NationStates Jolt Archive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_downfall

Operation Downfall was the overall Allied plan for the invasion of Japan at the end of World War II. It was scheduled to occur in two parts: Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu, set to begin in November 1945; and later Operation Coronet, the invasion of Honshu near Tokyo, scheduled for the spring of 1946. Following the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the Soviet declaration of war against Japan, Japan surrendered and the operation was cancelled.

So the question I pose to you:

(After reading the article) Do you feel that the invasion of Japan as proposed in Operation Downfall was feasible and/or is it better than the solution (the atomic bomb) that we used historically in light of what we know now about Japanese defenses and the long-term affects of nuclear fallout?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Operation_Downfall_-_Map.jpg

I believe it would have been better to invade japan.my reason is that the atomic bomb killed hundreds of thousands of civilians,who were in no way fighting the war, yet if we had soldiers go and invade then yes a lot would've died but they're soldiers who signed up to fight and possibly die

Maybe you should simply link to that picture rather than actually post it...it kinda screws with the screen width.

I think it depends strongly on how the US Forces would have dealt with the civilians.
Soldiers die in war, and that's tragic, but ultimately most soldiers chose to participate - and they run the risk of dying "for their country".
Civilians meanwhile didn't ask for any of it. They didn't go away to fight, nor did they sign up for anything. That IMHO makes a civilian dead very different from a dead soldier.

So rather than go on about how many soldiers would have died, the question is how many civilians would have been killed in either way - and I suspect with the way the Air War had been carried out before, and the battles on Okinawa and Iwo Jima, I'd suspect the invasion would have been the worse of two evils.

Which doesn't mean I don't condemn the nuclear bombings of two cities full of civilians and maybe a few second rate military targets - had they been that important, I would suspect they would've been bombed before.

I believe it would have been better to invade japan.my reason is that the atomic bomb killed hundreds of thousands of civilians,who were in no way fighting the war, yet if we had soldiers go and invade then yes a lot would've died but they're soldiers who signed up to fight and possibly die
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were centers of Japanese military manufacturing power. So let's see: Devastate Japanese military strength and the collateral kills some civies, or even more Japanese AND ALLIED forces die, minus the civillians.

Needless to see it was a necessary evil.:mad:

Has the 2 bombs not been dropped and the invasion gone ahead....

The invasion wasn't going to go ahead until about March maybe even early April 1946. By August 1945 the Russians had already entered the war- note: the Russians were entering the war before they knew the US was going to drop the bomb. They wanted a piece of Japan, much like Berlin turned out.

The USSR was the Jpnese last resort- don't forget they were neutral unitl Russia declared on them. Japan tried to use what she thought was her friend, to intercede against America and come to some sort of compromise. When the Soviets declared- it was the final blow for the Jpnese. The doves in the cabinet now convinced the Emperior to intervene directly in the Cabinets decision making process- and sue for peace- against the wishes of the hawks. The Emperor was counting on the USSR to stay, at best, neutral- and maybe even temper the US.

The invasion would never have happened.

Would it not have been better to detonate the nukes on Japanese military bases instead? It would have had the same effect as dropping them on cities, after all, it was only supposed to be a demonstration of firepower.

Drop some bombs and end the war instantly. No need to drag it out and send hundreds of thousands to their demise. Not to mention the Japanese who would have fought to the death in defense of their homeland and leader. I'm sure the toll would have surpassed one million.

Would it not have been better to detonate the nukes on Japanese military bases instead? It would have had the same effect as dropping them on cities, after all, it was only supposed to be a demonstration of firepower.

It had nothing to do with the Japanese. It was to show the Russians..... watch your step Stalin.

I don't know about the invasion never having to happen. Remember, the Russians were already overrunning some of the best Japanese units in China while the war was going, and the Emperor or the Japanese High Command showed no signs of surrendering. And the fact that when the military caught wind of the Emperor's planned surrender after the bombs were dropped, they launched a failed coup. One that only failed because they couldn't find the pre-recorded surrender statement to the Japanese people. Otherwise, the Allies would be the only ones whe knew about Japan's surrender.

I'm sure the toll would have surpassed one million.

BS. That figure was a whipped up figure to later justify the bombing itself by politicans and civil servants in the Truman/Roosvelts Admin after they realised that it was an abhorrent act.

Historians now commonly agree on a rough estimate of 80,000 US dead in the invasion.

Otherwise, the Allies would be the only ones whe knew about Japan's surrender.

Slightly off topic, but the Japanese never surrendered. Hirohito worded it so the phrase surrender or give up, were never uttered. The US accepted.

The planned invasion could only have taken place at certain locations in Japan. Japan heavily fortified those areas beforehand. The landing would have been larger than Normandy and the Allies would have been shredded.

The Japanese people were being given weapons and IF the landing had been successful, the Allies would have been outgunned by something like 20-1.

Keep in mind that the invasion of Okinawa was one of the most brutal campaigns in the war, which is saying a lot. The Americans had a choice to make and I think they made the right one. A lot more American lives would have been lost in an invasion of the main island of Japan. If Truman had ordered the invasion, with the A-bomb in the US arsenal, he would have been rightfully impeached when the truth was known.

