But the math gets complicated by the fact that
every month the war continued, about 200,000 more
allied citizens (mostly Chinese) died under Japan's rule.
Also, if events had not turned out the way they did,
it is very difficult to predict how far the USSR would
have pushed & captured Japanese (mostly civilians).
As it was, they captured 2.7 million Japanese nationals,
At least 347,000 died or went permenently missing.

Documents:


http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/ind
ex.php

[p***@gmail.com]

Post by Chris Allen
It then alleges Truman used the bombs to save AMERICAN lives and did not
care how many Japanese would suffer in these attacks.
I've heard this "argument" a few times in other venues.

I don't know why this would be "alleged". Truman was not president of Japan,
after all. His prime motivation in all things would, and should, have been
how it would affect American lives. If it became public knowledge that ANY
American President had the bomb and did not use it for fear of killing
Japanese civilians, but went ahead with the invasion of Japan, he would have
rightly been disgraced and impeached from office.

[Georg Schwarz]

Post by Chris Allen
If so, the ataomic bomns saved MORE Japanese than allies.
Am I right?

given your scenario of an all out invasion of Kyushu and Honshu would
have come true, then yes.

The interesting question, whose answer will remain subject to historical
speculation forever, is however whether Japan would not have surrendered
before that anyhow, e.g. due to the SU entering into the war and
attacking Hokkaido and positions in mainland Asia (Manchuria, Korea,
China) as they did (or in case of Hokkaido were about to do so)
historically.
It is clear that under such a scenario the geopolitical outcome in
Eastern Asia for the US vis-a-vis the SU would have been much worse than
it was historically (with Japan, not Korea, ending up in two zones of
occupation and the SU most likely grabbing more of northern Japan than
just the Northern Islands, as they did historically).

[Les]

On Monday, May 11, 2015 at 5:06:17 PM UTC-3, Georg Schwarz wrote:

(stuff deleted)

Post by Georg Schwarz
The interesting question, whose answer will remain subject to historical
speculation forever, is however whether Japan would not have surrendered
before that anyhow, e.g. due to the SU entering into the war and
attacking Hokkaido and positions in mainland Asia (Manchuria, Korea,
China) as they did (or in case of Hokkaido were about to do so)
historically.

(rest of post deleted)

Japan's Hawks claimed the entry of the USSR would prompt the US to
grant more concessions to Japan rather than risk the Soviets gaining
more territory and influence. They seemed to view the Potsdam
Declaration as a weakening of US resolve to carry on the war.

Also, after the bombing of Hiroshima, and Soviet invasion, and the
bombing of Nagasaki (announced some time after the Hawks claimed it
was unlikely the US could build more than one such bomb), when the
leaders voted on surrendering, they were still deadlocked on the
issue. It was only Emperor Hirohito's recommendation that swayed
the balance.

BTW, the meeting to reconsider the Potsdam Declaration (with the unusual presence of the Emperor) came about because of Hiroshima.

So, if we granted the US with psychic powers, we could have them *not*
bomb Nagasaki. The meeting would still take place, the vote would still
get deadlocked, and the Emperor would still break the deadlock and have
Japan surrender. Probably. IIRC, Mike Fester proposed a second
demonstration bombing of a visible yet uninhabited landmark (outside of
a harbor?) *after* Hiroshima as a means of driving home the point that
the US had more bombs to use.

[William Clodius]

Post by Les
(stuff deleted)

Post by Georg Schwarz
The interesting question, whose answer will remain subject to historical
speculation forever, is however whether Japan would not have surrendered
before that anyhow, e.g. due to the SU entering into the war and
attacking Hokkaido and positions in mainland Asia (Manchuria, Korea,
China) as they did (or in case of Hokkaido were about to do so)
historically.

(rest of post deleted)
Japan's Hawks claimed the entry of the USSR would prompt the US to
grant more concessions to Japan rather than risk the Soviets gaining
more territory and influence. They seemed to view the Potsdam
Declaration as a weakening of US resolve to carry on the war.

