The Manhattan Project Poll on the Use of Atomic Weapons, July 1945.
John Ptak, a rare science book dealer, invites readers to "take the poll that was given to the scientists at the Chicago Metallurgical Lab (U Chicago arm of the Manhattan Project) in July 1945 about, well, what to do with the bomb." He adds, "I'd be VERY curious to see how the results of people taking it today might look against the originals."
This is the straightforward poll of Compton and Daniels which asked 250 scientists at the Chicago Metallurgical Laboratory arm of the Manhattan Project in pre-Trinity July, 1945. (Originally published as “A Poll of Scientists at Chicago, July 1945,” in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, February 1948, 44, p63. and again published in Compton’s Atomic Quest in 1956.) You can take this test anonymously. Please try and keep in mind the time and place of the events unfolding: the Japanese resistance to the unconditional surrender ultimatum developing at Potsdam; the resistance to massive air raids; the tenacious fighting in the islands at the outreaches of the Empire; the thousands of American POWs; the circulating estimates of the coming Japanese invasion casualties (hundreds of thousands of Americans, far more so Japanese), and so on.The Manhattan Project Poll on the Use of Atomic Weapons, July 1945
the latest
latest episodes
This is pointless for people to take this survey now, since we all know the outcome that was achieved indicates that the decision made at that time, was the correct one.
Each scientist who agreed to work on the nuclear bomb related projects agreed that their input regarding the policy implications of their work was zero, and it was made clear to them it was a decided fact the day they accepted the job making the bomb. If they had an opinion about it, their resignation would be heard first.
That is to say, they put their personal opinions aside, or they didn't work on the project. If they had an opinion as to how or if it should be used, they could not be sufficiently relied on to just get the work done quietly and efficiently.
It is easy to look back with hindsight and wonder if perhaps Japan was already on the verge of surrendering. The truth of the matter though is that at the time, the Americans had every reasonable expectation to anticipate a long and amazingly bloody war for mainland Japan.
Just consider the kinds of causalities that were inflicted (on both sides) when the Japanese were defending an uninhabitable rock that a person can jog across in an hour. Consider the extraordinary reluctance of Japanese regulars to surrender and common place manner in which they committed suicide by clearly disastrous tactical moves (banzi! a machine gun nest), the use of suicide weapons, and how some times Japanese regulars out of ammo and hopelessly surrounded would simply commit suicide rather than be captured.
Finally, try and understand the war weariness of the Americans at the time. They had fought in two overseas wars at once, sending countless youths into a meat grinder of a war. The Americans were ready to be done and had no desire to pour more kids into the meat grinder by telling them to go land on the shores of Japan. It isn't much of a wonder that the US used nukes.
any participant in that war would have employed these weapons if they had them. ALL of them.
another point of view of ww2 from someone who was there. http://skeletonproject.com/2008/04/05/a-peoples-history-of-american-empire-by-howard-zinn/
Unfortunately, Takuan is right. Though I will never be convinced of the need. Even McNamara in The Fog of War admits, and I believe him, that he doesn't believe this was necessary. I love his statement, "Rationality will not save us." Truman mentions to Stalin we got somethin' big, Stalin is nonplussed, because he already knows. We drop bomb to impress Stalin. More people were killed and wider destruction was created in almost any of the fire-bombings of other major cities. FAIL! If we learn only one thing from history, and it is usually less than that, never ask for unconditional surrender. Even after it cost so many German and allied lives in Europe, we continued to require it of the Japanese. Though in the end we caved on the only real sticking point, their bloody emperor. Did it do any good? FAIL! FAIL! FAIL!
Did it do any good? FAIL! FAIL! FAIL!
So...you're from an alternate reality in which Japan isn't a well-integrated, peaceful member of democratic civilization?
Interesting item, but honestly, I only clicked on the headline in Google Reader 'cause I knew the comments were going to be entertaining.
I think the "give 'em a demo on a deserted island" argument is fairly easily discredited because they didn't surrender even after we gave them a "demo" in Hiroshima.
On the other hand, it arguably would have made sense to wait more than 3 days before dropping another one. Ratchet up the rhetoric and threaten to do the same thing to every population center in the country, and I'm sure they'd have capitulated. The Japanese didn't know we couldn't have manufactured more than one or two more that year.
In the end, I understand that the surrender was signed on much the same terms as were offered prior to the bombing. The real "demo" was aimed at the Soviets, not the Japanese. If Hiroshima and Nagasaki kept the Soviets from invading and occupying the country -- or if they kept anyone from using nuclear weapons in anger in subsequent wars -- then they were unquestionable Good Things in the long run.
But geez, how do you sell that argument to someone whose parents were burned into the pavement...
The fifth choice provided is fascinating. Do not use in this war and try to keep secret. Well i do not know what to think of that...
