5 ms·

> For Japanese casualties, the predictions were essentially limitless, since the plans included bombing every city in the invasion’s path with the tactics used

> For Japanese casualties, the predictions were essentially limitless, since the plans included bombing every city in the invasion’s path with the tactics used on Tokyo. Viewed through this pitiless lens, Hiroshima and Nagasaki not only saved 100,000 American lives but also forced Emperor Hirohito to surrender, saving millions of Japanese lives and turning the country into a bastion of democracy and one of America’s most valued allies. This keeps being repeated. The US's own survey corps concluded that the nuclear bombing was unnecessary for ensuring a Japanese surrender, and in all likelihood was instead to ensure Japan surrendered to the US and not to Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Strategic_Bombing_Survey#Atomic_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Strategic_Bombin...

maratc 1y ago
> in all likelihood was instead to ensure Japan surrendered to the US and not to Russia. Assuming you mean USSR, who declared war on Japan on August 8th 1945, we need to believe someone used a time machine to travel to the future before they authorized the first atomic strike on August 6th?
mixmastamyk 1y ago
May be, but hard to prove either way without an A/B timeline test. "Military historian Gian Gentile disputed this counterfactual, stating that testimony from Japanese leaders in USSBS interrogations supported the likelihood of Japan continuing the war beyond November and December 1945. Gentile stated that survey authors chose not to publish such evidence, as it challenged their conclusions."
delichon 1y ago
The command at the time had fresh memories of the suicidal resistance from Wake Island to Okinowa. You can imagine the large impression all of the bodies made on them. It must have been hard to convince them that the rest of the Japanese were different, and to bet so much on it.
- sandinmyjoints 1y ago
  Yeah, the parent comment is interestingly and carefully phrased -- it is not claiming that the decision makers at the time could have known that Japan (according to this one report, anyway) would have surrendered without the bombings or invasion, but rather that since it is the case they would have (again, according to this report), that people should not claim the decision to bomb saved lives.
daft_pink 1y ago
You are mixing up two ideas. The survey stated that Japan was going to lose the war with or without nuclear weapons as strategically Japan was overmatched, which was obviously true. However, this survey was looking at Japan’s overall defeat, not the timing of surrender or the number of casualties avoided by dropping the bomb. At the time, US military planners were working with invasion timetables that projected tens of thousands to hundred thousands of US casualties if the US invaded Japan. The survey doesn’t deny that many more American or Japanese soldiers might have died in the weeks or months before surrender if the war had not ended immediately after the atomic bomb was droppped.
opo 1y ago
Your link says this: >...Military historian Gian Gentile disputed this counterfactual, stating that testimony from Japanese leaders in USSBS interrogations supported the likelihood of Japan continuing the war beyond November and December 1945. Gentile stated that survey authors chose not to publish such evidence, as it challenged their conclusions. The last major battle before the dropping of the atomic bombs was the battle for Okinawa and it was the bloodiest and fiercest battle fought against the Japanese. Absolutely no one who knew about that battle would have claimed that Japan was already defeated. >...When the guns fell silent, more than 240,000 people had lost their lives in the campaign for Okinawa. The American loss rate was 35 percent of the force, totaling 49,151 casualties. >...So close to the home islands, most Japanese soldiers refused to surrender and fought to the death. Their fanaticism contributed to a dreadful toll. Some 110,000 Japanese and conscripted Okinawan defenders were killed in action. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/okinawa-costs-victory-last-battle https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/okinawa-costs... Japan had every intention of defending the main islands just as strong, or stronger, starting with operation Ketsu-Go. One of the slogans in Japan in 1945 was "The sooner the Americans come, the better...One hundred million die proudly." https://irp.fas.org/eprint/arens/chap4.htm https://irp.fas.org/eprint/arens/chap4.htm As user 542354234235 pointed out in an earlier message: >...Every option (invasion, mass starvation via blockade, atomic bombing) was a horrific nightmare of death for the Japanese. Unfortunately, I think that was situation the Allies found themselves in. >...and in all likelihood was instead to ensure Japan surrendered to the US and not to Russia This idea keeps getting repeated by revisionists, but is not credible. While the Soviets considered invading Hokkaido after Japan surrendered, very few people think they would have succeeded. The USA had given the Soviet Union some ships that could be used, but they would not have been nearly enough.
jcranmer 1y ago
The role of the atomic bombings in compelling Japanese surrender is still hotly debated, and will remain so until the end of time because, quite frankly, we don't have the historical record that will conclusively decide the debate. Strategic bombing, outside of maybe the two atomic bombings, has never compelled an enemy's surrender despite several attempts to do so. And the fact that the bomber corps's own survey, trying to argue for the value of its work, suggested that it alone was capable of bringing Japan to surrender without any other forces given enough time should be regarded with a healthy degree of skepticism.

