3 ms·

> I am not the only one who believes that in the long term the atomic bombs saved millions of Japanese lives. Probably more of a modern rationalization/justifi

> I am not the only one who believes that in the long term the atomic bombs saved millions of Japanese lives. Probably more of a modern rationalization/justification for the bombings and quite questionable. Consider: The US strategic bombing survey (an "impartial assessment of the effects of strategic bombing") concluded: > "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

AlotOfReading 5y ago
It's not generally a good idea to take contemporaneous sources out of context and uncritically. USSBS was basically the same people who had been advocating massive strategic bombing the entire war writing up a report on how effective their own efforts had been. They're not going to come out and say "Yeah, we achieved nothing in Japan and it was only the nukes or Soviets that had any effect". That's not to say the report is useless, just read things more critically. Whether the bombs were the sole-cause of the surrender is a rather different discussion, and one I understand few historians would argue. It seems difficult to argue that they had no effect given that we now have records of what Japanese leadership was discussing at the time and atomics feature prominently, alongside the soviet invasion. That's why the whole consensus school thing exists, because neither was obviously definitive.
- myrmidon 5y ago
  > It's not generally a good idea to take contemporaneous sources out of context and uncritically Sure. But to be fair-- there were tons of civilian experts involved that had no great personal stake; It's not like it was written by arms manufacturer lobbyists or generals personally involved in past decision making. And I'm mostly missing strong fact-based counterarguments, so my personal opinion is going to remain that the atomic bombings probably expedited Japans surrender, but were not necessary (nor would a ground invasion have been).
  - mcguire 5y ago
    That quote is taken from the Summary Report (https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/AUPress/Books/B_0020_SPANGRUD_STRATEGIC_BOMBING_SURVEYS.pdf https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/AUPress/Books/B_..., page 107). It (almost) literally ends: "The experience of the Pacific war supports the findings of the Survey in Europe that heavy, sustained and accurate attack against carefully selected targets is required to produce decisive results when attacking an enemy's sustaining resources . It further supports the findings in Germany that no nation can long survive the free exploitation of air weapons over its homeland . For the future it is important fully to grasp the fact that enemy planes enjoying control of the sky over one's head can be as disastrous to one's country as its occupation by physical invasion." It does literally end with a call to separate the Army Air Forces from the Army. I haven't found a copy of the whole report, including the hundreds of individual reports, but I've been given to understand that they are thorough, detailed, and contradictory.
InTheArena 5y ago
You do realize that this statement was in the context of justifying further fire-bombing of Japan's cities? Each one of which would be more violent then the nuclear bombs?
- myrmidon 5y ago
  Strongly disagree. First: This was written after the war was over-- "justifying further fire-bombing" would be pretty ineffective at that point. Also, to quote from the survey: > We underestimated the ability of our air attack on Japan's home islands, coupled as it was with blockade and previous military defeats, to achieve unconditional surrender without invasion. By July 1945, the weight of our air attack had as yet reached only a fraction of its planned proportion, Japan's industrial potential had been fatally reduced, her civilian population had lost its confidence in victory and was approaching the limit of its endurance, and her leaders, convinced of the inevitability of defeat, were preparing to accept surrender. The only remaining problem was the timing and terms of that surrender. This does NOT read like a justification for *more* fire-bombing to me, but rather like a "we bombed them much more than necessary before July already".
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
They were ready to surrender with conditions. In the end the US allowed them to surrender with a single condition regarding the emperor. Is there any information regarding what their other conditions may have been?
- mcguire 5y ago
  I've been looking for them from the official source I once had, but I cannot find it today. IIRC, they were: 1. The form of the government is to be preserved; i.e. the Emperor's position is maintained. (I cannot remember if the rest of the government was included, but I don't think so.) 2. Japan is responsible for demobilizing its military. 3. There will be no occupation. 4. Japan is responsible for handling its own war crimes.

AlotOfReading 5y ago

It's not generally a good idea to take contemporaneous sources out of context and uncritically. USSBS was basically the same people who had been advocating massive strategic bombing the entire war writing up a report on how effective their own efforts had been. They're not going to come out and say "Yeah, we achieved nothing in Japan and it was only the nukes or Soviets that had any effect". That's not to say the report is useless, just read things more critically. Whether the bombs were the sole-cause of the surrender is a rather different discussion, and one I understand few historians would argue. It seems difficult to argue that they had no effect given that we now have records of what Japanese leadership was discussing at the time and atomics feature prominently, alongside the soviet invasion. That's why the whole consensus school thing exists, because neither was obviously definitive.

myrmidon 5y ago
> It's not generally a good idea to take contemporaneous sources out of context and uncritically Sure. But to be fair-- there were tons of civilian experts involved that had no great personal stake; It's not like it was written by arms manufacturer lobbyists or generals personally involved in past decision making. And I'm mostly missing strong fact-based counterarguments, so my personal opinion is going to remain that the atomic bombings probably expedited Japans surrender, but were not necessary (nor would a ground invasion have been).
- mcguire 5y ago
  That quote is taken from the Summary Report (https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/AUPress/Books/B_0020_SPANGRUD_STRATEGIC_BOMBING_SURVEYS.pdf https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/AUPress/Books/B_..., page 107). It (almost) literally ends: "The experience of the Pacific war supports the findings of the Survey in Europe that heavy, sustained and accurate attack against carefully selected targets is required to produce decisive results when attacking an enemy's sustaining resources . It further supports the findings in Germany that no nation can long survive the free exploitation of air weapons over its homeland . For the future it is important fully to grasp the fact that enemy planes enjoying control of the sky over one's head can be as disastrous to one's country as its occupation by physical invasion." It does literally end with a call to separate the Army Air Forces from the Army. I haven't found a copy of the whole report, including the hundreds of individual reports, but I've been given to understand that they are thorough, detailed, and contradictory.

InTheArena 5y ago

You do realize that this statement was in the context of justifying further fire-bombing of Japan's cities? Each one of which would be more violent then the nuclear bombs?

myrmidon 5y ago
Strongly disagree. First: This was written after the war was over-- "justifying further fire-bombing" would be pretty ineffective at that point. Also, to quote from the survey: > We underestimated the ability of our air attack on Japan's home islands, coupled as it was with blockade and previous military defeats, to achieve unconditional surrender without invasion. By July 1945, the weight of our air attack had as yet reached only a fraction of its planned proportion, Japan's industrial potential had been fatally reduced, her civilian population had lost its confidence in victory and was approaching the limit of its endurance, and her leaders, convinced of the inevitability of defeat, were preparing to accept surrender. The only remaining problem was the timing and terms of that surrender. This does NOT read like a justification for *more* fire-bombing to me, but rather like a "we bombed them much more than necessary before July already".

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

They were ready to surrender with conditions. In the end the US allowed them to surrender with a single condition regarding the emperor. Is there any information regarding what their other conditions may have been?

mcguire 5y ago
I've been looking for them from the official source I once had, but I cannot find it today. IIRC, they were: 1. The form of the government is to be preserved; i.e. the Emperor's position is maintained. (I cannot remember if the rest of the government was included, but I don't think so.) 2. Japan is responsible for demobilizing its military. 3. There will be no occupation. 4. Japan is responsible for handling its own war crimes.