Don't use, don't tell?
choice five was for Russia
Do the ends justify the means?
1945 Japan is an island group without a Navy or Air Force. Why invade? Every major city except those saved as targets for testing/demonstrating the bomb were effectively destroyed with conventional weapons. Why drop this thing? Curiosity? We had a limited time to test this thing, so we did.
Was Stalin impressed? Not so much. Fail.
Was demanding unconditional surrender a good strategic move? Never. Fail.
Did we cave on the emperor thing? Yes. Fail.
Thank you Man on Pink Corner.
Greetings
I dunno about burned into the pavement...
My father was training for the invasion of Kyushu, a radioman he was already assigned his spot in a landing craft, right up front by the ramp, in the second wave.
He and his buddies assumed the first couple waves be wiped out to a man then maybe they'd establish a foothold. It was not considered outside the realm that the invasion of the home islands would be repulsed.
Ironically he spent a year in Kyushu as part of the occupation army after the war and toured Hiroshima and Nagasaki right after surrender
Before he died at 84 I asked him what HE thought: He said he cried like a baby when he heard the announcement, he realized he wasn't going to die in the invasion.
Even after seeing the unsanitized death of those two cities he was still entirely unrepentant about the A-bombings. He also never ate rice again as long as he lived...
Enjoy the journey
WarLord
Unconditional surrender might have seemed cruel, but again, remember the mindset at the time. We were at the tail end of World War that was getting bloodier the closer to the end we came. The Americans just were not willing to go through it again. World War I set up the World War II. World War I ended in a negotiated settlement instead of the absolute and crushing defeats. The last thing anyone wanted to do was repeat that little bit of history a few decades down the road. Further, while the US did demand and get an unconditional surrender, it was with a wink and a nod. The US was telling Japan through unofficial means that the emperor would be allowed to live on as a figure head.
Further, you need to realize that after we made Potsdam Declaration (that would be the surrender or die deceleration), the emperor REJECTED the proposal by the government council to offer the Americans a surrender with only a couple of conditions (July 26, 1945). It wasn't until after the nukes that this position was reversed.
Might more time have made the difference and led to a solution? Sure. We could have fire bombed the few cities still standing, thrown a few more kids into the meat grinder islands surrounding Japan. The simple fact of the matter is that as the war came to a close, the rate of American deaths accelerated. The war got bloodier, the Americans got even more war weary, and everyone was already starting to get nervous (rightfully so) about the Soviets.
An American president who asked his people to bleed more while he tries to negotiate a settlement or wait for the Japanese to come to their sense give up already would have been lynched. The Americans were done, they had a weapon that could end it, they used it. It ended.
while the end of the emperor system can't come soon enough, it is an oversimplification to dismiss the accommodation made for it at the time. There were benefits to a transitional stage, mostly about social order and rebuilding quickly. Any old soldier of the Imperial army that I have known has no great love for the emperor. But I do remember the feeling among the older generation when the Heisei era was inaugurated. The world changed.
1945 Japan is an island group without a Navy or Air Force.
Not so true in 1941 though, was it?
Until after the Bombs dropped the Japanese Emperor was an embodied god, and afterward he was a humbled man with a pretty chair to sit in.
I used to think dropping the bomb was just evil, full stop. Then I got to thinking about the fact that my grandfather was a sailor in the Pacific at the time. A prolonged war might have meant his death. My father might never have been born... and I wouldn't have existed either. It's mindbending.
Not a fail, from the point of view of a 1945 USA projecting hostile relations with post war Soviets. The point wasn't to impress Stalin, it was to keep him from entering into the war for Japanese surrender. By agreement, the Russians were set to enter into that theater of war and Truman/US military were desperate not to let that happen. Why? Think about post-war Germany. A partitioned Japan vs. a US controlled Japan to be used as a bulwark against communism. The choice was obvious to the Truman et al. Not saying I would've made the choice or that I agree, but it was obvious for them in 1945.
They needed Japanese capitulation and ASAP.
things could have been worse
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p12_Weber.html
Japan is an island group without a Navy or Air Force. Why invade?
Ugh. Because blockade would have meant millions of people starving to death. And that was the only other conventional option. The ware needed to be over in a way that wouldn't just let Japan re-arm and go pick on someone else.
Warlord, your father was right. However, as a young Buddhist in 1974 I met a bomb Disease victim who lost her entire family, she is equally right.
Rindan very well put. I believe things are the way they are because that is the only way they could be. So, yes you are essentially correct; except no Americans knew we had the bomb so there would not have been any lynching. I just take exception to the opinion that the damnable thing was dropped to end that war alone. We needed a real world test and we were under the erroneous assumption Stalin knew nothing about our achievement. We wanted to test, impress before Stalin wanted a piece of Japan. Why can't we as a nation just admit we did not drop this bomb for the sole reason of saving American lives. And really how much longer are talking about the war going on? The Japanese were just as fearful of the Russians as the Germans. They would probably have signed anything once it became certain Russia was on their doorstep.