To this outsider the Hawks' attitude towards the Soviet Union shows a
remarkable lack of consistency and blindness to the obvious. The
"Dove"'s attitude is hard to determine as most of them were very
circumspect in the public discussions prior to surrendur, for obvious
reasons.

The Hawks interpretted the lack of signing of the Potsdam declaratin by
the Soviets as an indication that the Soviets disagreed with it, while
the US and Britain didn't want the Soviets as a signatory while it was
not at war with Japan. They assumed that the Soviet's wouldn't declare
war on Japan until April 1946, expecting them to follow the strict terms
of the renounced Neutrality Pact, although the Hawks had caused Japan to
break earlier agreements without advance notice, and the Soviets were
obviously massing troops on the border that could only be in preparatin
for an attack on Manchuria. They pursued negotiations with the Soviets
although their ambassador in Moscow told them that such negotiations
would be useless. Their attempts to bypass their ambassador by using an
unofficial intermediator to contact the Soviet ambassador to Japan, was
as pointlessly complicated as some of their "Final" battle plans, and
was getting a pointed cold shoulder. Their priorities in "discussions"
with the Soviets were not what I consider realistic: first restore the
Neutrality Pact that the Soviets had pointedly cancelled as not in their
interests; second, have the Soviets end the war and leave Japan a
significant power, in effect asking the Soviets to confront the US in
support of an unfiendly nation; third, try to get Soviet oil for fishing
rights, supporting Japan's war effort while antagonizing the west for
little gain, fourth, talk about any other mutual issues; and, finally,
accept a visit by Prince Konoe for reasons to be determind.

Post by Les
Also, after the bombing of Hiroshima, and Soviet invasion, and the
bombing of Nagasaki (announced some time after the Hawks claimed it
was unlikely the US could build more than one such bomb), when the
leaders voted on surrendering, they were still deadlocked on the
issue. It was only Emperor Hirohito's recommendation that swayed
the balance.

Even then General Anami resitsed accepting Hirohito's wishes until he
realized that he no longer had support from the other two hardliners. It
is often forgotten that Japan's leaders had an ancient tradition of
honoring the emperor's wishes, only as long as it was convenient.

Post by Les
BTW, the meeting to reconsider the Potsdam Declaration (with the unusual
presence of the Emperor) came about because of Hiroshima.
So, if we granted the US with psychic powers, we could have them *not*
bomb Nagasaki. The meeting would still take place, the vote would still
get deadlocked, and the Emperor would still break the deadlock and have
Japan surrender. Probably. IIRC, Mike Fester proposed a second
demonstration bombing of a visible yet uninhabited landmark (outside of
a harbor?) *after* Hiroshima as a means of driving home the point that
the US had more bombs to use.

The US need not have had psychic powers. It is sometimes forgotten that
Truman was surprised at the bombing of Nagasaki. The original plans had
been, absent a change in orders due to say an useful response from
Japan, to bomb the first target on the first reasonable date after
August 3, and bomb the second target seven days later. Because of bad
weather the bombing of Hiroshima was delayed. Truman then expected the
seven days delay to be relative to the bombing, while the commander in
the field interpreted it as relative to August 3. An enquiry for
clarification might have resulted in a delay.

[a425couple]

Post by Les
BTW, the meeting to reconsider the Potsdam Declaration (with the unusual

- presence of the Emperor) came about because of Hiroshima.

Post by Les
So, if we granted the US with psychic powers, we could have them *not*
bomb Nagasaki. The meeting would still take place, the vote would still
get deadlocked, and the Emperor would still break the deadlock and have
Japan surrender.

NO.
There is no foundation to believe that the Emperor would
have taken the unprecidented step of intervening in
the cabinent IF Nagasaki had not been hit with a A-bomb.

Please read Richard Frank's "Downfall" page 290.
The meeting was going quite 'bullish' on continuing the
war "Then the news arrived of the atomic-bomb blast over
Nagasaki".

[Les]

On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 2:40:15 PM UTC-3, a425couple wrote:

(stuff deleted)

Post by a425couple
There is no foundation to believe that the Emperor would
have taken the unprecidented step of intervening in
the cabinent IF Nagasaki had not been hit with a A-bomb.

