Did the US do the right thing in dropping the atomic bombs on Japan to end WWII?

Re: The nail that sticks out

southwest88 said:

On the manpower, I don't think IJA was going to release the men (not from China, not from the Philippines. IJA had their own priorities, & that didn't include trying to invade nor hold Hawaii against determined resistance.) Nor did IJN have the sealift, nor the logistics to supply the forces during the campaign, nor shore assault capabilities - especially against determined, dug-in regular troops fighting for their national territory.

Click to expand...

Oh, on the contrary, they did.

Remember, the Japanese Army could endure hardships the US Army could not. They were designed to "live off the land", on rations that would be starvation rations to the US military. And a single Food Transport Ship could carry enough food to provision 18,000 men for 3 weeks. And to accomplish a mission they would not even have to remain in Hawaii long. Simply long enough to finish the destruction of the port facilities and remaining ships.

In 3 weeks they would be able to do enough damage to put the islands out of commission for years.

I think I'm turning Japanese

No, IJ wasn't ten feet tall. On Pearl Harbor & related, they did a lot of groundwork over a long term - spotters, interrogation of their national sailors & businessmen, spies, photo recon, monitoring radio traffic, flyovers, penetration of domestic staff, harbor & airfield studies, models. They developed shallow-plunge torpedoes, & they practiced & refined & practiced & refined.

The Pearl Harbor raid come off brilliantly - I'm not aware of any similar effort to prepare for even a land raid to destroy equipment, POL, spares, etc. Everything serious I've read on the topic says that it was a bridge much too far.

So we'll just have to disagree.

Re: I think I'm turning Japanese

southwest88 said:

The Pearl Harbor raid come off brilliantly - I'm not aware of any similar effort to prepare for even a land raid to destroy equipment, POL, spares, etc. Everything serious I've read on the topic says that it was a bridge much too far.

Click to expand...

This is where the infighting between the IJN and IJA came out.

Among the "brain trust" that Admiral Yamamoto assembled to plan the Pearl Harbor strike was Commander Minoru Genda. He was a brilliant tactician, and was also one of the first "true believers" in Naval Airpower. Even in 1938 he believed that the era of Battleships was over, and urged the IJN to stop building them and concentrate on Carriers.

The plan he advanced for the attack on Pearl Harbor was far more ambitious than the one actually conducted. And for fans of the works of Harry Turtledove, his name and plan could be very familiar.

It involved sending 3 waves of aircraft against the port facilities at Pearl Harbor. And then using half of the forces sent against the Philippines (as well as all forces sent to Guam and Wake" and seizing Oahu. Taking the Philippines would be of much lower importance. The forces sent there would be primarily be used to isolate and confine them on the islands until after they took the more remote islands.

After the 3 ways, the attack would be followed by an invasion, and occupation. Only this would be able to keep the US from interfering with the actual Japanese goal control of the Western Pacific.

And Commander Genda really was unusual. Not only did he believe that the era of the Battleship was over and the Carrier was on the rise, he also believed in strategic bombing, and that such missions should always have fighter escorts. And more so, that such fighters should only be concerned with protecting the bombers, not taking off to fight duels with any fighters they encounter. And later in the war, he was strongly against the concept of Kamikaze. Later in the war he commanded the 343rd Kokutai, and they fought with almost Western style tactics, very unusual from traditional Japanese air groups.

Instead of engaging in protracted air duels, they would hit hard and fast, then withdraw. He insisted that all pilots should return after each mission, and to withdraw if outnumbered or once the strategic objective had been obtained. This is unlike how most Japanese units operated, which would rarely leave a battle unless forced to do so.

But his war plan for attacking Hawaii included occupying the islands as a requirement. He saw it as critical for Japanese long range strategy, not only in attacking shipping off the US but in denying the base to the US for attacks against Japan. And it could be used as a bargaining chip with the US to help end the war (which they assumed would last less than a year).

You may not be aware of it, but such a plan was indeed made. But the division between the IJN and IJA prevented the IJN from even entering this proposal to the Military Command, for fears that the Army would then take over the plan and use it to advance their own agenda. And the reason it was shelved within the IJN faction was Admiral Nagumo. He was part of the "Fleet Faction", and wanted no participation by IJA forces with the attack.

But some parts of his war plan were put into use by the attacking forces. Nagumo saw the attack as being entirely done by dive bombers, but Nagumo helped persuade them to also involve more conventional type bombers. Be did believe in dive bombing, but thought the greater payloads of conventional bombers were worth the risk, even if they hit their targets less often than the dive bombers. He believed that the close mooring of the ships would help offset the inaccuracy.