The Battle of Okinawa. The American military saw the slaughter and saw the upcoming battle of Japan. Some estimates of American casualties ran as high as a million. It is easy to forget, or never to have learned, how fierce and foolish Japanese warriors were. If you can avoid it, NEVER fight an enemy who at the end is not afraid to die.
''War On Terror'' fighters take note.
Pauldrye, this would not have been a simple blockade. The bombing would have not only continued, but would have increased in severity.
The lack of an unconditional surrender is not the cause of WWII. German rearmament took place in spite of the treaty that ended WWI. Germany after WWI was a starving country racked by inflation. The Allies allowed rearmament to happen because they were completely unprepared and unwilling to enforce the treaty.
Foetusnail: And would said bombing have eventually led to more deaths than the two nukes?
It is impossible to know with any certainty that the decision that Truman made was the ONLY correct decision (as some here would insist). There is a strong possibility that option #2 would have worked, but because it was not tried there are those who think that therefore it wouldn't have worked-- a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.
There are a lot of unknowns here-- was it the bombs, or the threat of a Soviet invasion that prompted Japan to surrender? They DIDN'T surrender even after two bombs, and the firebombings DID do more damage to life and property than the atomic bombs; the surrender finally came only when they realized the Red Army was mobilizing in the east. Personally I think it was a combination of all those things. To say it was only one thing is like saying "the USA won the war" completely ignoring all the other nations involved (especially the USSR).
My own father was a pilot, about to be sent to the Pacific theater when he got word the bomb had been dropped. Sure, he may not have survived if the US had initiated a full scale invasion, and therefore I wouldn't have been born-- but that doesn't bother me one bit, because that kind of logic is silly, there are too many variables (if there hadn't of been a war in the first place he might not have met my mom, so do I thank the war then?) Besides, there is the obvious paradox of "if you didn't exist, how would you feel?" Or put another way: "think of all those people who don't exist-- how do you think they feel?" Thanks to WW2 there are plenty of people who don't exist, to say nothing of their possible offspring who also don't exist. And so on.
I do agree that the great irony of the bombs being dropped is that the knowledge of how terrible their destruction was has at least helped to keep us from using them again.
I can't know what I would have chosen were I around in 1945, but from the vantage point of history I think #2 was the better choice, the more moral choice, I think it would have helped to diffuse much of the grief the world has placed at the feet of the USA since Hiroshima and Nagasaki (I do understand Truman wasn't taking any chances, but my decision remains).
Trimeta, yes. Did Lemay care about Japanese lives?
This is not so much about a moral decision in the midst of an immoral nightmare. This is what do we believe as a nation about ourselves and our reasons for doing what we did. This bomb, as Ill Lich states, was not the sole reason for the war ending when it did though that is the myth in every child's history book. There is no reason to believe an invasion would have ever taken place. And how much longer would the war have continued? My guess is not much longer; probably not as long as it would have taken to prepare the invasion force and certainly before a Russian ever set foot one on any Japanese island.
Seaumus.... said The point wasn't to impress Stalin, it was to keep him from entering into the war for Japanese surrender.
I agree entirely.
FoetusNail "There is no reason to believe an invasion would have ever taken place."
Aside from our grandparents experience, that is. My grandfather was a See Bee (Combat Engineer), and definitely would have built runways in the freshly invaded Japan if he had been told to.
Had we invaded without 'taking the wind out of their sails', what we would have had to do is every bit as unimaginable as the 'camps' run by their allies had been - just a year before. Odds are he'd have had to build more than runways if the Japanese people remained proud and had their king remained a human god.
And we would have done that too.
I personally wish we had never let the genie out of the bottle too, but MY GUESS is that if we hadn't then someone else would have, and we'd be evil for a whole host of other reasons.
ILL LICH,
The Russians had already begun hostilities by invading Manchuria. Stalin had promised Truman at Potsdam that the USSR would enter the Pacific war 90 days after Germany's surrender. He kept his promise. I agree that was the proverbial back-breaking straw.
Kurt Vonnegut, a true blue cultural determinist, said, ''They dropped because the had it.''
With all due respect, whether our relatives believed they were going in is unimportant except for them. Obviously, they were convinced of this, but does that make it so? Once again I do not believe any of us are that far apart on this issue. Considering the mindset was this inevitable? Yes. What was the mindset? My opinion even after listening to some excellent posts, is this was more about demonstrating to the world, specifically Stalin, our capability. The question is are we being honest with ourselves when we fail to acknowledge the many other reasons for the war ending when it did? Are we being honest when we state we dropped the bomb solely to save American and Japanese lives?
