Thoughts on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Was it the Right Call?

[Ray McCarthy]

I agree with you that there can be a degree of misinformation about 'who beat the Germans' in the West. If you were to simplify WW2 to it's broadest brushstroke it was The Eastern Front 1941-45.

That's all I'm trying to say, and obviously ALL of Berlin is well inside East. The Western Allies specifically pushed East as fast as they could once the German defence in the West collapsed. It was a bit of race

 

[BAYLOR]

That's all I'm trying to say, and obviously ALL of Berlin is well inside East. The Western Allies specifically pushed East as fast as they could once the German defence in the West collapsed. It was a bit of race

One wonders if the US and and Uk decided by design to let Russia have all the glory of taking Berlin . Along with the glory Russia took a lot casualties .

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Nagasaki bombed instead of Kyoto?

he was particularly emphatic in agreeing with my suggestion that if elimination was not done, the bitterness which would be caused by such a wanton act might make it impossible during the long post-war period to reconcile the Japanese to us in that area rather than to the Russians".
Tensions that led to the Cold War were already brewing and the last thing the Americans wanted to do was bolster the Communist cause in Asia.
That was when Nagasaki was added to the target list instead of Kyoto. But Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military targets either.
As we know today, hundreds of thousands of civilians, including women and children, were killed. And while Kyoto may have been the most famous cultural city, the other cities also had valuable assets.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33755182

Also
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33839055
and
http://www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-33769566

In reality, historians say he [Truman] gave the order to start using the new weapon only after about 3 August and he was not fully involved in detailed decisions.
Prof Wellerstein says there is documentary evidence that the President was surprised by the devastation caused by the first bomb, especially that so many women and children had died, and the second and more powerful bomb - that hit Nagasaki - was dropped only three days later.
That call came from the military director of the bomb project, General Leslie Groves, who led the Target Committee and lost the battle to keep Kyoto at the top of the list.
He said in a letter dated 19 July that he wanted to use at least two and as many as four atomic bombs on Japan.

Note that it was Roosevelt that attended the Yalta Conference, non-USA folks might not realise the time line of Roosevelt dying, Truman becoming president and VE day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Last_days.2C_death_and_memorial

1. On April 12, 1945, Afternoon US Time Roosevelt died.
2. Truman succeeded to the presidency on April 12, 1945 (with no election).
3. VE day is a month later; the act of military surrender was signed on 7 May in Reims, France and on 8 May in Berlin, Germany.
4. July 1945 first successful Bomb test in USA
   
5. 3rd August Truman Agrees to drop the Bombs. Military though to decide how many. Plans for four ...
6. 6th Hiroshima Bomb
7. 7th or 8th Russians end Neutrality and make rapid progress attacking Japan on 8th so Japan War cabinet meeting is called for Morning of 9th (Japan Time), Build up since May, attack was inevitable.
8. 9th Nagasaki Bomb, Russians estimated to be only 10 days from major gains in Mainland North Japan.
9. It's evident that the Japanese are discussing surrendering (Since morning of 9th August BEFORE 2nd Bomb dropped!) so 3rd and 4th bomb drops are cancelled.
10. On August 15 Japan agrees to surrender to USA (actually 14th in USA?), rather than have the Russians make further gains.
11. September 2 Japan signs surrender.
12. VJ day: August 15 is the official V-J Day for the UK, while the official U.S. commemoration is September 2

What ever about the the 1st bomb, the only reason for dropping the 2nd on the 9th can have been a message to Stalin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
(pro-section totally ignores Russians ending Neutrality and their invasion of the less well defended North)

 

[Ray McCarthy]

et Russia have all the glory of taking Berlin . Along with the glory Russia took a lot casualties

I doubt at that stage Stalin cared how many:

Great Patriotic War

The battles on the Eastern Front constituted the largest military confrontation in history. They were characterized by unprecedented ferocity, wholesale destruction, mass deportations, and immense loss of life variously due to combat, starvation, exposure, disease, and massacres. The Eastern Front, as the site of nearly all extermination camps, death marches, ghettos, and the majority of pogroms, was central to the Holocaust. Of the estimated 70 million deaths attributed to World War II, over 30 million, many of them civilian, occurred on the Eastern Front.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Patriotic_War#Casualties
Nearly 15 Million Soviet/Russian Civilians died prior to battle for Berlin.

Over 11.4 million Soviet civilians within pre-1939 borders were killed, and another estimated 3.5 million civilians were killed in the annexed territories

Perhaps that's why Germans at that stage were surrendering in the West and Fighting in the East, was any Surrender actually going to be accepted in the East at that stage?
Military losses by USSR alone were over 10Million on the Eastern Front. Much of that before Berlin.

Axis troops who captured Red Army soldiers frequently shot them in the field or shipped them to concentration camps to die. Hitler's notorious Commissar Order called for Soviet political commissars, who were responsible for ensuring that Red Army units remained politically reliable, to be summarily shot when identified amongst captured troops.

