6 ms·

How many US civilians were killed by Japanese troops total vs. how many innocent women, kids, elderly, artists were firebombed and nuked by the US in Tokyo, Hir

How many US civilians were killed by Japanese troops total vs. how many innocent women, kids, elderly, artists were firebombed and nuked by the US in Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki? This comic book version of history present in the US is disgusting. The US could have nuked a 100% military installation. The US could have detonated the nukes in Tokyo harbor to scare the shit out of the population. No. The US decided to nuke TWO, not one, TWO cities full of civilian human beings.

throwaway_xx9 10y ago
Actually, Hiroshima had a bomb assembly plant. So you call them civilians, I call them military production.
hga 10y ago
How many people were prematurely dying every month in the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere after we took back the Philippines? The latest, best estimate I've seen, in the excellent book Hell to Pay: Operation Downfall and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947 (https://www.amazon.com/Hell-Pay-Operation-Downfall-1945-1947/dp/1591143160/ https://www.amazon.com/Hell-Pay-Operation-Downfall-1945-1947...) was 400,000, up from the 250,000 I'd picked up somewhere I can't remember. It had many interesting revelations, including the single thing which had a higher priority than the Manhattan Project: the building of a super-Mullberry for Operation Coronet, the invasion of the Kanto Plain on main island of Honshu, where Tokyo and much else was located. And if you study the endgame on the Japanese side, it's really not likely nukes in Tokyo harbor to scare the shit out of the population would have worked, for one thing, they had no say in the running of the country. There also wasn't generally clean separations between military installations and civilian areas, especially since Japan is so crowded. No, one of the clear factors was their leadership realizing we'd advanced to the point where a single plane could destroy a city, instead of requiring near Maximum Efforts with hundreds of them. And of course, the bottom line is that these bombings worked. All else is speculation.
- mindviews 10y ago
  >And of course, the bottom line is that these bombings worked. All else is speculation. The imminent USSR invasion from the north played a significant part in the calculus of Japan's surrender. Too often the use of nuclear weapons alone gets credit, but there was a more complex political/diplomatic context surrounding _why_ they worked in the case. Links for anyone interested in reading more on the topic: https://www.amazon.com/Racing-Enemy-Stalin-Truman-Surrender/dp/0674022416/ https://www.amazon.com/Racing-Enemy-Stalin-Truman-Surrender/... http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08/07/why_did_japan_surrender/?page=full http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08... http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japa...
  - hga 10y ago
    The imminent USSR invasion from the north played a significant part in the calculus of Japan's surrender. Well, it added to things falling apart at an accelerating rate in just about every way. I'm of the opinion that the USSR's actions didn't hurt in the least, but we have absolutely no way of knowing if they were critical, and if so, how much. Probably the biggest thing was making the Army look even more incompetent, when they needed to be squelched ... well, that had been needed for decades.... Because the real action was in far off Manchuria, which we were ever more effectively cutting off from the home islands. And it wasn't like the USSR had the ability to project serious power into the latter without our help (and even then there main effort was of course focused on Eastern Europe), there was no serious "imminent USSR invasion from the north" in the offing. At best, they could have taken a port on northern Hokkaido, which would have been utterly obnoxious after the surrender, but wouldn't change in the least the calculus of the Japanese plans to resist on the southern home islands where we were the critical threat. And where they had a real chance of "winning" as they perceived it (see Hell To Pay for lots more details) ... although that might not have turned out well given our chemical weapons capabilities, which those who didn't know about the Manhattan Project were ramping up. In fact, after the Navy busted those railway ferries than ran from it to Honshu (some had steam turbines and could do 17 knots!), causing a severe immediate transportation problem due to the lost coal supply, I seriously doubt Hokkaido's contributions to the war effort going forward could even be significant, especially since we were hardly finished in cutting the link between the two islands.
mirekrusin 10y ago
Apparently what was shocking with nuking "TWO cities" was that it was _just_ two bombs and not more. They were bombed 3 days apart. Nagasaki was unfortunate. It was suppose to be Kokura. But the weather was shit, so they picked 2nd best from the list - Nagasaki.
- douche 10y ago
  There were only two bombs ready, and they were just barely beyond prototypes, if I recall correctly.
  - hga 10y ago
    But they worked, were sufficiently weaponized, and we were already assembling the 3rd, although we were starting to hold back at that point, to give them time to decide to surrender, and giving us time to debate the proposition of using 5 or more in Operation Olympic, the invasion of southern Kyushuu scheduled in slightly less than 3 months. (November 1st, although as it turns out a typhoon that hit Okinawa would have required delaying it, which in turn would have totally screwed the timetable of Operation Coronet, the invasion of the Honshuu Kantou plain where Tokyo etc. were, due to weather.)