For me the smoking gun is the list of cities saved for the bomb.
whether our relatives believed they were going in is unimportant except for them.
Speak for your own relatives please. My grandfather was a racist jerkwad and wanted to kill some 'Nips'.
Are we being honest when we state we dropped the bomb solely to save American and Japanese lives?
"We"? We didn;t do anything, but that generation dropped the bomb to save American lives. Maybe some British lives too.
Save them from what? is a bigger question, and involves Stalin and Europe every bit as much as it involves the invasion of the Japanese home islands.
The question is are we being honest with ourselves when we fail to acknowledge the many other reasons for the war ending when it did?
No, we're just 'rounding up' to avoid wasting further time on trivialities that were obviated by the Bombs. Knowing pi to 15 places doesn't help you estimate the diameter of a circle. You follow?
Okay, maybe somebody can enlighten me on this. As I understand it, before we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, Japan basically offered to surrender, with the only condition being that the Emperor be left in place. We refused that and dropped two bombs until they agreed to an unconditional surrender.
If my understanding is correct (and please let me know if you think it isn't), then dropping the bombs seems kinda pointless. The Emperor was a figurehead anyway, so we killed all those people for what? To prove a point? Especially since at the end of the day we left the Emperor in place anyhow.
Am I wrong? I haven't totally made up my mind yet, so here's your chance to convince me one way or the other.
reality=bomb(s) went off, made big boom. the end. please let's do everything in our power to NEVER let it happen again. when i read reports that tell me w. and dicky are 'keeping the nuclear option on the table', i know those douchebags mean it. we must be vigilant and not allow it!
the widespread use of Depleted Uranium munitions means it has already happened. I also expect American made "bunker busters" with nuclear warheads to be used against Iran soon - whether by Israeli or American hands.
Sometimes I express the unpopular view that the murder of another city might be the price to be paid to refresh the memory of Hiroshima.
@36 and anyone else still trying to make their mind up...
I strongly recommend reading Richard Rhodes 'The Making of the Atomic Bomb'. He won a pulitzer for it and does a brilliant job of detailing how we managed to create them and the circumstances surrounding their use. And when you're done with that book, read his other books on the subject: 'Dark Sun' about the H bomb and 'Arsenals of Folly' about postwar nuclear policy - all three are a terrific read and give you enough background to decide for yourself.
@Kim
As I understand it, before we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, Japan basically offered to surrender, with the only condition being that the Emperor be left in place. We refused that and dropped two bombs until they agreed to an unconditional surrender.
Yes. That's my understanding as well.
The Emperor was a figurehead anyway, so we killed all those people for what? To prove a point?
The point we had to prove to the Japanese was that they were beaten. Soundly. That they should ALL really not consider getting up for round two. To get that effect you have to humble a man, and to do that you have to emasculate him.
Especially since at the end of the day we left the Emperor in place anyhow.
Yes we did. Giving them a new leader wouldn't have been as humbling as seeing their leader NOT kill himself in dishonor, and be left in place.
We took his godhead. He couldn't protect them anymore, and until he surrendered he and his kin and their system had protected them for a thousand years or so. Had we treated the Japanese the way we've treated the Iraqi people, the end of the war would have gone much, much worse.
Kim, does that answer your questons? It's my 2c anyhow.
As a related aside: Why do you suppose we're being such jerks to Iran today? They've gone un-invaded and proud of it for much much longer. We emasculated them with the installation of the Shah in the 70's, and they refused. Can we ignore the chip Iran have on their shoulder? (i hope so)
@ICKY2000 - What you said. I've only read the first one and I recommend it highly to everyone in this thread.
Greetings
Yes we are much the superior to these rascists jerkwads of 1945 who wanted to kill them some japs but ummm
We in are highly evolved and morally heightened realm also elected Dudya our president and we agree whole heartedly to Gitmo, rendition, secret trials, wire taps, torture, and our own horrific little war in miniture, our genocide for cheap oil
So in what way have we learned the lesson of 1945?
Its fun to point to the errors in history but we harbor much fail right here and now
Enjoy the journey
WarLord
MDHatter- Stalin knew we had the bomb, however that was not known to the US. You're right this did have a big impact on Europe, we/they showed Stalin we would not shrink from using the bomb. The only thing worse than no history is an incomplete or inaccurate history. Why do you think anyone knows the value of pi to the units place?
Information released in the nineties indicates the Navy voted against invading Kyushu because it was too heavily defended.
The Japanese would not have accepted a figurehead emperor, and had already turned that down. They were not going to quit easily.
Why didn't we/they drop the bomb on a city closer to Tokyo, that had already been destroyed and would have been relatively empty? Instead we dropped them on cities filled with refugees, meaning women and children. And yes every city was a part of the war effort. This also brings in the whole question of civilians becoming targets. McNamara and LeMay both knew they would have been executed as war criminals had the shoe been on the other foot.