BS. That figure was a whipped up figure to later justify the bombing itself by politicans and civil servants in the Truman/Roosvelts Admin after they realised that it was an abhorrent act.

Historians now commonly agree on a rough estimate of 80,000 US dead in the invasion.

Yeah, 80,000 US dead. US. Again, US. As I said, count the inevitable Japanese deaths and it would have easily reached a million. Both sides would have suffered tremendous losses. Read carefully next time.

Or we could have simply blockaded them and not have invaded or dropped nukes on them.

It had nothing to do with the Japanese. It was to show the Russians..... watch your step Stalin.
then they focused on getting some nukes of their own.

Yeah, 80,000 US dead. US. Again, US. As I said, count the inevitable Japanese deaths and it would have easily reached a million. Both sides would have suffered tremendous losses. Read carefully next time.

No... no it wouldn't. Not even close to a million.


Early in the morning of August 9th Manchuria was invaded by the Soviet Union. The Soviets had notified Japan's Ambassador to Moscow on the night of the eighth that the Soviet Union would be at war with Japan as of August 9th (Butow, pg. 153-154, 164(n)). This was a blow to the Japanese government's peace-seeking efforts. The Russians had been the only major nation with which Japan still had a neutrality pact, and, as such, had been Japan's main hope of negotiating a peace with something better than unconditional surrender terms (Butow, pg. 87). To that end, the Japanese government had been pursuing Soviet mediation to end the war in response to the Emperor's request of June 22, 1945, a fact often overlooked today. (Butow, pg. 118-120, 130).
.......
Japanese government was attempting to persuade the Soviet Union to mediate a peace for Japan that would not be unconditional. This was in response to the Emperor's request at a Big Six meeting on June 22, 1945 to seek peace thru the Soviets, who were the only major member of the Allies that had a neutrality pact with Japan at the time (Butow, pg. 118-120). Unfortunately for all concerned, Japan's leaders were divided over precisely what terms should be sought to end the war, with the Japanese military leaders still wishing to avoid anything that the Allies would have considered a clear "surrender". Surely Japan's leaders hold the lion's share of the responsibility for the fate that befell Japan.

Having broken the code Japan used for transmitting messages, the U.S. was able to follow Japan's efforts to end the war as it intercepted the messages between Foreign Minister Togo and Japan's Ambassador to Moscow Sato. The messages were sent as the result of the June 22, 1945 Japanese Cabinet meeting. The conditions under which Japan was willing to surrender were not clearly spelled out in the messages, aside from a willingness to give up territory occupied during the war and a repeated rejection of "unconditional surrender".

Carpet bombing all of their military, manufacturing, and port facilities would've done plenty of good. Bombing their shoreline fortifications would've been good as well.

No, I don't think the two nuclear bombs were necessary in the least. A lot of innocent people died for no reason at all. It was another racial superiority thing: "Less American lives will be lost at the expense of hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives. We're more than okay with that."

Is it just me, or is that really fucked up?

I believe it would have been better to invade japan.my reason is that the atomic bomb killed hundreds of thousands of civilians,who were in no way fighting the war, yet if we had soldiers go and invade then yes a lot would've died but they're soldiers who signed up to fight and possibly die

In an invasion of Japan, there would have been massive civilian casualties as well. You don't honestly think the Americans are going to stick to just killing soldiers, do you? Aside from that, there were about 500,000 or so casualties from the atomic bombs and fire-bombing of major cities, including Tokyo. If a prolonged invasion of Japan kills less than 500,000 Japanese, I would be very surprised. The Japanese would have fought tooth and nail against an invasion, which they would have had to expect. Invasions are as old in warfare as death. The atomic bomb was brand new, and Japan didn't know the U.S. had only two of them.

Granted, Truman took a gamble on using the bombs, since he only had two of them and an invasion might have been necessary had the Japanese refused to surrender. Whether the Japanese were ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped is up to debate; the second bomb might have sealed the deal, of they might have been ready after the first bomb. I don't think they were ready to surrender before Hiroshima, but they might have been before Nagasaki; the U.S. was not aware of any Japanese surrender plans before Nagasaki as far as I know.

The better question is whether the U.S. would have had to invade if the Japanese hadn't surrendered after the two bombs. Let's say that Tojo and Co. depose the Emperor in secret (if they can pull it off, that is) and adamantly refuse to surrender, calling on the Japanese people to fight to the last Japanese man, woman, or child. The U.S. continues fire-bombing Japanese cities all to hell, but the Japanese still won't give up. They start shooting down American planes and generally are a pain in the U.S.'s collective ass. By this point, they have no realistic hope of retaining anything resembling their former nation, let alone winning or even tying the U.S., but the Japanese military has an iron hold on the tough-as-nails Japanese population.

So we have to invade to end the Japanese threat. The Japanese population, in terms of ideological fanaticism and willingness to die, are, at this point, making today's Palestinian and Iraqi suicide bombers look like wimps. The occupation of Japan makes today's occupation of Iraq look like child's play and lasts well into the 1950s, taking millions of American soldiers into the fracas and diverting massive resources from Western Europe. As a result, the USSR takes all of Germany and France as well as struggling Italy. Portugal, Spain, and Britain don't fall to the USSR but certainly don't have an easy time with it, and Stalin even pesters Switzerland a bit before Khrushchev decides to leave them alone. Also, Korea falls to Kim Il Sung in its entirety and more of southeast Asia falls to the Communists.