But a war plan for invasion was indeed made, it was simply shelved due to interfaction fighting in the Japanese military.

https://web.archive.org/web/2014071...the-Pacific-War--The-Masterful-Strategy-.aspx

Re: I think I'm turning Japanese

Oozlefinch said:

This is where the infighting between the IJN and IJA came out.

Among the "brain trust" that Admiral Yamamoto assembled to plan the Pearl Harbor strike was Commander Minoru Genda. He was a brilliant tactician, and was also one of the first "true believers" in Naval Airpower. Even in 1938 he believed that the era of Battleships was over, and urged the IJN to stop building them and concentrate on Carriers.

The plan he advanced for the attack on Pearl Harbor was far more ambitious than the one actually conducted. And for fans of the works of Harry Turtledove, his name and plan could be very familiar.

It involved sending 3 waves of aircraft against the port facilities at Pearl Harbor. And then using half of the forces sent against the Philippines (as well as all forces sent to Guam and Wake" and seizing Oahu. Taking the Philippines would be of much lower importance. The forces sent there would be primarily be used to isolate and confine them on the islands until after they took the more remote islands.

After the 3 ways, the attack would be followed by an invasion, and occupation. Only this would be able to keep the US from interfering with the actual Japanese goal control of the Western Pacific.

And Commander Genda really was unusual. Not only did he believe that the era of the Battleship was over and the Carrier was on the rise, he also believed in strategic bombing, and that such missions should always have fighter escorts. And more so, that such fighters should only be concerned with protecting the bombers, not taking off to fight duels with any fighters they encounter. And later in the war, he was strongly against the concept of Kamikaze. Later in the war he commanded the 343rd Kokutai, and they fought with almost Western style tactics, very unusual from traditional Japanese air groups.

Instead of engaging in protracted air duels, they would hit hard and fast, then withdraw. He insisted that all pilots should return after each mission, and to withdraw if outnumbered or once the strategic objective had been obtained. This is unlike how most Japanese units operated, which would rarely leave a battle unless forced to do so.

But his war plan for attacking Hawaii included occupying the islands as a requirement. He saw it as critical for Japanese long range strategy, not only in attacking shipping off the US but in denying the base to the US for attacks against Japan. And it could be used as a bargaining chip with the US to help end the war (which they assumed would last less than a year).

You may not be aware of it, but such a plan was indeed made. But the division between the IJN and IJA prevented the IJN from even entering this proposal to the Military Command, for fears that the Army would then take over the plan and use it to advance their own agenda. And the reason it was shelved within the IJN faction was Admiral Nagumo. He was part of the "Fleet Faction", and wanted no participation by IJA forces with the attack.

But some parts of his war plan were put into use by the attacking forces. Nagumo saw the attack as being entirely done by dive bombers, but Nagumo helped persuade them to also involve more conventional type bombers. Be did believe in dive bombing, but thought the greater payloads of conventional bombers were worth the risk, even if they hit their targets less often than the dive bombers. He believed that the close mooring of the ships would help offset the inaccuracy.

But a war plan for invasion was indeed made, it was simply shelved due to interfaction fighting in the Japanese military.

https://web.archive.org/web/2014071...the-Pacific-War--The-Masterful-Strategy-.aspx

Click to expand...

That was an awesome read and thanks for the link...

The Japanese say it was the right thing. Had we not dropped the bomb on Japan we would of had to invade Japan and kill every Japanese down the last man, woman and child. For they were all brainwashed by their government to believe that Americans were out to kill their people and they would have given fierce resistance. The invasion would have been a success but the casualties of Japan would have been massive. After dropping the bomb a couple of times it sent out a reality check to the Japanese government that there was no hope in fending off the invasion and continuing on as a nation if they did not surrender.

Ploughboy said:

The Japanese say it was the right thing. Had we not dropped the bomb on Japan we would of had to invade Japan and kill every Japanese down the last man, woman and child. For they were all brainwashed by their government to believe that Americans were out to kill their people and they would have given fierce resistance. The invasion would have been a success but the casualties of Japan would have been massive. After dropping the bomb a couple of times it sent out a reality check to the Japanese government that there was no hope in fending off the invasion and continuing on as a nation if they did not surrender.

Click to expand...