FoetusNail - Well, I think we chose Nagasaki because that's where they made the torpedoes for the attacks at Pearl Harbor. (that point is made in the Book Icky2000 references) Do you think American civilian war workers are the only ones who sign bombs they make with pride? That was a lesson in false pride, that was 'the big stick' of our foreign policy, and that was an epic ass whuppin' that will, in fact, resonate through the ages. Why Hiroshima? I don't know. I mean, ultimately, why did both bombs have names that each sound like pet names for ones penis?
@WarLord - Yeah, same as it ever was, huh? much fail. I like what you did there.
I think people are seriously over-selling this concept that the bomb was used to impress the Soviets into backing away.
I think also Foetusnail, that your comment about what we (the US) "thinks of itself as a nation" regarding this vs your comment that you met a bomb disease survivor in 1974 "as a young Buddhist." I think that it's not possible for someone trained in Buddhist thought to truly understand what people for whom Buddhist thought is an anathema, let's say, evangelicals, think of themselves as a nation. You can kind of understand it as an outsider, but at some point you have to accept that you just don't think like them. That you posted outlier opinions from even the self-selected group here is no surprise, but if you were in a factory outside of Memphis? I think it's pretty safe to say that you and they think of the USA as a nation in entirely different and probably opposed terms.
Harry Truman ran the show. A real tough guy in many ways, but early on danced with Stalin and actually believed they could work their problems out, one right guy to another. In WWI France he was a mother hen to his troops and was highly respected throughout the regiment. He was a soldier's soldier who was concerned for his men and their welfare. Dropping the bomb on Japan was necessary, he decided, to save American soldier's lives. A clear-cut motive. He would have continued to drop bombs if he had them. He absolutely wanted to shorten the war.
Years later, when he was an old man, something came about his going to Japan, I forget just why, and he said to Merle Miller, one of his biographers, ''Sure, I'll go to Japan but I'm not going to kiss their asses.'' He felt no apology for Hiroshima or Nagasaki was necessary. ''Tough shit, Tojo.''
Harry Truman ran the show. A real tough guy in many ways, but early on danced with Stalin and actually believed they could work their problems out, one right guy to another. In WWI France he was a mother hen to his troops and was highly respected throughout the regiment. He was a soldier's soldier who was concerned for his men and their welfare. Dropping the bomb on Japan was necessary, he decided, to save American soldier's lives. A clear-cut motive. He would have continued to drop bombs if he had them. He absolutely wanted to shorten the war.
Years later, when he was an old man, something came about his going to Japan, I forget just why, and he said to Merle Miller, one of his biographers, ''Sure, I'll go to Japan but I'm not going to kiss their asses.'' He felt no apology for Hiroshima or Nagasaki was necessary. ''Tough shit, Tojo.''
#36 Kim Scarborough,
The US was not in negotiations with Japan after Pearl Harbor; they were at war. Historians are still debating the third-party ''feelers'' that a peace faction were floating; but the Japanese military dictatorship was biterly divided and falling apart. There was confusion, asassinations, arrests, counter-arrests and suicides. Many of the younger ranking officers, following their warrior code wanted the nation to fight to the death. I don't think a case has been made for any genuine communication between the two countries, although there was no doubt some brokering gestures being made. I don't know whether a clear declaration of intent regarding Hirohito got through on the eve of surrender, but somehow the peace faction prevailed and the Son of Heaven surrendered.
I refuse to answer this poll question.
Additionally, I hope, and the world hopes with me, that such a decision will never have to be made in my lifetime.
While the choice has already been made once (twice), the question will continue to present itself over time. If it should happen to resurface in my time, I should hope that those making the decision take look back at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and fairly evaluate whether or not the end result is worth the cost.
Even if the entire human race is at stake.
Greetings
The difference, then and now: Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy etal had been to war and knew what death looked and smelled like
Our current white house occupant, not so much...
The terror war, this heroic struggle trading blood for oil is waged at a distance like some awful video game by a coward frat boy who hid from the gunsmoke of his own war
Is it any wonder that we are a country made of fail when this is our leader
Enjoy the journey
WarLord
ICKY2000- The book you recommend has insanely good reviews, I will buy it if it will help me come to terms with this issue.
1 bomb on civilians... let's believe the USA were honestly trying to minimize casualties.
A 2nd bomb on civilians... just means the USA were hungry for blood.
There were NO reasons to use a second bomb on civilians, period.
#6 posted by FoetusNail , August 6, 2008 5:47 PM - Unfortunately, Takuan is right. Though I will never be convinced of the need
I strongly suspect most Americans who "will never be convinced" would have a different view if it had been Americans conquering Berlin.