Eventually, Japan falls to the U.S. but is isolated from the rest of Asiaby virtue of China, Korea, and southeast Asia falling to Communism. It gets back on track but takes far longer, since it doesn't fall until the mid-1950s if that soon. This is what happens if the U.S. has to invade. Truman took what really wasn't much of a chance and sacrificed many Japanese lives to save American, and also Japanese, lives. From his perspective, it's insane not to try dropping the bombs.

Yeah, 80,000 US dead. US. Again, US. As I said, count the inevitable Japanese deaths and it would have easily reached a million. Both sides would have suffered tremendous losses. Read carefully next time.

Damn, was even lower US deaths then I thought.
The best Japanese troops were tied up in Manchuria, China, and Korea. And the majority of the Japanses population were living on a diet of half a bowl of rice a day... sometimes mixed with grass. :(

n his article A Postwar Myth: 500,000 U.S. Lives Saved, Barton Bernstein challenged the popular belief of how many Americans would have been killed in an invasion of Japan -snip- Bernstein documented that: 1) such a high estimate was not believed by U.S. leaders prior to the Hiroshima bombing; 2) it was specifically rejected by General Marshall and others; and 3) U.S. leaders guessed before Hiroshima was A-bombed that American invasion deaths would be between 20,000 - 46,000....

Perhaps in the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Truman developed a need to exaggerate the number of U.S. lives that the bombs might have saved... Believing ultimately in the myth of 500,000 lives saved may have been a way of concealing ambivalence, even from himself. The myth also helped deter Americans from asking troubling questions about the use of the atomic bombs.

In a previous post of mine. I said it would have been 3 million US and Allied troops. Close to 7 million Japanese. And since most nations are very dishonorable in war, nearly every major city would have been reduced to nothing and much of the beauitful would have been ruined. We know the US does not play fair, magnesium bombs on wooden homes. The fire storm of Hamburg.

It would have been a costly war and Japan would not have survived. But the killing of civilians to get the government to back down? It is the cowards way out.

No... no it wouldn't. Not even close to a million.

Maybe you should reread my original post. I don't give a damn about the Soviets, the scenario was if the US went through with the invasion.

In a previous post of mine. I said it would have been 3 million US and Allied troops. Close to 7 million Japanese. And since most nations are very dishonorable in war, nearly every major city would have been reduced to nothing and much of the beauitful would have been ruined. We know the US does not play fair, magnesium bombs on wooden homes. The fire storm of Hamburg.

It would have been a costly war and Japan would not have survived. But the killing of civilians to get the government to back down? It is the cowards way out.

Agreed, but your numbers aren't based on any real-life information and are extremely inflated. 10,000,000 deaths in the invasion? Hell no. Not even close.

You would have to reject the notion that perhaps hundreds of thousands of civilians would've died in a last ditch effort to preserve their nation. They were training kids to use freakin' bamboo spears against soldiers. The Emperor surrendering was the best thing possible. Their leader, their God, told them to stop. It would've been Kamikaze 24/7 any other way.

http://www.doug-long.com/kido.htm
If anyone can find a set of excerpts from Kido's Diary, I would be eternally grateful. He was the colsets advisor to Hirohito, and his diary apparently contains exactly what happened with the Japanese government during the last few days of the war.

http://corvalliscommunitypages.com/Americas/US/USNotOregon/hidekitojoprisondiaryu.htm
This is the case against Tojo for war crimes...it contains his view of the war as well, maybe that's useful?

It is the cowards way out.

"All is fair in love and war", wars aren't meant to be fought on an equal playing field or by the rules, it's smash your enemy until they fall or surrender, all wars have been fought that way.

There are no cowards in war.

Whether the Japanese were ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped is up to debate; the second bomb might have sealed the deal, of they might have been ready after the first bomb. I don't think they were ready to surrender before Hiroshima, but they might have been before Nagasaki; the U.S. was not aware of any Japanese surrender plans before Nagasaki as far as I know.

From doug-long.com: Long-time historian of the atomic bombings Barton Bernstein has taken a cautious view of what might have been: "Taken together, some of these alternatives [to dropping atomic bombs on Japan] - promising to retain the Japanese monarchy, awaiting the Soviets' entry, and even more conventional bombing - very probably could have ended the war before the dreaded invasion [of the Japanese mainland by the Allies]

Even after both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit with atomic bombs, the Japanese government took a vote and still refused to surrender.
Japan only agreed to surrender when their Emperor told them to do so.
The Emperor wanted peace, but was considered a God and, thus, was supposed to stay above politics. He intervened at the request of the Japanese leaders who wanted peace.
Japanese peace advocates played the Emperor card when they saw they had run out of time to save their Emperor.


The better question is whether the U.S. would have had to invade if the Japanese hadn't surrendered after the two bombs. Let's say that Tojo and Co. depose the Emperor in secret (if they can pull it off, that is) and adamantly refuse to surrender, calling on the Japanese people to fight to the last Japanese man, woman, or child. The U.S. continues fire-bombing Japanese cities all to hell, but the Japanese still won't give up. They start shooting down American planes and generally are a pain in the U.S.'s collective ass. By this point, they have no realistic hope of retaining anything resembling their former nation, let alone winning or even tying the U.S., but the Japanese military has an iron hold on the tough-as-nails Japanese population.


