65 years since Hiroshima: The lives saved

[Karl Heidenreich]

Lee,

In either case it is clear that the bomb saved both Japanese and allied lives.

Exactly.

[RF]

Use of phrases like ''moderate'' is not a good idea. Remember what Barry Goldwater said in 1964?

Oh, moderate is a fine word - not a dirty one (some say it is).

At least it has meaning in the context of this thread, unlike 'apologist'

Its not that it is ''fine'' or ''dirty'' its just that it sybolises vagueness and indecisiveness. Policies that are dressed up as ''moderate'' for the purposes of political spin can still be carrried out decisively in the hands of a strong leader. For example De Gaulle settled the Algerian problem for France by granting Algeria independencee - a moderate policy but carried out with force in the face of determined internal opposition.

[RF]

I'm actually pretty sure that they would indeed have surrendered before an invasion occured. However I susptect that is mostly because US intel comunity was becoming convinced that the Japanese had figured out where we were going to land and possbily getting an idea of the magnitude of what was waiting. There's at least a decent chance the planned invasion would be postponed. If it was there wouldn't be suitable weather until spring of 46. The Japanese were already suffering the effects of malnutrition. Several more months of blockade and bombing would have been almost sure to have raised famine and its follower disease to exponentially higher levels. I don't see even the Japanese accepting that. On the otherhand I'm not at all sure the USBS 1 Jan date is correct either as the absolute cut off.
If the invasion had gone as planned the actual losses may have been underestimated as the environment was much more condusive to kamikaze attacks and this time there would be both surface and submarine attacks of this nature. Furthermore they had decided to target the transports rather than war vessels.
In either case it is clear that the bomb saved both Japanese and allied lives.

I think a lot of this is being wise after the event, and given at the time the US perspective on the unwanted intervention of the USSR, the Americans, particulary Truman, would have wanted the Japanese dealt with pretty quickly. Sitting and waiting wasn't an option.

[lwd]

.... I think a lot of this is being wise after the event,

Indeed that rears its head every time this is discussed. I usually try to make it clear when I'm answering if I'm basing my argument on data not available at the time or looking at it from the veiwpont of the time. The answer is pretty much the same either way as far as I can see but the post event possition is much stronger IMO.

and given at the time the US perspective on the unwanted intervention of the USSR, the Americans, particulary Truman, would have wanted the Japanese dealt with pretty quickly. Sitting and waiting wasn't an option.

From what I've read there was a lot of pressure on Truman to end the war ASAP. That said I don't think he would needlessly have wasted lives. Mac also even if you consider him completely ego centric would have had his repurtaion on the line for Olympic and if it was clear that he was heading into a prepared defence where even if he "won" the losses would be so high that his reputaion would suffer severely he would have gone for the postponement. A big question in this is the Soviets and what they would attempt to do and what pressures that would create.

[RF]

Indeed the actions, or anticipated actions, of the Soviets could be crucial - even possibly inspiring the US to land directly into southern Korea first before the invasion of Japan. Neither would the Americans want the Japanese so starved and poor that they all turn communist by overthrowing the Meiji dynasty.

[Byron Angel]

Still unpacking books after our move. Up popped my copy of "The History of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in World War II - The War against Japan". The following excerpt will provide a good feel for how USA war leaders assessed the situation vis-a-via Japan circa July 1945 -

quote -

Despite this bleak outlook for Japan, however, the CIC saw no prospect of surrender until the army leaders acknowledged defeat, either because of the physical defeat of the main Japanese armies or through a desire to salvage enough to maintain the military tradition of Japan and ultimately permit the resurgence of a military nation.

<snip>

U.S. plans to continue pounding the Japanese island from the air and blockading them from the sea and to land forces on Kyushu in November 1945 emphasized even more clearly how the initiative in military operations was in U.S. hands. Nevertheless, at a later meeting of the Potsdam Conference the Combined Chiefs approved 15 November 1946 as the date for the end of organized resistance by Japan upon which to base planning for production and allocation of manpower.

- unquote

In short, the USA anticipated approximately another year of organized Japanese resistance after invading Kyushu.


Byron

[RF]

An interesting time span.

I believe that the original assessment by the British/US Chiefs of Staff concerning the D-Day landings in France was that it could take up to nine months before Paris would be liberated, once the landings were made. It actually took less than three.

Possibly a similar overly pessimistic calculation was made for the projected landings in Japan - but still the Japanese loss of life, particulary given the kamikaze mentality of the defence, would have been catastrophic.