During the battle, the Russians;
- outnumbered the Germans 3:1 (and many German defenders were either old men or young children)
- had undeniable superiority in tanks
- shelled the hell out of Berlin dropping 2 million rounds of artillery into the city in a time period of 3 weeks (that's over 1 a second, non stop, 24/7)
- flew 15,000 air sorties a day at some points
- essentially ignored the rules of war
- reduced most of the city to rubble.
The Soviets still lost 80,000 dead and nearly 300,000 wounded.
To capture one city from a country that was a whole lot more defeated and geographically accessible than mainland Japan in the summer of 1945.
Don't get me wrong, the Americans wouldn't of have used the same strategies if they had done it and would have suffered fewer casualties, but it would still be a damn bloody fight and the Berliners would of have not been any better off if more death rained down from the air.
American deaths in the entirety of WW2 totaled 416,800. While I don't want to even hint at implying the USA was "a bunch of pussies", realistically, the nation's leaders did not have (completely understandably) the desire or possibly even the resolve to add another 300,000 dead or 1.2 million plus casualties.
If the bomb was not used, we would of have engaged in a blockade that would starve hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Japanese and we would of have set fire to the island from the air until they were weak enough to invade.
While we had reservations about American casualties, we had far fewer about killing Japanese. We were more than willing to drop the bomb on Kyoto - in fact, that was the #1 target selected by the target committee in May of '45. Kyoto had a much larger population than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
(1) Kyoto - This target is an urban industrial area with a population of 1,000,000. It is the former capital of Japan and many people and industries are now being moved there as other areas are being destroyed. From the psychological point of view there is the advantage that Kyoto is an intellectual center for Japan and the people there are more apt to appreciate the significance of such a weapon as the gadget. (Classified as an AA Target)
As for "unconditional surrender", was it realistic for the allies to accept anything less? Would they all agree on less? If not? I don't think Stalin would of have really cared if the Soviet Union lost a few million more men. After all... 23 million Soviets died in WW2. At least 10 million others were killed / starved to death under his regime.
#44 - Nagasaki was a secondary target, the second bomb was to be dropped on the arsenal at Kokura. Mission was diverted due to cloud cover.
Were the Japanese unwilling to surrender? Here is another pint of view:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/06/secondworldwar.warcrimes
The Japanese didn't know we couldn't have manufactured more than one or two more that year. From what I've read, we were ready to crank out 1-2 per month. The debate about that time was should we continue dropping them on cities, or save 'em up for the invasion. The people planning the invasion didn't know about the bombs until they were dropped either.
And yes, the earlier debate was between bombing and blockade versus invasion. Nobody really put much thought into the Japanese surrenter proposals which went somethning like: surrender of captured territory, retention of the emperor, no occupation.
It's perfectly possible, likely even, that the Japanese would have surrendered sans atom bombing. By any reasonable measure they'd lost the war. The meetings of the rulers were becomming increasingly fractious, and the "peace party," was becomming more powerful. But they had not shown themselves to to be very "reasonable" about surrender, and the U.S. planners weren't privy to what went on within the Japanese cabinet. I don't think that anyone in charge gave serious thought to NOT dropping the bomb.
It is interesting to see people castigate Truman for using the bomb. And yet it was Truman's decision not to use the bomb in Korea that has solidified the thinking that the bomb is qualatatively different from other weapons, not just a "bigger bang."
My Dad has a book that details the process leading up to surrender from within the Japanese Government and military higher-ups. The name escapes me at the moment, though I think this is it: http://www.amazon.com/Japans-Decision-Surrender-Robert-Butow/dp/0804704600
It was a good insightful read. I apologize if that's not the right book. If it is, it's worth the read.
Loraksus, for fear of appearing to want the last word, I have hesitated to post a response, but as you put so much effort into your comment I feel you deserve the same. I do regret saying, "I will never be convinced", I should have said, I will not be easily convinced. In fact, I regret shouting fail, fail, fail. I have a tendency to blurt things out, so apologies to all. Maybe I should just leave it at that. If you would like to read my response let me know and I will post it. Thanks for your response.
There have been a lot of folks who have set the stage for the American menatality concerning the decision. Lets not forget the massive civilian casualties that had already occured before Pearl Harbor, at the hands of the Japanese. The US would have to bomb DOZENS of Japanese cities to make that bean count equal.
Foetusnail, you come at it from the perspective that Japanese surrender was a sure thing... that some how the US had perfect knowledge of what was happening inside of Japan. You seem to believe that the Americans realized that the war was going to end any second, that the invasion (or at least blockade) of Japan was never going to happen.