Not going to happen- Hirohito was God. You don't depsose God ;)

You would have to reject the notion that perhaps hundreds of thousands of civilians would've died in a last ditch effort to preserve their nation. They were training kids to use freakin' bamboo spears against soldiers. The Emperor surrendering was the best thing possible. Their leader, their God, told them to stop. It would've been Kamikaze 24/7 any other way.

I doubt most well-armed U.S. soldiers would've shot at kids attacking them with bamboo rods and spears. I seriously doubt it.

here's the my main point, the death of a soldier is justifiable but the deliberate murder,yes murder, of a civilian is never justifiable

You would have to reject the notion that perhaps hundreds of thousands of civilians would've died in a last ditch effort to preserve their nation.

It had nothing to do with saving the country... it was the samurai code of honuor- DO NOT SURRENDER.

The Japanese NEVER SURRENDERED.

In an invasion of Japan, there would have been massive civilian casualties as well. You don't honestly think the Americans are going to stick to just killing soldiers, do you? Aside from that, there were about 500,000 or so casualties from the atomic bombs and fire-bombing of major cities, including Tokyo. If a prolonged invasion of Japan kills less than 500,000 Japanese, I would be very surprised. The Japanese would have fought tooth and nail against an invasion, which they would have had to expect. Invasions are as old in warfare as death. The atomic bomb was brand new, and Japan didn't know the U.S. had only two of them.

Granted, Truman took a gamble on using the bombs, since he only had two of them and an invasion might have been necessary had the Japanese refused to surrender. Whether the Japanese were ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped is up to debate; the second bomb might have sealed the deal, of they might have been ready after the first bomb. I don't think they were ready to surrender before Hiroshima, but they might have been before Nagasaki; the U.S. was not aware of any Japanese surrender plans before Nagasaki as far as I know.

The better question is whether the U.S. would have had to invade if the Japanese hadn't surrendered after the two bombs. Let's say that Tojo and Co. depose the Emperor in secret (if they can pull it off, that is) and adamantly refuse to surrender, calling on the Japanese people to fight to the last Japanese man, woman, or child. The U.S. continues fire-bombing Japanese cities all to hell, but the Japanese still won't give up. They start shooting down American planes and generally are a pain in the U.S.'s collective ass. By this point, they have no realistic hope of retaining anything resembling their former nation, let alone winning or even tying the U.S., but the Japanese military has an iron hold on the tough-as-nails Japanese population.

So we have to invade to end the Japanese threat. The Japanese population, in terms of ideological fanaticism and willingness to die, are, at this point, making today's Palestinian and Iraqi suicide bombers look like wimps. The occupation of Japan makes today's occupation of Iraq look like child's play and lasts well into the 1950s, taking millions of American soldiers into the fracas and diverting massive resources from Western Europe. As a result, the USSR takes all of Germany and France as well as struggling Italy. Portugal, Spain, and Britain don't fall to the USSR but certainly don't have an easy time with it, and Stalin even pesters Switzerland a bit before Khrushchev decides to leave them alone. Also, Korea falls to Kim Il Sung in its entirety and more of southeast Asia falls to the Communists.

Eventually, Japan falls to the U.S. but is isolated from the rest of Asiaby virtue of China, Korea, and southeast Asia falling to Communism. It gets back on track but takes far longer, since it doesn't fall until the mid-1950s if that soon. This is what happens if the U.S. has to invade. Truman took what really wasn't much of a chance and sacrificed many Japanese lives to save American, and also Japanese, lives. From his perspective, it's insane not to try dropping the bombs.

You don't know this.

I doubt most well-armed U.S. soldiers would've shot at kids attacking them with bamboo rods and spears. I seriously doubt it.

A weapon's a weapon. They probably would've carried bombs on 'em too. My grandfather recounts having to shoot at children who were found to have been carrying bombs towards his unit in Vietnam. If someone's trying to kill you, you'll have to shoot back.

A weapon's a weapon. They probably would've carried bombs on 'em too. My grandfather recounts having to shoot at children who were found to have been carrying bombs towards his unit in Vietnam. If someone's trying to kill you, you'll have to shoot back.

Well, bombs are a given. However, you said plain and simple: Bamboo weapons.

However, you said plain and simple: Bamboo weapons.

That I did, but I fail to see why a group of people with spears wouldn't be taken seriously if they were charging or surprising units. There are plenty of reports where poorly equipped troops were charging tank units with bayonets and spears, and were being slaughtered, but still kept coming. If I'm an on the edge soldier and I see a group of people running at me with spears and other small arms, do you think I'll try to reason with them? If they are intent on killing you, and you can't reason with them, you probably won't have time to disarm them. It's well documented that they were brainwashing these women and kids to never surrender and to do what they could to kill or maim a soldier.

It's well documented that they were brainwashing these women and kids to never surrender and to do what they could to kill or maim a soldier.
It's even better documented that they tried the same thing with civilians on Okinawa, and rather than bloodthirsty yellow monsters you simply got terrified normal people who eventually took to jumping of a cliff rather than being subjected to the kind of thing they had been told Yankees did to their victims.

