Posted on 08/10/2013 6:09:00 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
That was a conclusion of the 1946 U.S. Bombing Survey ordered by President Harry Truman in the wake of World War II.
Gen. Dwight Eisenhower said in 1963, “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”
That wasn’t merely hindsight. Eisenhower made the same argument in 1945. In his memoirs, Ike recalled a visit from War Secretary Henry Stimson:
I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of “face.”
Admiral William Leahy, Truman’s chief military advisor, wrote:
It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
I put a lot of weight on the assessments of the military leaders at the time and the contemporaneous commission that studied it. My colleague Michael Barone, who defends the bombing, has other sources — a historian and Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan — that lead him to conclude Japan would not have surrendered.
This confusion is not surprising. For one thing, there’s what we call the “fog of war” — it’s really hard to know what’s happening currently in war, and it’s even harder to predict which way the war will break.
Second, more generally, there’s the imperfection of human knowledge. Humans are very limited in their ability to predict the future and to determine the consequences of their actions in complex situations like war.
So, if Barone wants to stick with Moynihan’s and the New Republic’s assessments of the war while I stick with the assessments of Gen. Eisenhower, Adm. Leahy, and Truman’s own commission, that’s fine. The question — would Japan have surrendered without our bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki? — can’t be answered with certainty today, nor could it have been answered in August 1945.
But this fog, this imperfect knowledge, ought to diminish the weight given to the consequentialist type of reasoning Barone employs — “Many, many more deaths, of Japanese as well as Americans, would have occurred if the atomic bombs had not been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”
We don’t know that. That’s a guess. We didn’t know that at the time. If Pres. Truman believed that, it was a prediction of the future — and a prediction that clashed with the predictions of the military leaders.
Given all this uncertainty, I would lend more weight to principle. One principle nearly everyone shares is this: it’s wrong to deliberately kill babies and innocent children. The same goes for Japanese women, elderly, disabled, and any other non-combatants. Even if you don’t hold this as an absolute principle, most people hold it as a pretty firm rule.
To justify the bombing, you need to scuttle this principle in exchange for consequentialist thinking. With a principle as strong as “don’t murder kids” I think you’d need a lot more certainty than Truman could have had.
I don’t think Truman’s decision was motivated by evil. I’ll even add that it was an understandable decision. But I think it was the wrong one.
Your earlier point was that casualties from Okinawa exceeded that of all the major battles combined. That is wrong. In addition, the American dead from the Okinawa campaign were exceeded by Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima combined.
The Manhattan Project started years before that, in response to Albert Einstein's letter to FDR about the German atomic efforts.
The B-36 design was started when we were not sure the Germans would not invade/capture England.
We were not going to be flying bombers 5000 miles to drop a few tons of TNT and fly 5000 miles back.
That is wrong. They surrendered in September, 1945, half a month after Hirohito's surrender broadcast on August 15.
A. The Manhattan Project was started in 1942, specifically with Germany in mind. It doesn't matter how much you wish it were otherwise, Germany was the intended first recipient in mind.
B. The Manhattan Project - started in 1942, with Germany as the primary target - culminated with the successful Trinity test in July 1945, but sadly, Germany had surrendered in May 1945.
C. It took years to develop the weapons used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Okinawa had absolutely nothing to do with it other than to galvanize the American determination to crush Japan and end the freakin' war.
D. Truman inherited a nearly-completed nuclear program in April 1945 - he didn't push anything. He didn't even know about the Manhattan Project until April '45.
5. If they had developed the nukes in one or two years, instead of three, Germany would have gotten it right in the neck.
“A. The Manhattan Project was started in 1942, specifically with Germany in mind. It doesn’t matter how much you wish it were otherwise, Germany was the intended first recipient in mind.”
It was commissioned by FDR 1939 in response to intel from ex-German Jews that the Germans had successfully achieved nuclear fission. He did not want the Germans to get the bomb before the Americans due to strategic considerations. The need for atomic research was to not only catch up with where the Germans already were by ‘39, but also to surpass them and develop the bomb first. As a deterrent.
This is significant. You can write all you want about how they ‘intended’ to nuke Germany first, it is not true. Nor does it follow what actually happened in history. By the time nuclear weapons were available, the war had already been won in Europe.
“D. Truman inherited a nearly-completed nuclear program in April 1945 - he didn’t push anything. He didn’t even know about the Manhattan Project until April ‘45.”
There are documents showing evidence that Truman he wanted a successful test prior to Potsdam. This is evidence contrary to your statement.
“If they had developed the nukes in one or two years, instead of three, Germany would have gotten it right in the neck.”
This is speculation. There are good reasons both from a strategic standpoint not to drop an atomic bomb on Germany. How are you going to hit something like Cologne where you’ll contaminate French, Dutch and Belgian water supplies, industry and people? You will kill allied civilians.
Two - conventional weaponry was, by far, the better way to defeat Germany.
Three, you say he inherited an ‘almost finished program’. This is not so. They hadn’t even tested the design of Little Boy before they dropped it. They had a ton of theory, but no actual testing to show that the bomb would actually work. Then they used both of the prototypes that they did have in the hopes to force a political solution to the war.
That’s not a very systematic way to go about and do it, is it?
