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
I read the first war of physics which shows the Germans barely had a functioning early level reactor and blowing up the passenger ship carrying heavy water in Norway wasn’t necessary. It also goes on to give insight into the way the scientists wanted an international organization to control all nuclear energy post war. It talks of Japan, Russia, energy vs weapons, etc. I really liked it.
People ITT saying that the Japanese were already planning to surrender before Hiroshima sound like the hillbillies on Judge Judy who claim “I’m fixing on planning to begin looking for work.”
2 Likes
Surrender was in Japan’s range, but it was not clearly the only hand they could be playing.
They weren’t even talking surrender internally. At most, some people at the higher levels of power (incl Hirohito) were interested in a “diplomatic end” to the war in 1945. But only after they had secured one last great patriotic victory against the US in some battle to allow them enough leverage to demand a settlement whereby the military would remain in control of the government, Japan would maintain some of its overseas possessions, and there would be no foreign occupation of Japan.
These internal thoughts never made it to the Allies in any kind of overture, because Japan never earned its leverage-causing win and because it knew these demands were non-starters. None of this could be construed as a desire to surrender, much less one that was made known to the Allies.
The Japanese bargaining position at the time was basically a ceasefire with no US occupation. I’m not clear if that meant keeping Korea, Manchuria and Formosa (Taiwan), this being before the Soviet invasion. If your position is that the US should have accepted those terms rather than invading or nuking, fine.
1 Like