It's even better documented that they tried the same thing with civilians on Okinawa, and rather than bloodthirsty yellow monsters you simply got terrified normal people who eventually took to jumping of a cliff rather than being subjected to the kind of thing they had been told Yankees did to their victims.

That's true as well, and that's what made it worse: They thought that 1) They could fight and perhaps die honorably or 2) The Americans would do horrible things to them or 3) Kill themselves and escape it all. I mean, if you know you're gonna die, you're either gonna go down fighting or do it yourself, correct?

And it's not that the Japanese were bloodthirsty monsters, they were culturally brainwashed by the leadership to engage in horrifically suicidal gestures that killed many more than needed to die.

It's even better documented that they tried the same thing with civilians on Okinawa, and rather than bloodthirsty yellow monsters you simply got terrified normal people who eventually took to jumping of a cliff rather than being subjected to the kind of thing they had been told Yankees did to their victims.
They still died.

They still died.
That's true...see my first post, I don't think an invasion would've been a good idea.

That's true as well, and that's what made it worse: They thought that 1) They could fight and perhaps die honorably
Well these guys obviously didn't. I'd think that since Okinawa is a Japanese Island, they'd have used the very same tactics there that they would've used on Hokkaido, Kyushu or Honshu.
And it's pretty obvious that they were still civilians, more concerned with making their death as easy as possible than with taking a few Americans with them.

I mean, if you know you're gonna die, you're either gonna go down fighting or do it yourself, correct?
I don't think I could tell, because to be honest, none of us has ever been in a situation even remotely similar. I'd think that the experience of the Japanese on Okinawa serves as an experiment to teach us that civilians are not soldiers, and don't easily become soldiers.

Well these guys obviously didn't. I'd think that since Okinawa is a Japanese Island, they'd have used the very same tactics there that they would've used on Hokkaido, Kyushu or Honshu.
And it's pretty obvious that they were still civilians, more concerned with making their death as easy as possible than with taking a few Americans with them.


I don't think I could tell, because to be honest, none of us has ever been in a situation even remotely similar. I'd think that the experience of the Japanese on Okinawa serves as an experiment to teach us that civilians are not soldiers, and don't easily become soldiers.

Okinawa is actually one of the most liberal of the Japanese islands, I went there on vacation and the people there actually like foreigners. :D
And even more surprising they themselves believe that Japan was wrong to invade, (*mutters* unlike those stupid government officials*) They also disliked the fact that Japan had told them that they were leading American ships into the island and were going to trap them and end the war, the result was really the island being bombarded by American ships as the Japanese army retreated.
Personally my advice is the Okinawa has always been the most unfanatic of the Japanese islands and if you want to go to vacation to Japan make sure to head there because it has some of the nicest people there :p

Why'd you have to bring this up on a Wednesday morning? I mean really now, I was quite content till I saw yet another post about the wisdom of the atomic bombings.

Ok then, a couple of things that I noticed from the thread.

It should be noted that at that time, most of Japan's major cities (excluding Kyoto and Hiroshima) had been bombed flat or had been seriously damaged. The US was actually working on a secondary list of cities, hitting areas that normally wouldn't be perceived as military targets and was thinking of attacking Japan's rail infrastructure. The Soviet Union had not declared war (and would not till after the first atomic attack that startled the hell out of Stalin). Japan knew it had lost the war; it could no longer supply itself or provide any aerial defense.

Citizens: At this time, the Japanese population was living in conditions that were worse than anything they had ever endured in their history (except possibly the warring states period, and even then, that's a little iffy). Their meals were almost starvation diets and many children had already been evacuated to the midlands in the Japan Alps in a hope to take them out of the danger zone (actually a camp that my students attend every summer started out as a refugee camp in WWII). Many kids had lost their whole families and were wandering the country trying to survive. Those that were lucky enough to have families and stay in the cities were being taught how to defend Japan. Junior high school girls were given bamboo spears and given an hour's practice each day on how to thrust it into the neck of an American GI. I would also like to note that what they were told, how the war was going, how heroic the Japanese military was, and what the Americans would do if they came to Japan were manufactured fantasies that caused a lot of trouble later on when the truth was known.

If you'd like to see what life was like in Japan at that time, I highly recommend the movie 'Grave of the Fireflies'. I also recommend renting a side splitting comedy at the same time so you don't want to kill yourself after watching Grave of the Fireflies.

The Showa Emperor: Wanted to, by that time, end the war. However, it should be noted by those who state that if only the US gave into Japanese demands to keep the emperor, the end he wanted would have preserved all powers of the Imperial throne, which was damn near absolute. The political situation in Japanese extraordinarily complex, and the Showa Emperor was in the middle of it. He had absolute power, he ruled, not mearly reigned over Japan. However, his power was constrained by Japanese traditions and mannerisms that are very hard to understand. He was not a puppet, as some had said, but he also was not the instigator. The best description would be that he was a man who could have stopped it at any time, but chose not to for reasons we may never really know, but he never ordered the war's start.

