Also wasn’t part of the issue that after dropping one, the general thought from Japan’s side was “well it probably took all their resources to build that and they’ve shot their wad now”, and then once we dropped the second, it turned into “oh fuck they might have like 12 of these things”?
2 Likes
Japan stuff should probably be excised. I too was taught the “It’s either mass land invasion with massive military and civilian casualties” or “nukes” narrative. The reality was Japan’s ability to wage war outside of its home islands was decimated. They could barely fuel and man the few remaining ships and planes they had. They weren’t really a threat anymore. I’m not sure a land invasion was at all necessary to end the war. The war was effectively over.
The bombings just sped up the surrender, and kept the soviets from launching their invasion and claiming additional territory. We couldn’t let our pride take that hit. Although in a more common sense world who gives a fuck. Although maybe we did save a lot of lives with the bombings because a soviet invasion would have been brutal.
This is the trolley problem that never was. There wasn’t a plan to invade the main islands in place. it was never seriously considered by our military and political leaders. Everyone knew an invasion was unnecessary at the time. That whole argument of it would have cost 1 million American casualties didn’t see the light of day until a decade later.
1 Like
OK. It sounds like you have researched it a lot more than me. Like I said earlier, it’s not unbelievable to me that the rationale was invented after the fact by the winners of the war.
Where are you getting this? I mean there are all sorts of contemporaneous records of Operation Downfall.
1 Like
I’m imaging Ikioi logging on, seeing this thread title and going “rut-roh.”
13 Likes
Right, again, the US government knew that Japan wanted to surrender for months. Downfall was never happening nukes or not, and we knew it.
Grunching: I don’t think anybody should nuke Japan.
3 Likes
Wasn’t part of the alleged motivation to send a message to Germany and perhaps even the Soviet Union.
1 Like
Germany had already surrendered by that point, but yes, a big part of the motivation for dropping the bombs was a demonstration to the Soviets.
And that did take all our resources, we didn’t have a third.
Fired the flop and turn hoping villain folds thinking we will jam river.
Calling @BadPokerAnalogy on myself lol.
11 Likes
There were enough in the final stages of production that we could have done it 10 more times in 1945. Holy fuck that would have been disgusting.
I think it’s unlikely that humanity would have made it to 2022 without anyone ever nuking a city because we really suck. It was a horrific war crime, but it’s one of the terrible historical events where time-traveling to stop it would be extremely risky. As bad as it was, there are a lot worse potential outcomes for the first nukes.
The decision-makers of the time couldn’t know that their choice would definitely result in 75+ years without another nuke used, so I’m not going to give them the credit for it. Knowing the result though, I wouldn’t want the responsibility of deciding whether to Thanos-snap it away, even if the result of the war was totally unchanged.
2 Likes
The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes is one of the most fascinating books I’ve ever read. It culminates in the use of the bombs in Japan and the decision making that lead up to that, but it also covers WWII firebombing campaigns, the immense effort needed to manufacture the weapons, and the scientific discoveries that made them possible. Highly recommended for anyone interested in these subjects.
3 Likes
Consider the small and little-noticed plaque hanging in the National Museum of the US Navy that accompanies the replica of “Little Boy,” the weapon used against the people of Hiroshima: In its one paragraph, it makes clear that Truman’s political advisers overruled the military in determining how the end of the war with Japan would be approached. Furthermore, contrary to the popular myths around the atomic bomb’s nearly magical power to end the war, the Navy Museum’s explication of the history clearly indicates that “the vast destruction wreaked by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the loss of 135,000 people made little impact on the Japanese military.”
The only response to that quote is ‘well duh’ and really makes me not want to read it
The whole point was to destroy the willingness to fight more, not take down battleships
I’m sure there are some people who assume that Truman was following the advice of his generals and admirals instead of overriding what the military wanted, so I don’t think “well duh” is the correct response.
One of the things not discussed enough in the context is that Truman might have been the dumbest person to ever hold the office of US President. We’re talking Trump level stupidity.
He was the compromise to replace Henry Wallace(possibly the GOAT VP), because the conservative wing of the party hated him.
1 Like
This is nonsense. Japan didn’t “want to surrender.” If it did, its leadership would’ve made direct overtures to the US. I feel like there are a bunch of people ITT who have been getting their history from the youtubez.
I recommend the 3 part history of the war in the Pacific by Ian Toll to anyone who wants to learn about this stuff. It’s based on primary sources, all of which are cited.
3 Likes