It is historical fact that the Emperor was already at the
meeting *before* the leadership knew Nagasaki was hit, as a
direct consequence of Hiroshima.

Post by a425couple
Please read Richard Frank's "Downfall" page 290.
The meeting was going quite 'bullish' on continuing the
war "Then the news arrived of the atomic-bomb blast over
Nagasaki".

...and then when they held the vote, it was still tied at
3 - 3, with no change in the vote from the time they had
before either atomic bomb. At that point, Prime Minister
Suzuki asked the Emperor for his advice on how to break
the stalemate. It was the Emperor's advice that prompted
Japan to accept the Potsdam Declaration.

The Emperor was there because of Hiroshima, not Nagasaki,
and one of the reasons the Prime Minister (a member of
the Dove faction) asked him to attend was because he
already knew what Hirohito's recommendation would be.

Consequently, since it was the Emperor that finally broke
the deadlock, and his mind was already made up to surrender,
a sufficiently psychic US leadership could have cancelled
the Nagasaki bombing and start the occupation with one more
relatively intact city.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Les
The Emperor was there because of Hiroshima, not Nagasaki,
and one of the reasons the Prime Minister (a member of
the Dove faction) asked him to attend was because he
already knew what Hirohito's recommendation would be.
Consequently, since it was the Emperor that finally broke
the deadlock, and his mind was already made up to surrender,
a sufficiently psychic US leadership could have cancelled
the Nagasaki bombing and start the occupation with one more
relatively intact city.

Well, the conventional bombing campaign continued and whose to say
Nagasaki,Niigata (which IIRC was the alternate Fat Boy spot) or some
other city wouldn't have been devastated as thoroughly as was Tokyo

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Les
Consequently, since it was the Emperor that finally broke
the deadlock, and his mind was already made up to surrender,
a sufficiently psychic US leadership could have cancelled
the Nagasaki bombing and start the occupation with one more
relatively intact city.

Exactly; while the Nagasaki bomb was likely not necessary, US leadership
had absolutely no way of knowing this.

Mike

[Jim H.]

Does anybody know how accurate a picture Truman had of
the bomb's power at the time he made the decision to drop
the 1st bomb?

Jim H.

[john szalay]

Post by Jim H.
Does anybody know how accurate a picture Truman had of
the bomb's power at the time he made the decision to drop
the 1st bomb?
Jim H.

He probably was briefed earlier, but there was no doubt after
July

"He was advised in a copy of the draft announcement in July,
the the bomb had the power of "more then 20,000 tons of TNT
It has more than two thousand times the blast power of the British "Grand
Slam", which is the largest bomb ever yet used in the history of warfare."

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/docum
ents/pdfs/55.pdf#zoom=100

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Jim H.
Does anybody know how accurate a picture Truman had of
the bomb's power at the time he made the decision to drop
the 1st bomb?

He had a good idea about the uranium bomb (the one dropped on Nagasaki),
as it was the type used in the Trinity test.

As an aside, the USAAF after the war, declared that more people died in
the Tokyo air raid of March 9-10 than in any other 24 hour period in
the history of warfare.

Mike

[John Dallman]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
He had a good idea about the uranium bomb (the one dropped on
Nagasaki), as it was the type used in the Trinity test.

Minor technicality: that was the plutonium bomb.

John

[GFH]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Jim H.
Does anybody know how accurate a picture Truman had of
the bomb's power at the time he made the decision to drop
the 1st bomb?

He had a good idea about the uranium bomb (the one dropped on Nagasaki),
as it was the type used in the Trinity test.
As an aside, the USAAF after the war, declared that more people died in
the Tokyo air raid of March 9-10 than in any other 24 hour period in
the history of warfare.

No one had an accurate picture of the effects
of an a-bomb. The danger of radiation was
greatly underestimated.

GFH

[Kenneth Young]

Post by GFH
The danger of radiation was
greatly underestimated.

It was largely unknown. Radium was widely used including as a tonic.
When I was growing up in the 1960s shoe shops still had disused X-ray
machines for checking the fit of shoes.