Also, calling the emperor a god is a VERY misleading term. He was a kami, which a better translation would be spirit. Kami are not gods in the sense that we westerners think of them. Anything can be a kami in Japan (hell, I've seen shrines to kami in the weirdest places). Kami are spirits of anything, usually natural, that is unusual enough to attract notice. Perhaps the BEST comparison that I have seen would be to equate the emperor to the pope. Holy, consecrated, and has the ear of God, but not God Himself.

BTW, in Japanese history, the emperor was mainly a puppet of little power, that's why one family has held the throne for so damn long. There would be no problems of overthrowing the Showa Emperor and installing a regent from the same family, and he knew it. It explains so much of his actions as he always acted to secure the throne, and his place on it. There would also be no hesitation from the military high command of doing so.

The issues are very complex and bound a great deal into Japanese culture and traditions that are normally distorted beyond recognition when used in this forum, or other arguments. Mainly I would note that from my own studies of Japan and its history, culture, and people, invasion would have cost more lives than we could imagine and would possible have almost depopulated the islands of Japan before it was done.

As I have stated many times before, I hate that we had to drop those damn bombs, and we should never do so again. But, if I place myself in 1945, knowing what we know now, I still cannot come up with a way to have stopped the war that wouldn't have taken more lives and many more years of fighting.

For those of you who condemn what happened those horrible days in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I challenge you thus, how would you have ended that war without causing more deaths?

I'd like to point out that my purpose in creating this thread wasn't to have another; 'atomic bombs are evil' 'they where the only option' thread. Luckily it hasn't completly degenerated into this so far. Basically I'm wondering what your opnions are on the invasion. Would it have worked? Obviously you would have to introduce the atomic bombs into a discussion such as this, but I don't want this to be the main point of this discussion.

For those of you who condemn what happened those horrible days in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I challenge you thus, how would you have ended that war without causing more deaths?

By actually (on the US side) working with the Russians. Japan (for some iditoic reason given their history) viewed Russia as a 'friend'... and i use that term loosely! They hoped to get them to intercede on their behalf and plead for peace or compromise with the Americans. When Russia declared on them, it was tantamount to a stab in the back, their last hoep was gone and they were surrounded. Their best troops were in Manchukuo, Korea and China. They were already beaten in the East and South.

The Cabinet knew that but War Minister Awami decided to still resist, as per the samurai code- do not surrender. The vote in the Cabinet was 12-3 in favour of surrender and therefore to try and preserve the dynasty. Sadly, it needed to be unanimous. So they fought on....

Working more closely with the Russians- and paying attention to the ATTEMPTS MADE BY JAPANESE FOREIGN DIPLOMATS TO A TRUCE/HALT TO WAR might have made a big difference... in my opinion.


Your post was very good- accurate, yet concise. :)

By actually (on the US side) working with the Russians. Japan (for some iditoic reason given their history) viewed Russia as a 'friend'... and i use that term loosely!
Because they had a non-agression treaty that both sides had been very careful to honor, even though the Kwangtang Army wanted very much to strike into Soviet territory during the beginings of the China phase of the war.

The Cabinet knew that but War Minister Awami decided to still resist, as per the samurai code- do not surrender. The vote in the Cabinet was 12-3 in favour of surrender and therefore to try and preserve the dynasty. Sadly, it needed to be unanimous. So they fought on....
The Cabinet was next to useless at this point in time. It should be noted that under the Meiji Constitution, the Emperor had right of Surpreem Command over the military forces. The military, mainly the rightists, used this clause to state that the politcal cabinet, run by civilans, had no control over the military as that would violate the Emperor's poragative. It's why the Cabinet had NO control over what the military was actually doing and could not force the military to back off and stand down when the Kwangtang Army started the war in China. Also, it should be noted, that the Showa Emperor appointed all Prime Ministers at that time, usually by his own person.

Working more closely with the Russians- and paying attention to the ATTEMPTS MADE BY JAPANESE FOREIGN DIPLOMATS TO A TRUCE/HALT TO WAR might have made a big difference... in my opinion.
The Japanese diplomats in Moscow thought differently. They knew that Stalin was not going to help them and thought their mission to be hopeless, but the Emperor had his hopes pinned on that. Like I said, what the Japanese (Read, Showa Emperor) wanted was the continuation of the Imperial house with all powers granted to it under the Meiji Constitution. Perferabily with Emperor Showa on the damn thing. Even after the war, this continued. When SCAP ordered the Japanese to draft a new constitution, they pretty much handed MacArthur the Meiji Constitution with some cosmetic changes, but preserved all powers of the Imperial house. This caused the general to have Americans draft a constitution for Japan, in about a week.

That's also lead to problems. ;)

Your post was very good- accurate, yet concise. :)
Thank you.

I'd like to point out that my purpose in creating this thread wasn't to have another; 'atomic bombs are evil' 'they where the only option' thread. Luckily it hasn't completly degenerated into this so far. Basically I'm wondering what your opnions are on the invasion. Would it have worked? Obviously you would have to introduce the atomic bombs into a discussion such as this, but I don't want this to be the main point of this discussion.
Well, it would have worked, there's no question about that. Japan could not have forced the Allied Powers off the island, it didn't have the manpower, equipment, supplies, and time to do so. The questions are actually more if there would be a Japan left if we had invaded (some of the post-war stuff is heartbreaking), and would the Allies have accepted the losses that they would have taken should they have invaded the home islands.