maratc 1y ago

> in all likelihood was instead to ensure Japan surrendered to the US and not to Russia. Assuming you mean USSR, who declared war on Japan on August 8th 1945, we need to believe someone used a time machine to travel to the future before they authorized the first atomic strike on August 6th?

mixmastamyk 1y ago

May be, but hard to prove either way without an A/B timeline test. "Military historian Gian Gentile disputed this counterfactual, stating that testimony from Japanese leaders in USSBS interrogations supported the likelihood of Japan continuing the war beyond November and December 1945. Gentile stated that survey authors chose not to publish such evidence, as it challenged their conclusions."

delichon 1y ago

The command at the time had fresh memories of the suicidal resistance from Wake Island to Okinowa. You can imagine the large impression all of the bodies made on them. It must have been hard to convince them that the rest of the Japanese were different, and to bet so much on it.

sandinmyjoints 1y ago
Yeah, the parent comment is interestingly and carefully phrased -- it is not claiming that the decision makers at the time could have known that Japan (according to this one report, anyway) would have surrendered without the bombings or invasion, but rather that since it is the case they would have (again, according to this report), that people should not claim the decision to bomb saved lives.

daft_pink 1y ago

You are mixing up two ideas. The survey stated that Japan was going to lose the war with or without nuclear weapons as strategically Japan was overmatched, which was obviously true. However, this survey was looking at Japan’s overall defeat, not the timing of surrender or the number of casualties avoided by dropping the bomb. At the time, US military planners were working with invasion timetables that projected tens of thousands to hundred thousands of US casualties if the US invaded Japan. The survey doesn’t deny that many more American or Japanese soldiers might have died in the weeks or months before surrender if the war had not ended immediately after the atomic bomb was droppped.

opo 1y ago

Your link says this: >...Military historian Gian Gentile disputed this counterfactual, stating that testimony from Japanese leaders in USSBS interrogations supported the likelihood of Japan continuing the war beyond November and December 1945. Gentile stated that survey authors chose not to publish such evidence, as it challenged their conclusions. The last major battle before the dropping of the atomic bombs was the battle for Okinawa and it was the bloodiest and fiercest battle fought against the Japanese. Absolutely no one who knew about that battle would have claimed that Japan was already defeated. >...When the guns fell silent, more than 240,000 people had lost their lives in the campaign for Okinawa. The American loss rate was 35 percent of the force, totaling 49,151 casualties. >...So close to the home islands, most Japanese soldiers refused to surrender and fought to the death. Their fanaticism contributed to a dreadful toll. Some 110,000 Japanese and conscripted Okinawan defenders were killed in action. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/okinawa-costs-victory-last-battle https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/okinawa-costs... Japan had every intention of defending the main islands just as strong, or stronger, starting with operation Ketsu-Go. One of the slogans in Japan in 1945 was "The sooner the Americans come, the better...One hundred million die proudly." https://irp.fas.org/eprint/arens/chap4.htm https://irp.fas.org/eprint/arens/chap4.htm As user 542354234235 pointed out in an earlier message: >...Every option (invasion, mass starvation via blockade, atomic bombing) was a horrific nightmare of death for the Japanese. Unfortunately, I think that was situation the Allies found themselves in. >...and in all likelihood was instead to ensure Japan surrendered to the US and not to Russia This idea keeps getting repeated by revisionists, but is not credible. While the Soviets considered invading Hokkaido after Japan surrendered, very few people think they would have succeeded. The USA had given the Soviet Union some ships that could be used, but they would not have been nearly enough.

jcranmer 1y ago

The role of the atomic bombings in compelling Japanese surrender is still hotly debated, and will remain so until the end of time because, quite frankly, we don't have the historical record that will conclusively decide the debate. Strategic bombing, outside of maybe the two atomic bombings, has never compelled an enemy's surrender despite several attempts to do so. And the fact that the bomber corps's own survey, trying to argue for the value of its work, suggested that it alone was capable of bringing Japan to surrender without any other forces given enough time should be regarded with a healthy degree of skepticism.