Have you seen the pictures of the garrison that did surrender? I suggest you examine them. Truk was doomed whether Japan surrendered in September or not.
The program was started when the prospect of German independent development of atomic weapons was a serious possibility. We could have been treated to the spectre of an atomic weapon successfully dropped on America by Germany. The US having atomic weapons would forestall this from ever happening as a deterrent.
That was the fear in ‘39.
Sigh.
Exceeded all offensive operations conducted by the US at the time. No one would have been thinking about the losses at Bataan, and it would never have entered the considerations for Coronet or Olympic. Strain a gnat, swallow a camel.
Again, the point isn't that Truk was doomed. It's that the soldiers did not surrender until instructed to, by the emperor, despite their doom being obvious to anyone with a pulse. Truk could be bypassed, so it mattered little whether or not the garrison surrendered. The home islands couldn't.
Why did Zimmerman get out of his Truck?
The Japanese obviously bombed Pearl Harbor because they thought we were following them and felt dissed. Then when their 19 Year Old Morbidly Obese High School Junior Girlfriend told them that we were a bunch of Gay Rapists, they couldn’t help themselves.
Which raises the question - if blockading and cutting Truk worked for Truk - would it not work for the Home Islands?
Japan does not have the natural resources to sustain herself. Japan relied, then as now, on importation. The folks in the garrison were Japanese soldiers. Do you think that the people of Japan would have been able to hold it together in a blockade? I don’t see it.
The options were not ‘invasion’ or ‘atomic weapons’. There was a third option, blockade.
The Japanese only surrendered because they though we had many more Atomic Weapons, which we didn’t. The two we dropped were the only two we had at the time.
The did not Surrender because of what we had done, they Surrendered because of what they thought we would continue to do.
We killed tens thousands in the European Theater using Conventional Weapons including Incendiary Bombs. The same happened in Japan. The idea that ONE Bomb could do the same damage that thousands of Bombs could do changed everything.
“Do you think that the people of Japan would have been able to hold it together in a blockade? I don’t see it.”
Conversely, I can absolutely see it. Japanese patriotism was (and is) very high. I could see them starving and using their last breath to attack an “invading” army.
(Sorry late to the thread. It is long with many excellent posts.)
FDR croaked on April 14, 1945, Truman was finally briefed about the Manhattan Project on April 24, 1945 and Postdam was in July 1945; so your "evidence" is crap. They did not magically develop nukes between April 1945 and July 1945.
You say I'm speculating about our willingness to nuke Germany, but it is a fact the the U.S. had over 100,000 people involved in various ways with the Manhattan project, we spent several years developing the bombs and spent 100's of millions of dollars - we were deadly serious. We didn't do all that as a theoretical exercise. You think we risked the lives of 100's of thousands of American troops to an invasion of Europe, but we wouldn't have ended the war with a single bomb if it had been available in time?
"Three, you say he inherited an ‘almost finished program’. This is not so. They hadn’t even tested the design of Little Boy before they dropped it. "
The biggest effort with the Manhattan Project went towards getting fissionable materials for the bombs - uranium 235 and plutonium. Without those materials you don't have a bomb, so until that infrastructure was in place to supply those materials, they couldn't test anything.
That third option would not have gotten Japan to the surrender table on August 15, 1945, if ever. A blockade also meant keeping millions of conscripts in uniform for years waiting for Japanese capitulation. Note that Truk was a postage stamp sized installation with no fresh water other than from rain fall. The Japanese home islands have been continuously cultivated for thousands of years. Meanwhile, on the Asian mainland, Allied troops, POW and civilian slave laborers were dying every day that a Japanese surrender was not forthcoming.
Potsdam July 17th, 1945.
Trinity, July 16th, 1945.
Just a coincidence, I’m sure. Truman wanted a test before Potsdam, that is why Trinity took place the day before.
“We didn’t do all that as a theoretical exercise.”
Not my argument, now is it? Again, there are good reasons why not to drop an atomic bomb on Germany that didn’t apply to Japan. Nuking your allies would be frowned upon. Most of the German industry is in areas close to the border.
“You think we risked the lives of 100’s of thousands of American troops to an invasion of Europe, but we wouldn’t have ended the war with a single bomb if it had been available in time?”
I’m saying that even if the bomb had been perfected by say 1943, that it’s unlikely that the situation in the Western war would have warranted it. By 1944, they had already committed to Overlord. So even if you shaved 2 years off the development (an already very tight and unlikely scenario) I still don’t see them dropping a bomb on Germany.
“Conversely, I can absolutely see it. Japanese patriotism was (and is) very high. I could see them starving and using their last breath to attack an “invading” army.”
Sure, it was very strong. That’s why they lasted as long as they did. Things tend to fall apart very quickly though - like Germany in 1918, and they actually won the war against Russia! Nobody lasts forever, and the Japanese are included in this.
The Japanese people were shocked by the surrender.
Heck some officials tried to STOP the surrender, pretty much attempting a coup to keep it from being broadcast
“That third option would not have gotten Japan to the surrender table on August 15, 1945, if ever”
True, it would have taken longer. No question there. How long, I think is the interesting question? Can you run a modern society with no oil? LeMay took out the refineries in May, and Japan had no way to get more, let alone use what they possessed. I do not believe they would have made it through the winter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.