3 ms·

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

by 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.
  - sprafa 10y ago
    I do believe that the we have some idea of went on in the meetings involved leading up to the surrender, and that Manchuria was invoked as much or even more than the nuclear bombings.
    - hga 10y ago
      If both of those claims were the case (we really don't know that much about the meetings), the question of interpretation is still open, i.e. was this used to beat down the Army's resistance to surrender, since even more so than in 1938-9, the Red Army was going through them "like crap through a goose", to use the famous Patton quote. Everything I've read indicates that it was the second bomb, which indeed happened on the same day as the declaration of war, that really got the attention of the rulers of Japan, and got them serious about surrendering.
pinaceae 10y ago
you don't understand my point: the US is the only country on earth that ever dropped nuclear weapons on civilians. US generals decided to kill civilians, in retaliation, to achieve pure terror. the US lost 3.5k civilians on 9/11 and started 2 wars for it. but all this mil-porn floats around, civilian armchair heroes debate death and destruction with zero empathy or connection to reality. just utterly inhuman.
- angersock 10y ago
  And it worked, now didn't it? History is written by the victors. Anyways, all sides in WWII that were able to bombed the crap out of civilian centers when they were given the chance to do so. That's what total war means. If any other nation had had nukes, you can bet your ass they would've used them--because in such a war you have no choice other than full mobilization of your warmaking abilities or surrender.
- hga 10y ago
  Everybody in the chain of command, from generals up to the civilian leadership which authorized and funded the massive effort that was the Manhattan Project, "decided to kill civilians, in retaliation, to achieve pure terror." Except, of course, Hiroshima was an entirely legitimate military target as well, it was among other things the Second General Army headquarters, e.g. over 3,000 of them were on a parade ground 900 yards from ground zero doing physical training. And it was adjacent to the naval center of Kure. In Nagasaki, 90% of the population worked for 4 big arms or precursor companies (per Wikipedia), and in general the designated target cities were important industrial centers, or at least still were because by then we'd fire bombed all of the rest of them, excepting the 4 targets/alternates, Kyoto for the obvious reasons (it's the Emperor's city), and Tokyo was also left off the target list, for not only did we need people of authority still alive to surrender, there wasn't any left of it worth bombing. You do know that the early March firebombing of it everything went "right" and we destroyed 16 square miles and killed on the order of 100,000 people? A worst outcome than either of the atomic bombings. You're saying, quite explicitly, since you don't deny my above facts, that it would have been better to let 400,000 completely innocent civilians per month in the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere to continue to be killed, and to kill millions, probably tens of millions of Japanese in Operations Starvation and the like, and in Downfall, the invasion of the home islands, which would have also killed western allied troops by the 100,000s of thousands. You'd truly prefer to have made East Asia that much more of an abattoir, further embittering all concerned, well, the survivors, that is? the US lost 3.5k civilians on 9/11 and started 2 wars for it. Not exactly, we were still in a de facto if not de jure state of war with Iraq, remember the no-fly zone et. al. left over from Saddam's invasion of Kuwait? His attempt to assassinate G. H. W. Bush? The decision to finish him off was sound, the attempted nation building afterwards was the true insanity. Invade Afghanistan and take down the regime that provided aid, comfort and shelter to al Qaeda and Osama ben Laden? You bet, you f-ck with us, past the point we get seriously angry, and we will destroy you, and if needed, through two very different administrations, hunt you down to the ends of the earth and kill you. civilian armchair heroes debate death and destruction with zero empathy or connection to reality I'd suggest that you speak for yourself, instead of imputing the worst possible motives on your debating opponents. just utterly inhuman Any serious student of history, especially the 20th Century would deny that, it's peace that's "utterly inhuman", war and violence of other types is the natural human condition. We don't have to like it, but it's silly to deny it.

by hga 10y ago

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.
- sprafa 10y ago
  I do believe that the we have some idea of went on in the meetings involved leading up to the surrender, and that Manchuria was invoked as much or even more than the nuclear bombings.
  - hga 10y ago
    If both of those claims were the case (we really don't know that much about the meetings), the question of interpretation is still open, i.e. was this used to beat down the Army's resistance to surrender, since even more so than in 1938-9, the Red Army was going through them "like crap through a goose", to use the famous Patton quote. Everything I've read indicates that it was the second bomb, which indeed happened on the same day as the declaration of war, that really got the attention of the rulers of Japan, and got them serious about surrendering.

pinaceae 10y ago

you don't understand my point: the US is the only country on earth that ever dropped nuclear weapons on civilians. US generals decided to kill civilians, in retaliation, to achieve pure terror. the US lost 3.5k civilians on 9/11 and started 2 wars for it. but all this mil-porn floats around, civilian armchair heroes debate death and destruction with zero empathy or connection to reality. just utterly inhuman.

angersock 10y ago
And it worked, now didn't it? History is written by the victors. Anyways, all sides in WWII that were able to bombed the crap out of civilian centers when they were given the chance to do so. That's what total war means. If any other nation had had nukes, you can bet your ass they would've used them--because in such a war you have no choice other than full mobilization of your warmaking abilities or surrender.
hga 10y ago
Everybody in the chain of command, from generals up to the civilian leadership which authorized and funded the massive effort that was the Manhattan Project, "decided to kill civilians, in retaliation, to achieve pure terror." Except, of course, Hiroshima was an entirely legitimate military target as well, it was among other things the Second General Army headquarters, e.g. over 3,000 of them were on a parade ground 900 yards from ground zero doing physical training. And it was adjacent to the naval center of Kure. In Nagasaki, 90% of the population worked for 4 big arms or precursor companies (per Wikipedia), and in general the designated target cities were important industrial centers, or at least still were because by then we'd fire bombed all of the rest of them, excepting the 4 targets/alternates, Kyoto for the obvious reasons (it's the Emperor's city), and Tokyo was also left off the target list, for not only did we need people of authority still alive to surrender, there wasn't any left of it worth bombing. You do know that the early March firebombing of it everything went "right" and we destroyed 16 square miles and killed on the order of 100,000 people? A worst outcome than either of the atomic bombings. You're saying, quite explicitly, since you don't deny my above facts, that it would have been better to let 400,000 completely innocent civilians per month in the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere to continue to be killed, and to kill millions, probably tens of millions of Japanese in Operations Starvation and the like, and in Downfall, the invasion of the home islands, which would have also killed western allied troops by the 100,000s of thousands. You'd truly prefer to have made East Asia that much more of an abattoir, further embittering all concerned, well, the survivors, that is? the US lost 3.5k civilians on 9/11 and started 2 wars for it. Not exactly, we were still in a de facto if not de jure state of war with Iraq, remember the no-fly zone et. al. left over from Saddam's invasion of Kuwait? His attempt to assassinate G. H. W. Bush? The decision to finish him off was sound, the attempted nation building afterwards was the true insanity. Invade Afghanistan and take down the regime that provided aid, comfort and shelter to al Qaeda and Osama ben Laden? You bet, you f-ck with us, past the point we get seriously angry, and we will destroy you, and if needed, through two very different administrations, hunt you down to the ends of the earth and kill you. civilian armchair heroes debate death and destruction with zero empathy or connection to reality I'd suggest that you speak for yourself, instead of imputing the worst possible motives on your debating opponents. just utterly inhuman Any serious student of history, especially the 20th Century would deny that, it's peace that's "utterly inhuman", war and violence of other types is the natural human condition. We don't have to like it, but it's silly to deny it.