But it was inevidable that Japan would fall to invasion. Hell, the defence plan was entitled 100,000,000 Deaths with Honor.

If you'd like to see what life was like in Japan at that time, I highly recommend the movie 'Grave of the Fireflies'. I also recommend renting a side splitting comedy at the same time so you don't want to kill yourself after watching Grave of the Fireflies.
You know, I don't usually cry because of a movie...but that film positively broke me...

Would it not have been better to detonate the nukes on Japanese military bases instead? It would have had the same effect as dropping them on cities, after all, it was only supposed to be a demonstration of firepower.


A bit historical correction is needed here. The common perception among those who aren't very familiar with the subject is that the US was simply targeting the civilian population. This is simply not the case at all. Hiroshima, Kitakyushu, and Nagasaki all contained military targets (supply depots, headquarters, aresenals, naval shipyards, etc.. The nature of Japanese urban layout is thorougly mixed and hitting a military target without the "colateral damage" was virtually impossible.

Furthermore, the primary intent was to destroy these military targets as efficiently as possible, not as a demonstration. Militaries simply don't do that.

Furthermore, the primary intent was to destroy these military targets as efficiently as possible, not as a demonstration. Militaries simply don't do that.
But Politicians do.
http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html#E

But Politicians do.
http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html#E

However, your source states that the target should be a military one.

8. Use Against "Military" Objectives

A. It was agreed that for the initial use of the weapon any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the bomb.

You might also note what the source says about the two targets:

(2) Hiroshima - This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target)

(4) Kokura Arsenal - This is one of the largest arsenals in Japan and is surrounded by urban industrial structures. The arsenal is important for light ordnance, anti-aircraft and beach head defense materials. The dimensions of the arsenal are 4100' x 2000'. The dimensions are such that if the bomb were properly placed full advantage could be taken of the higher pressures immediately underneath the bomb for destroying the more solid structures and at the same time considerable blast damage could be done to more feeble structures further away. (Classified as an A Target)

The assesments of both emphasise their military nature first.

The assesments of both emphasise their military nature first.
I don't doubt it - but to think that there was no part in this as far as demonstration and psychological effects go is false.

I don't doubt it - but to think that there was no part in this as far as demonstration and psychological effects go is false.

Fair enough.

bump

Though the leaders of Japan wanted to Surrender, I believe the Military forces would have fought to the death, no matter how many soldiers and civilians died. The past Japan Armies when out numbered in places such a Manila , instead of surrendering or evacuating they fought to the death. They used every resource they had in that battle and fought in a seige for over a month. By the time that battle was over, over 16,550 Japanese Soldiers were dead and the entire city was destroyed. The Filippino Civilians lost over 100,000 people. Even the few European neutrals and even German Allies located in the city, around 1,500, were murdered by the Japanese. The Americans lost around 1,100. The Japanese soldiers were so fanatical in their fighting that even being blasted inside buildings and buried in Rubble with who knows how many injuries they kept shooting. The American soldiers eventually had to spray Petrol on all of the collasped buildings and ignite them to kill those who kept shooting from inside those ruins. Now imagine fighting through all of Japan that way.

Though the leaders of Japan wanted to Surrender, I believe the Military forces would have fought to the death, no matter how many soldiers and civilians died. The past Japan Armies when out numbered in places such a Manila , instead of surrendering or evacuating they fought to the death. They used every resource they had in that battle and fought in a seige for over a month. By the time that battle was over, over 16,550 Japanese Soldiers were dead and the entire city was destroyed. The Filippino Civilians lost over 100,000 people. Even the few European neutrals and even German Allies located in the city, around 1,500, were murdered by the Japanese. The Japanese soldiers were so fanatical in their fighting that even being blasted inside buildings and buried in Rubble with who knows how many injuries they kept shooting. The American soldiers eventually had to spray Petrol on all of the collasped buildings and ignite them to stop shooting. Now imagine fighting through all of Japan that way.

All moot points, when the Emperor tells people to stop fighting... they stop. The military heads would not disobey him- even if they disagreed with him. The military was loyal to him, not the country.

Here is a very in depth and authoritative article on the subject

http://www.waszak.com/japanww2.htm

We seriously under estimated what Japan had to defend themselves

"Allied intelligence had established that the Japanese had no more than 2,500 aircraft of which they guessed 300 would be deployed in suicide attacks.

In August 1945, however, unknown to Allied intelligence, the Japanese still had 5, 651 army and 7,074 navy aircraft, for a total of 12, 725 planes of all types. Every village had some type of aircraft manufacturing activity. Hidden in mines, railway tunnels, under viaducts and in basements of department stores, work was being done to construct new planes.

Additionally, the Japanese were building newer and more effective models of the Okka, a rocket-propelled bomb much like the German V-1, but flown by a suicide pilot.

When the invasion became imminent, Ketsu-Go called for a fourfold aerial plan of attack to destroy up to 800 Allied ships.