That is not true. What they were "brainwashed" by was their own culture and religion.

Remember, this is the longest Empire in history, with an Emperor today that is a direct descendant of the first Japanese Emperor. Great-grandson of the Sun Goddess, he formed the Empire at the same time that the Babylonians overthrew the Assyrians. At the time that Josiah destroyed all pagan idols in Judea and returned the Ark of the Covenant to the Temple. The same King Josiah that was killed by Egyptian Pharaoh Necho II at the Battle of Megiddo (which is the source of our word "Armageddon"). Jimmu was Emperor when the Greek poet Sappho was born, as was Aesop. During his reign Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians and the Exile began. The Etruscans took over a small backwards rural kingdom in West-Central Italy, a capitol of a few hundred people called Rome. And that single dynasty is still ruling to this day.

It is impossible to really understand the Japanese without understanding that simple fact. They are an Empire that has stood for over 2,000 years. A single Dynasty, that has never fallen. They truly believed that their Emperor was Divine, and dying for him was the greatest of honors. This is not "Government Brainwashing", this truly was their culture, and had been for thousands of years.

It is a culture that was (and still is) xenophobic, and has complete confidence in their superiority. It is also a culture that for over 2,000 years accepted complete obedience to the will of the Emperor, and that surrender was without honor. It was the beliefs of Shinto and Bushido that ultimately led to their downfall.

It did not matter if the Americans were out to kill them or not, the only responses would have been to fight to the death, or death. Their very culture accepted no alternative. There was no surrender, there was no capitulation. They could not even agree to an armistice other than as a Pro Quo Ante Bellium, their culture simply would not allow it. That is why ultimately it was only their Emperor who could surrender, and by doing so absolve all the shame and dishonor for doing so onto himself and not onto the Japanese people.

And we would not have had to kill all of them, but the most realistic estimates prior to the invasion were horrific. The Shockley Report was commissioned after the battles of Saipan and Okinawa, and took the greatly increased casualties into consideration (as well as the horrific death rate among civilians). It estimated between 1.5 and 4 million Allied casualties, and from between 5 and 10 million Japanese casualties.

Re: I think I'm turning Japanese

Bodhisattva said:

That was an awesome read and thanks for the link...

Click to expand...

You are quite welcome.

Not only have I made the War in the Pacific a major part of my research and study for over 30 years, I lived in Japan for over a year. I spent a lot of time back then talking to survivors of the battles, and getting to know and understand their mindset. Most people today tend to think of the Japanese, and think of men in business suits, workers doing calisthenics in uniform prior to starting work, and tourists going around with cameras taking pictures of everything.

But many miss the fact that that was simply how they changed their warlike tendencies. After 1945, instead of waging wars with guns and ships, they waged it with factories and workers. The "Modern Samurai" still studied Mushashi's Five Rings, but instead applied it to commerce. They invaded the world with transistor radios, cameras, and ultimately televisions and VCRs. They overthrew the Industrial powers of RCA, Zenith and Ford with Sony, Mitsubishi, and Toyota. Nikon thrust in the spear that mortally wounded the colossus Kodak.

I have great love and respect for the Japanese people, but I also see what they are, and what they can become if they ever decide to pursue an "Empire on Earth" ever again. And why if China or North Korea ever does push them hard enough to decide to shake off the chains they have wrapped themselves in, they could very easily once again change within their culture and return to the military powerhouse they have been in the past.

The majority of people at most only have a superficial grasp as to what actually led to the Pacific War. And that to Japan, attacking the US was really only a sideshow, a diversion to prevent them from being attacked from behind as they went after their actual goal. But it was the miscalculation by those highest in the government that ultimately caused their downfall, because they were completely wrong in how the US would respond. Even though a great many in the military (including General Tadamichi Kuribayashi and Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto) knew it was a foolish decision that would ultimately fail.

Re: I think I'm turning Japanese

Oozlefinch said:

You are quite welcome.

Not only have I made the War in the Pacific a major part of my research and study for over 30 years, I lived in Japan for over a year. I spent a lot of time back then talking to survivors of the battles, and getting to know and understand their mindset. Most people today tend to think of the Japanese, and think of men in business suits, workers doing calisthenics in uniform prior to starting work, and tourists going around with cameras taking pictures of everything.