They didn't. Japan was very much closed off to intelligence outside of signal intelligence. Certainly there were some signals that some people within the government might want to surrender, but the same could be said for the Nazi's. Nazi Germany didn't surrender until their leader was dead and the Russians had marched on the capital taking horrific and mind numbing losses in the process. Are you really trying to argue that the Japanese were LESS fanatical than the Germans in fighting to the last man? Do you truly and honestly believe that it was irrational to think that the Japanese might show LESS fanaticism in defense of their home ISLAND than the Germans showed when defending against an over land invasion by millions of Russia and allied soldiers on both sides?
The German cause was hopeless and they fought to the end. The Japanese cause was far less hopeless and clearly had a culture capable vastly more fanatical resistance.
Further, you need to get your facts straight on offers to surrender. The allies issued the Potsdam Declaration that was the demand for a unconditional surrender on July 26, 1945. The governing council decided to recommend a response with an offer to capitulation with the stipulation that the emperor be allowed to continue. We all agree up until now, right? Ahh, but here is the rub. This was a recommendation by the governing council to the emperor. The Hirohito REJECTED the recommendation, the offer was never made. A couple of weeks later the nukes were dropped, Russia declared war, and he changed his mind.
To sum it up:
-Germans fought until their capital was burned to the ground and their leader was dead. It is reasonable to expect the far more fanatical Japanese to do the same.
-Americans had less than perfect intelligence. There is no way they could have known with any certainty if there was a credible movement to surrender until one was actually made, even if there was one.
-American losses had accelerated as the war dragged on. The war was not winding down, it was getting radically more bloody.
-The emperor rejected the advice to offer the Americans a conditional surrender just two weeks before the bombs were dropped.
Take that all in together, and the decision at the time was pretty clear cut. Was scaring the Soviets to maintain the peace also apart of the equation? Sure. I bet no one was sad to scare the Soviets a little, but the implication dropping the nukes was an a last minute decision they came to in order to run a couple of nuclear tests before the Japanese were about to obviously surrender is ludicrous.
Its fun to point to the errors in history but we harbor much fail right here and now
I'm not sure what you're saying here:
two wrongs make a right?
Don't speak ill of the dead?
That we can't criticize the past because we're making mistakes now?
What if we happen to be criticizing the mistakes we're making now? Then is it OK to criticize the mistakes of the past as well?
I'm not sure.
I think that if there is any point at all to free speech, it is to criticize your government when you disagee with its actions. Even if the government has a %51 or more approval rating. Even if you're outnumbered 9 to 1. Bush's approval rating right after 9/11 was 90% and I still vehemently disagreed with about everything he did.
I'm pretty sure that if the right to free speech is limited to only speaking out if the majority of people agree with what you're saying, then that's a pretty useless right.
As far as the bomb goes, most people are talking out their asses, because most people are talking about something with certainty of fact when there is no such thing. No one knows what would have happened if we hadn't dropped the bomb, if we had tried other avenues to victory. Would it be possible that Japan would have surrendered and we could have had the same kind of peace that we had now? Nobody knows the answer to that.
Estimates were for a million dead if we invaded the mainland. But no one has any realistic estimates for how probable invasion was the only alternative to victory.
There's a massive bifurcation going on when discussing this, in that we either (1) drop the bomb or (2) invade and suffer a million dead. And whenever people bifurcate a god-awful complex problem, they're generally full of shit.
And that sort of full-of-shit-ness, that same gross oversimplification, got us into Iraq over their non-involvement with 9/11 and over their non-existent WMD's.
Was the bomb the only way to win the war? I don't know; it's a complicated history. What I do know is that the bifurcation of that complex reality into (1) kill them all or (2) we all die, is the sort of bullshit I'm getting tired of these last few years.
I'm not saying that the bomb wasn't the best of a bunch of shitty choices. I'm saying we can't really know for sure. But what I do know with fair certainty is that when folks reduce a problem to kill/die, when people start acting on one-percent-doctrines, when politicians start worrying about looking good versus doing whats right, then everybody suffers. And I'm fairly certain that those sorts of idiots aren't a local phenomenon to just the last few years.
I'm certain there were people during WW2 who were worried about how they would look if they had spent massive amounts of money to develop the atomic bomb, only to have the bomb not used in the war. I'm certain they would be pushing for it's use, whether its use was truly needed or not.
That doesn't mean the bomb wasn't needed. But it means that its a far more complicated issue than simply kill/die.
don't ascribe too much autonomy to Hirohito. He was only the emperor after all.
Emperor is such a bad translation of Tennō. The Tennō hasn't wielded power for a millennium, despite the nominal Meiji Restoration. He or she is just a living piece of religious regalia.
I always thought a chess piece myself.
Another thing to consider is that the prevailing attitude at the time was that the Japanese were not "human". Witness the New York times headline in 1945 proposing in large type: "We'll Cook Them With Gas!" in reference to Operation Downfall, Olympic and Cornet. The feeling was mutual of course.