While Allied ships were approaching Japan, but still in the open seas, an initial force of 2,000 army and navy fighters were to fight to the death to control the skies over kyushu. A second force of 330 navy combat pilots were to attack the main body of the task force to keep it from using its fire support and air cover to protect the troop carrying transports. While these two forces were engaged, a third force of 825 suicide planes was to hit the American transports.

As the invasion convoys approached their anchorages, another 2,000 suicide planes were to be launched in waves of 200 to 300, to be used in hour by hour attacks."
...
"Had Olympic come about, the Japanese civilian population, inflamed by a national slogan - "One Hundred Million Will Die for the Emperor and Nation" - were prepared to fight to the death. Twenty Eight Million Japanese had become a part of the National Volunteer Combat Force. They were armed with ancient rifles, lunge mines, satchel charges, Molotov cocktails and one-shot black powder mortars. Others were armed with swords, long bows, axes and bamboo spears. The civilian units were to be used in nighttime attacks, hit and run maneuvers, delaying actions and massive suicide charges at the weaker American positions.

At the early stage of the invasion, 1,000 Japanese and American soldiers would be dying every hour."

That, coupled with the planed Kamikazi attacks on the invasion force would have been a horiffic bloodbath.

The correct decision was made to drop the bombs

Was going to provide my counter but Reaganodia gave the correct point.

By the way a little known fact was that not all of the Japanese Commanders were Loyal to the Emperor.

By the way a little known fact was that not all of the Japanese Commanders were Loyal to the Emperor.

Again, irrelevant.

Once the Emperor says stop- it doesn't matter whether a general disobeys (which he wouldn't have done anyway)- the soldiers on the ground, the civilian population et al would have obeyed.

Read NERVUN's post a page back- its a good account of his power and influence.

Again, irrelevant.

Once the Emperor says stop- it doesn't matter whether a general disobeys (which he wouldn't have done anyway)- the soldiers on the ground, the civilian population et al would have obeyed.

Read NERVUN's post a page back- its a good account of his power and influence.

Wait they could always say that it was an American Lie.

The military heads would not disobey him- even if they disagreed with him. The military was loyal to him, not the country.

I would disagree, in fact when several of the Japanese High Command found out that the Emperor had recorded a statment to the Japanese people about surrendering, they searched the Emperor's Palace and, I believe (though I'm foggy on this part) they placed the Emperor under house arrest. Luckily they never found the recording. Some military commanders where willing to put the ideals of honor above the Emperor.

Isn't this whole discussion moot? Considering that we feasibly place ourselves into the mindset of the Allied Forces, can we imagine the times that they lived in? War around the ENTIRE world, millions dying (in death camps, in battle, etc.) and since history has shown that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki lead to the true end of WWII and the Horror of those desperate times that perhaps it was for the best.

We can sit and judge the actions of men and women long since dead, but since all we can do is judge and say this or that, all we can be content with is the fact that they did it.

I would disagree, in fact when several of the Japanese High Command found out that the Emperor had recorded a statment to the Japanese people about surrendering, they searched the Emperor's Palace and, I believe (though I'm foggy on this part) they placed the Emperor under house arrest. Luckily they never found the recording. Some military commanders where willing to put the ideals of honor above the Emperor.

Not quite. As far as I remember from my Japanese history, those younger more rash officers attempted to seize control to influence the Emperor back into war- and out of the doves hands.

Hirohito was smart- he never used the phrase 'surrender'. 'Bear the unbearable'...

I don't know if that secret tape actually existed or if its just an old wives tale.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/print/news/nn08-2005/nn20050812f2.htm

Hours before Emperor Hirohito decreed Japan's World War II surrender 60 years ago, two Imperial army generals foiled a coup attempt by a dozen officers to block the historic broadcast.

On Aug. 15, 1945, nearly 1,000 soldiers occupied the Imperial Palace grounds for six hours from 2 a.m., aiming to seize two 25-cm records of the reading of the surrender decree and blocking its noon broadcast that day.

Pretty good over all, Reaganodia.
The only part I am wary of is the willingness of the civilian population.

"Had Olympic come about, the Japanese civilian population, inflamed by a national slogan - "One Hundred Million Will Die for the Emperor and Nation" - were prepared to fight to the death. Twenty Eight Million Japanese had become a part of the National Volunteer Combat Force. They were armed with ancient rifles, lunge mines, satchel charges, Molotov cocktails and one-shot black powder mortars. Others were armed with swords, long bows, axes and bamboo spears. The civilian units were to be used in nighttime attacks, hit and run maneuvers, delaying actions and massive suicide charges at the weaker American positions.

I know there was already some degree of unwillingness building up among the civilian population. The big question mark is how much of the population would engage in military action. My speculation is that it would be less than the Japanese and US forces expected, but more than in, for example, Iraq.


The military heads would not disobey him- even if they disagreed with him. The military was loyal to him, not the country.

I would disagree, in fact when several of the Japanese High Command found out that the Emperor had recorded a statment to the Japanese people about surrendering, they searched the Emperor's Palace and, I believe (though I'm foggy on this part) they placed the Emperor under house arrest. Luckily they never found the recording. Some military commanders where willing to put the ideals of honor above the Emperor.

In addition, one only has to look at the extremely long history (700+ years) of the emperor as a figure head for the military to see that it isn't necessarily so that they would obey him unquestionably.