Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fat Man and Little Boy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fat Man and Little Boy

    Dear WABbits...

    My 17 year old daughter has a history paper to be written on the "whys" of the nuclear attacks in 1945. Rather than take a position (pro or con) on the bombings themselves, she must explore both sides.

    This is a topic (were the bombs needed?) that has been infinitely flogged over the years. Her grandfather, my dad, was a young recruit on his way to Okinawa to participate in what would have probably been Operation Olympic. I explained to her that there is a distinct possibility that she would not be walking this earth if the bombs had not been used.

    We know the drill -
    Pro-nuke: Japanese were ready to fight to the death. Bamboo spears. Women and children. A numerically significant army was still quite intact. Casualties on both sides would have been horrendous, and Japan physically shattered far beyond her state after the bombings.

    Okinawa was an example of what would be expected.

    There is the speculation that the bombs were also dropped to jazz the Soviets a bit, but it appeared that Stalin knew about them well before their use.

    Anti-nuke: "The Japanese were finished." A blockade might have done the job, but starvation and disease would have taken a terrible toll. It might take years, and the US was not politically/mentally prepared for this.

    Continue LeMay's firebombing; fighter-bombers harass everyone/everything to make life miserable for the Japanese.

    A negotiated peace was possible - drop the unconditional surrender demand.

    Those of course are the basics. I am interested in what WAB members think about this topic. I understand it is a tired one, but I'm counting on the insights of some very smart people to perhaps pump up the quality of her paper, and also hopefully tweak some liberal sensibilities in academia. Thanks.

  • #2
    How about from the Japanese PoV? More specifically, Hirehitto's? Take a look at the timelines from the Japanese side of things, starting with the Japanese learning that the Soviets had no intentions of negotiating a peace on their behalf and every intention of going to war.

    Look at the communiques and the defence preparations by the Kwantung Army in China (nothing too indepth but just to establish the determination to resist).

    Then, look at the communiques that happen right after Hiroshima. Then, Nagasaki, and then, the Soviet campaign in Manchuria. Look at this as 1-2-3 punch with a knock out punch (a two prong invasion from east and west supported by atomic bombs).

    Look at the nerve wrecking within the Imperial Council and then, the coup attempt in order to continue the war (to demonstrate just how much soul searching and gut wrenching that went on).

    Finally, examine the surrender speech.

    Comment


    • #3
      the choice was never "pro-nuke" or "negotiated settlement"; the choice was going to be nukes or firebombing followed by a conventional invasion.

      or option c, "all of the above".
      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

      Comment


      • #4
        Chogy,
        I highly recommend Hell to Pay: Operation DOWNFALL and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947.

        I thought I had some vague idea of what Downfall would've been like.

        Not even close. And "Hell To Pay" is a polite understatment.
        “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

        Comment


        • #5
          The US probably had contingency plans to invade Japan in late 1945 if the war had not ended after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and thus gives more credence to the American choice to drop the bombs on Japan. It surely still does leave out a significant debate whether fewer lives were ultimately lost through the use of nuclear weapons to end the war, or more would have lost without it.

          However, having said this, one surely needs to look at the timelines and the resolve of the Imperial Forces and it seems fairly clear that the Japanese were far from being down and out, they were rather really getting ready for the invasion they knew was coming. Infact they were pretty close to knowing where the two invasions would be and it was going to be a long hard slog for the US Military.

          Normandy probably would have paled in comparison.
          sigpicAnd on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

          Comment


          • #6
            One can also ask how nuking cities is any different than firebombing or long term siege? The overall results of them all are pretty same. I guess Stalingrad or Dresden weren't in a much better shape than hirosima after the war and much greater number of civilians perished in Leningrad than both nagasaki and hirosima combined.

            Comment


            • #7
              True, but firebombing and siege don't have radiation poisoning as a built-in bonus
              Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

              Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Deltacamelately View Post
                The US probably had contingency plans to invade Japan in late 1945 if the war had not ended after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and thus gives more credence to the American choice to drop the bombs on Japan.
                Delta, they were far more than contingency plans. That book I linked to was horrifying in it's detail of the plans and their consequences for the US and Japan.
                “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                Comment


                • #9
                  TH,

                  How long do you think that Hirrehito's forces would have held had the Soviets too joined the fray in the east?
                  sigpicAnd on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                    Chogy,
                    I highly recommend Hell to Pay: Operation DOWNFALL and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947.

                    I thought I had some vague idea of what Downfall would've been like.