First, I would say there was little doubt the United States would use the bomb before the Pacific War ended. The truth about what we know as Ultra, was that the U.S. had extremely good intelligence indicating Japan was not ready to surrender. The U.S. was aware that the Japanese were rapidly building a formidable defense, and were intending to make an invasion so costly the American public would undermine the administration’s demand for unconditional surrender.
What happened in Berlin, only serves to illustrate the nature of the Eastern Front. When possible, German combatants ran to American or British lines to avoid capture by Russians. This leads me to ask; wouldn’t Japanese leaders have done the same? While average Japanese had an irrational fear of Americans, the Japanese leadership had a more informed opinion. Where would they rather be tried for war crimes? The leadership feared Stalinist Russia; Russia entering the war between the A-Bomb attacks should not be underestimated. That an invasion was inevitable, or that a blockade would have resulted in millions of deaths makes many assumptions that completely ignore Japanese military buildup on Kyushu and Russian entry into the Pacific War. I sometimes wonder what the Japanese response would have been if we had told them, we're going home the Russians will finish you off.
This is how I see the situation in 1945: there was much more debate over the feasibility of an invasion than commonly believed (Nimitz was opposed, leaving MacArthur the lone standout), in fact the November invasion of Japan was all but off the table; the Army Air Force was running out of targets and squirreled away a few pristine population centers for bomb tests; we needed to end the war before Americans lost the will to continue or Russia invaded Japan; demonstrating our willingness to use the bomb played a larger role in our decision than we wish to admit.
I believe it is a mistake for us to ignore these less than humanitarian reasons for dropping the bomb. I recoil from the argument that the bomb was dropped for humanitarian reasons. It is not surprising we prefer to think of our use of the bomb as the more humane alternative, while ignoring the many other factors that led to that decision. That it hastened the war's end is certain, by how much, we’ll never know. Those who seek to justify our use of the bomb on humanitarian grounds tend to exaggerate the potential for casualties. I find it difficult to accept preventing casualties was the primary reason for Truman’s decision. Finally, Stalin was a murderer with nothing but contempt for Truman and was not in the least intimidated by him or our demo, so if this was one of Truman’s objectives, we did indeed fail.
This discussion has made me revisit opinions acquired many years ago. I readily admit I overemphasized the theory we dropped the bomb to demonstrate to Stalin our capability after Stalin shrugged off Truman’s revelation at Potsdam. However, this does not mean we dropped the bomb just to save American or Japanese lives. I still believe demanding unconditional surrender was an unwise and costly decision in both theaters.
I don't think we disagree much than FoetusNail. The simple fact of the matter was that there was excellent reason to believe that Japan was not going to surrender. Japan stood a perfectly good chance of making an invasion of the homeland, if not impossibly bloody (and you thought Vietnam sucked), at least bloody enough to give everyone pause.
Now, was it some great act of humanitarianism? No, of course not. A humanitarian might very well have called Japan defeated and made them sign some sort of World War I type surrender, saving countless lives LONG before the Americans had set half of Japan to the torch. Hell, the Japanese would have accepted a "we will retreat back to Japan but you don't occupy" treaty in 1944. For better or for worse though, that wasn't an option. The US wasn't ready to plant the seeds of World War III by leaving Japan and Germany anything but utterly subjugated.
So sure, it wasn't a humanitarian act to drop the bombs. It was an act that given the knowledge that everyone had at the time, was a necessary act. Even with perfect hindsight, I think we would have dropped the bombs anyways. The alternatives were unconscionable.
Would a the starvation or (far worse) the invasion of Japan have result in cleaner out comes? Sure, you could declare from your moral high ground that you didn't drop the bomb, but in terms of actual results you would have accomplished far less. You would have either starved the nation to death or turned around and asked the Americans the impossible, and demanded that they throw some more of their children into a meat grinder. I mean seriously, the US and Japan had collectively 25,000 people dead (forget wounded) fighting over Iwo Jima... a nearly uninhabitable island 9 miles long. Can you even begin to contemplate an American invasion of Tokyo?
So, humanitarian? No. A justifiable and inevitable decision? Hell yes. Only people lounging in front of their computers in 60+ years later can even begin to argue that the decision was the wrong one. Anyone contemplating the realities of the time would have no choice but to come to the same conclusion.
The idea that dropping the bomb also served to scare the Russians is perfectly understandable, but so is the fact that Stalin was unimpressed, especially knowing the psyche of Russians; 1000 years of invasions, bad governance, brutal winters, and mostly poor food has made the Russians pretty hardened, and proud of it. Remember: they lost an average of one member of every single family during the "Great Patriotic War." Recently I believe there was some friction between the Americans and Russians on the international space station over hardships, with the cosmonauts essentially judging the astronauts as a bunch of wimps.
Stalin was essentially insane, but his opinion that the atomic bomb was a "toy" isn't necessarily evidence of his madness.
Ни шагу назад!