throwaway_xx9 10y ago

Actually, Hiroshima had a bomb assembly plant. So you call them civilians, I call them military production.

hga 10y ago

How many people were prematurely dying every month in the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere after we took back the Philippines? The latest, best estimate I've seen, in the excellent book Hell to Pay: Operation Downfall and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947 (https://www.amazon.com/Hell-Pay-Operation-Downfall-1945-1947/dp/1591143160/ https://www.amazon.com/Hell-Pay-Operation-Downfall-1945-1947...) was 400,000, up from the 250,000 I'd picked up somewhere I can't remember. It had many interesting revelations, including the single thing which had a higher priority than the Manhattan Project: the building of a super-Mullberry for Operation Coronet, the invasion of the Kanto Plain on main island of Honshu, where Tokyo and much else was located. And if you study the endgame on the Japanese side, it's really not likely nukes in Tokyo harbor to scare the shit out of the population would have worked, for one thing, they had no say in the running of the country. There also wasn't generally clean separations between military installations and civilian areas, especially since Japan is so crowded. No, one of the clear factors was their leadership realizing we'd advanced to the point where a single plane could destroy a city, instead of requiring near Maximum Efforts with hundreds of them. And of course, the bottom line is that these bombings worked. All else is speculation.

mindviews 10y ago
>And of course, the bottom line is that these bombings worked. All else is speculation. The imminent USSR invasion from the north played a significant part in the calculus of Japan's surrender. Too often the use of nuclear weapons alone gets credit, but there was a more complex political/diplomatic context surrounding _why_ they worked in the case. Links for anyone interested in reading more on the topic: https://www.amazon.com/Racing-Enemy-Stalin-Truman-Surrender/dp/0674022416/ https://www.amazon.com/Racing-Enemy-Stalin-Truman-Surrender/... http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08/07/why_did_japan_surrender/?page=full http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08... http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japa...
- hga 10y ago
  The imminent USSR invasion from the north played a significant part in the calculus of Japan's surrender. Well, it added to things falling apart at an accelerating rate in just about every way. I'm of the opinion that the USSR's actions didn't hurt in the least, but we have absolutely no way of knowing if they were critical, and if so, how much. Probably the biggest thing was making the Army look even more incompetent, when they needed to be squelched ... well, that had been needed for decades.... Because the real action was in far off Manchuria, which we were ever more effectively cutting off from the home islands. And it wasn't like the USSR had the ability to project serious power into the latter without our help (and even then there main effort was of course focused on Eastern Europe), there was no serious "imminent USSR invasion from the north" in the offing. At best, they could have taken a port on northern Hokkaido, which would have been utterly obnoxious after the surrender, but wouldn't change in the least the calculus of the Japanese plans to resist on the southern home islands where we were the critical threat. And where they had a real chance of "winning" as they perceived it (see Hell To Pay for lots more details) ... although that might not have turned out well given our chemical weapons capabilities, which those who didn't know about the Manhattan Project were ramping up. In fact, after the Navy busted those railway ferries than ran from it to Honshu (some had steam turbines and could do 17 knots!), causing a severe immediate transportation problem due to the lost coal supply, I seriously doubt Hokkaido's contributions to the war effort going forward could even be significant, especially since we were hardly finished in cutting the link between the two islands.

mirekrusin 10y ago

Apparently what was shocking with nuking "TWO cities" was that it was _just_ two bombs and not more. They were bombed 3 days apart. Nagasaki was unfortunate. It was suppose to be Kokura. But the weather was shit, so they picked 2nd best from the list - Nagasaki.

douche 10y ago
There were only two bombs ready, and they were just barely beyond prototypes, if I recall correctly.
- hga 10y ago
  But they worked, were sufficiently weaponized, and we were already assembling the 3rd, although we were starting to hold back at that point, to give them time to decide to surrender, and giving us time to debate the proposition of using 5 or more in Operation Olympic, the invasion of southern Kyushuu scheduled in slightly less than 3 months. (November 1st, although as it turns out a typhoon that hit Okinawa would have required delaying it, which in turn would have totally screwed the timetable of Operation Coronet, the invasion of the Honshuu Kantou plain where Tokyo etc. were, due to weather.)