                    Not even close. And "Hell To Pay" is a polite understatment.
                    TY Tophatter, the book has been ordered. I don't know if it will come in time to help her, but it will be a good addition to my own library.

                    I also explained to her that the Tokyo firebombing killed more Japanese than either nuke attack, and the manner of death was probably every bit as horrible. But LeMay was running out of strategically significant targets.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Deltacamelately View Post
                      TH,

                      How long do you think that Hirrehito's forces would have held had the Soviets too joined the fray in the east?
                      It would have been a while as the Soviets would need to build ships to get across to Japan and to build the needed armies though there would have been no shortage of Chinese and Korean volunteers for such a job.

                      But once across, it would have been a Genghis Khan because

                      1) That's how the Soviets fight
                      2) Chinese and Korean blood lust would have been unleashed.

                      Never mind the tenacity of the Japanese fighting man, that would have been squat when compared to men coming to avenge the rape and murder of their mothers and sisters,

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Deltacamelately View Post
                        TH,

                        How long do you think that Hirrehito's forces would have held had the Soviets too joined the fray in the east?
                        As the Colonel said, it would've taken time for the Soviets to get across the water...and I'm sure the Western Allies weren't going to Lend Lease them a damn thing once Germany surrendered.

                        Also as the Colonel said, imagine how the Soviets would've fought a Vietnam or an Afghanistan with Stalin calling the shots. Pretty much the same thing.
                        “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Chogy View Post
                          TY Tophatter, the book has been ordered. I don't know if it will come in time to help her, but it will be a good addition to my own library.
                          Great! :)

                          It refutes, totally IMO, the notion of the atomic bombs being inhumane to Japan....Downfall would've been inhumane...to Japan AND the Allies.
                          “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Chogy,

                            Here's a thread that explores an essay by someone who would have been part of the Downfall invasion force: http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/wor...atom-bomb.html

                            Another thought to consider is that the US finally exhausted the stock of Purple Heart medal sets a few years back from the procurement for Downfall. In other words, planned casualties from Downfall was equal to all casaulties from Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Desert Storm, and I believe just barely into OEF/OIF.
                            "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Chogy View Post
                              Dear WABbits...

                              My 17 year old daughter has a history paper to be written on the "whys" of the nuclear attacks in 1945. Rather than take a position (pro or con) on the bombings themselves, she must explore both sides.

                              This is a topic (were the bombs needed?) that has been infinitely flogged over the years. Her grandfather, my dad, was a young recruit on his way to Okinawa to participate in what would have probably been Operation Olympic. I explained to her that there is a distinct possibility that she would not be walking this earth if the bombs had not been used.

                              We know the drill -
                              Pro-nuke: Japanese were ready to fight to the death. Bamboo spears. Women and children. A numerically significant army was still quite intact. Casualties on both sides would have been horrendous, and Japan physically shattered far beyond her state after the bombings.

                              Okinawa was an example of what would be expected.

                              There is the speculation that the bombs were also dropped to jazz the Soviets a bit, but it appeared that Stalin knew about them well before their use.

                              Anti-nuke: "The Japanese were finished." A blockade might have done the job, but starvation and disease would have taken a terrible toll. It might take years, and the US was not politically/mentally prepared for this.

                              Continue LeMay's firebombing; fighter-bombers harass everyone/everything to make life miserable for the Japanese.

                              A negotiated peace was possible - drop the unconditional surrender demand.

                              Those of course are the basics. I am interested in what WAB members think about this topic. I understand it is a tired one, but I'm counting on the insights of some very smart people to perhaps pump up the quality of her paper, and also hopefully tweak some liberal sensibilities in academia. Thanks.

                              Chogy,

                              When your daughter is balancing up the various arguments it might also be worth looking at what the Japanese were prepared to 'negotiate' for. One of the conditions was that they got to keep bits of their empire - Korea & Manchuria (and possibly Formosa). The Japanese concept of 'losing' was a bit different to ours & would clearly have been unnacceptable to Western leaders. Obviously this was moot once the Russians got involved, but that was after the first bomb.

                              I'll admit to bias on this. My uncle was in a Japanese POW camp at the time the bomb was dropped. he had survived the dreaded 'Death Railway' in Thailand. A few more months of war would probably not have made a huge difference to him, but it would to men he knew.

                              As others have pointed out, the simplest equation is to look at how many would have died if the bomb hadn't been dropped. Good luck to your daughter.
                              sigpic

                              Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X