It was inevitable that the Germans and Russians would fight without quarter by April and Early May 1945 till there was a complete Surrender.

 

[Venusian Broon]

One wonders if the US and and Uk decided by design to let Russia have all the glory of taking Berlin . Along with the glory Russia took a lot casualties .

Again from memory of filmed interviews, I do believe that there was an understanding in US/UK high command that Berlin was 'Soviet' (in the Soviet zone of control) and thus they hadn't planned to reach this objective - it was to be left to the Russians to capture. However many of the gung-ho US generals, finding that German resistance had for various reasons practically collapsed in the west started to get frustrated as they felt they could have reached Berlin from the west before the Soviets did (or perhaps at the same time and thus able to take part in the Battle for Berlin). However it all got a bit political at that point and there was some restraining of the more vigorous firebrands in the US army.

 

[BAYLOR]

Again from memory of filmed interviews, I do believe that there was an understanding in US/UK high command that Berlin was 'Soviet' (in the Soviet zone of control) and thus they hadn't planned to reach this objective - it was to be left to the Russians to capture. However many of the gung-ho US generals, finding that German resistance had for various reasons practically collapsed in the west started to get frustrated as they felt they could have reached Berlin from the west before the Soviets did (or perhaps at the same time and thus able to take part in the Battle for Berlin). However it all got a bit political at that point and there was some restraining of the more vigorous firebrands in the US army.

General Patton for example?

 

[Ursa major]

They went far past Berlin.

As VB has pointed out, the borders between the three** zones (UK, US, USSR) had been agreed long before the fighting was over and do not represent how successful or not those three countries' armed forces were in seizing German territory.


** - The French zones (in Berlin, in the rest of Germany and in Austria) were carved out of the British and American zones in those areas, which is why the Soviet zones look a lot larger once the four-party divisions were implemented (not to mention that the western allies had no share in any territories east of the Oder-Neisse line, which mostly went to Poland***).

*** - The Soviet Union kept the territories it had taken from Poland in September 1939 and lost in 1941 (and lost again in 1991, to Belarus, Lietuva and Ukraina).

 

[Ray McCarthy]

the borders between the three** zones (UK, US, USSR) had been agreed long before the fighting was over and do not represent how successful or not those three countries' armed forces were in seizing German territory

Yes. Yalta etc. All of which was criminal and dishonest like 1916 Sykes-Picot, which is partly responsible for all the Middle East Troubles 1922 till now.

 

[BAYLOR]

Stayed out of this debate until now, because of the coverage on the news.

Lots about the people who died. Little on the context. As I understand it, more died in the bombing of Tokyo (conventional bombing). Nothing about the potential Japanese and Allied casualties if an invasion had occurred, which would have been horrendous.

Were the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki a good thing? No. But were they the lesser of two evils? Yes.

One million Us casualties if we invaded.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

One million Us casualties if we invaded.

Zero proof. Likely only a few 10s thousand as the USA would have mounted a blockade till all the Japanese fighting the Russians who were 10 days away from major North Island Cities. That's why the Japanese surrendered to the USA.

 

[BAYLOR]

Zero proof. Likely only a few 10s thousand as the USA would have mounted a blockade till all the Japanese fighting the Russians who were 10 days away from major North Island Cities. That's why the Japanese surrendered to the USA.

The battle Okinawa gave us a hint of just what would have happened had we invaded the main Islands of Japan. The Us suffered 40,000 casualties and the Japanese over a 108,000. if we'd invade the home islands of japan it would likely have been a whole lot worse.

 

[steelyglint]

Without the bombs the Japanese would have fought against US invasion until the last man. When the invasion force overcame the defence and started moving inland they would be finding entire towns and villages of suicide victims. I seem to recall something about part of the Emperor's radio broadcast (a massive cultural shock in itself) being to prevent hara kiri. The way of life, saving face, etc., in the face of such a situation, left little option.

I might have stood behind those who suggested using the first one where the Japanese could see and appreciate the destructive force they faced becoming victims of, but detonated somewhere with a lower population. Of course, the question arises: would it be convincing enough? Seems they decided not.

.

 

[Temperance]

Zero proof. Likely only a few 10s thousand as the USA would have mounted a blockade till all the Japanese fighting the Russians who were 10 days away from major North Island Cities. That's why the Japanese surrendered to the USA.

Downfall by Richard B Frank gives a detailed breakdown of the Allied decision making process about invasion/blockade. There was no clinical blockade waiting for surrender, just millions dying of starvation and fire bombings that make Tokyo look pleasant. A single bombing raid which killed far more than both nukes.

Especially as the Soviets had no ability to invade the home islands.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Especially as the Soviets had no ability to invade the home islands.

That's simply untrue.

 

[BAYLOR]

That's simply untrue.

Russia would have gotten on control of half of Japan, had they invaded.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

would have gotten on control of half of Japan

Which I maintain was major factor in the decision to surrender to the USA. Neither the Japanese nor Russians had forgotten the 1905 war and everything after that.

 

[BAYLOR]

Today is the 71 anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.