[William Clodius]

On Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at 12:09:55 AM UTC-4,

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Jim H.
Does anybody know how accurate a picture Truman had of
the bomb's power at the time he made the decision to drop
the 1st bomb?

He had a good idea about the uranium bomb (the one dropped on Nagasaki),
as it was the type used in the Trinity test.
As an aside, the USAAF after the war, declared that more people died in
the Tokyo air raid of March 9-10 than in any other 24 hour period in the
history of warfare.

No one had an accurate picture of the effects
of an a-bomb. The danger of radiation was
greatly underestimated.
GFH
From the history of earlier workers with radioactive materials, the

radium watchdial workers in particular, they were aware from the
beginning that it was a significant cause of cancers, and did some
detailed studies as part of the Manhattan Project before the bombings.

http://www.atomicheritage.org/history/effects-radiation
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7709.2012.01042.x/abstract

[a425couple]

Post by Les
The Emperor was there because of Hiroshima, not Nagasaki,
and one of the reasons the Prime Minister (a member of
the Dove faction) asked him to attend was because he
already knew what Hirohito's recommendation would be.
Consequently, since it was the Emperor that finally broke
the deadlock, and his mind was already made up to surrender, ---

Could you please provide a citation.
I have earlier provided a couple.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by a425couple

Post by Les
The Emperor was there because of Hiroshima, not Nagasaki,
and one of the reasons the Prime Minister (a member of
the Dove faction) asked him to attend was because he
already knew what Hirohito's recommendation would be.
Consequently, since it was the Emperor that finally broke
the deadlock, and his mind was already made up to surrender, ---

Could you please provide a citation.
I have earlier provided a couple.

Toland's _Rising Sun_ has an account of this, as does, _Japan's Longest
Day_.

Mike

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by a425couple

Post by Les
BTW, the meeting to reconsider the Potsdam Declaration (with the unusual

- presence of the Emperor) came about because of Hiroshima.

Post by Les
So, if we granted the US with psychic powers, we could have them *not*
bomb Nagasaki. The meeting would still take place, the vote would still
get deadlocked, and the Emperor would still break the deadlock and have
Japan surrender.

NO.
There is no foundation to believe that the Emperor would
have taken the unprecidented step of intervening in
the cabinent IF Nagasaki had not been hit with a A-bomb.
Please read Richard Frank's "Downfall" page 290.
The meeting was going quite 'bullish' on continuing the
war "Then the news arrived of the atomic-bomb blast over
Nagasaki".

The Emperor didn't "intervene"; he was approached by Suzuki for his opinion
and requested that he break the deadlock. Most at the meeting were in
favor of accepting the Potsdam Declaration, but the small minority, led by
Anami, were against it. As a unanimous decision was required in order for
the Emperor to officially sign any new act, the Council was deadlocked.

Suzuki was supposedly approached by Kido to present the request to Hirohito,
and was cautioned to tell the dissenters that the Emperor was going to be
present so that each side could clarify its position in person; otherwise,
the pro-war faction would likely delay their attendance at any meeting. Kido
reached his decision before the Nagasaki bombing, but it's not known what
Suzuki's reaction would have been without the bomb. Hirohito, for his part,
was known to have wanted the war ended much earlier.

Mike

[Jim H.]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Jim H.

Post by Chris Allen
I saw a program recently about the final week or so of hostilities in
the Pacific. The main theme was why the atomic bomb was used.
The program notes the plan to invade main islands of Japan by
coventiaonl warfare would have created enormous allied causalties.
It then alleges Truman used the bombs to save AMERICAN lives and did not
care how many Japanese would suffer in these attacks.
I've heard this "argument" a few times in other venues

.....

Post by Chris Allen
Am I right?

Don't forget that Truman's decision was set against the backdrop
of the 'Rape of Nanking', sinking of the USS Panany, undeclared
attack on Pearl Harbor, and many already-documented wartime
Japanese atrocities against civilians & POW's. Add to that the

Most likely, none of that influenced his decision. They were not
designed to be punishment; they were designed to end a war.

Post by Jim H.
recent horror of kamikazes and Japan's defense of Okinawa,
'successes' in terms of inflicting casualties on the US.

Probably re-enforced his decision.

Mike