But many miss the fact that that was simply how they changed their warlike tendencies. After 1945, instead of waging wars with guns and ships, they waged it with factories and workers. The "Modern Samurai" still studied Mushashi's Five Rings, but instead applied it to commerce. They invaded the world with transistor radios, cameras, and ultimately televisions and VCRs. They overthrew the Industrial powers of RCA, Zenith and Ford with Sony, Mitsubishi, and Toyota. Nikon thrust in the spear that mortally wounded the colossus Kodak.

I have great love and respect for the Japanese people, but I also see what they are, and what they can become if they ever decide to pursue an "Empire on Earth" ever again. And why if China or North Korea ever does push them hard enough to decide to shake off the chains they have wrapped themselves in, they could very easily once again change within their culture and return to the military powerhouse they have been in the past.

Click to expand...

Good stuff!

The majority of people at most only have a superficial grasp as to what actually led to the Pacific War. And that to Japan, attacking the US was really only a sideshow, a diversion to prevent them from being attacked from behind as they went after their actual goal. But it was the miscalculation by those highest in the government that ultimately caused their downfall, because they were completely wrong in how the US would respond. Even though a great many in the military (including General Tadamichi Kuribayashi and Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto) knew it was a foolish decision that would ultimately fail.

Click to expand...

I did know this...

Re: I think I'm turning Japanese

Toggle Almendro said:

Deliberately targeting civilians is wrong.

Click to expand...

No, it isn't.

No government can wage war without the consent and support of the people.

Tacit support and consent is still support and consent.

If the Japanese people didn't want war, then they should have refused to pay taxes.

The Japanese people could have called for mass strikes to stop the production of war materiel.

The Japanese people could have engaged in work-stoppages and work slow-downs in the production of war materiel.

The Japanese people could have sabotaged equipment and machinery used in the production of war materiel.

The Japanese people could have destroyed roads, bridges and rail lines to halt the production of war materiel.

The Japanese people could have destroyed warehouses and supply depots where the raw materials, parts and other items used for production of war materiel are stored.

And if that failed, the Japanese people could have overthrown their government, and if they were unable to do that, then they should have fled Japan.

Did the Japanese people do any of that?

No, they didn't. They happily paid their taxes and dutifully worked as hard as they could to produce war materiel. That means the Japanese people aided and abetted the war; were complicit in the war; were conspirators in the war; and were accessories before and during the fact. The Japanese man that made the bullets used by Japanese soldiers was just as involved in the war as the soldier himself.

The Japanese people deserved to be attacked and killed, if for no other reason than it interferes and impedes the ability of the country to wage war.

You start indiscriminately killing civilians en masse, and you'll put an end to war real fast.

Re: I think I'm turning Japanese

Mircea said:

No, it isn't.

Click to expand...

The Avalon Prject - Laws of War : Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907

Art. 23.
In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -
To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

Art. 25.
The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

Re: I think I'm turning Japanese

Toggle Almendro said:

The Avalon Prject - Laws of War : Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907

Art. 23.
In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -
To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

Art. 25.
The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

Click to expand...

And when that town is actively involved in making war material, that no longer applies.

When that town also has an active military force in place, that no longer applies.

For an example, attacking McCall Idaho would be forbidden, since there is no military industry or force present.

Attacking El Paso Texas would be allowed, since it is also the home of Fort Bliss, an active Army garrison.

Hiroshima was the command post of the Second General Army, as well as being the largest logistical base for the material to be used by the Japanese in the defense of Japan in the the event of an invasion

Nagasaki was the home of the largest Naval Shipyard during the war. There they had built most of the destroyers and submarines used by the Japanese Navy during the war, in addition to the Battleship Musashi.

Both cities had sizeable military garrisons, and were heavily defended.

Re: I think I'm turning Japanese

Oozlefinch said:

Hiroshima was the command post of the Second General Army, as well as being the largest logistical base for the material to be used by the Japanese in the defense of Japan in the the event of an invasion

Nagasaki was the home of the largest Naval Shipyard during the war. There they had built most of the destroyers and submarines used by the Japanese Navy during the war, in addition to the Battleship Musashi.

Click to expand...

I heartily agree.

The poster that I was responding to was saying that it is OK to deliberately target civilians. It was that claim that I was taking issue with.

All the world's a stage

Mircea said:

No, it isn't.

No government can wage war without the consent and support of the people.

Tacit support and consent is still support and consent.

If the Japanese people didn't want war, then they should have refused to pay taxes.

The Japanese people could have called for mass strikes to stop the production of war materiel.

The Japanese people could have engaged in work-stoppages and work slow-downs in the production of war materiel.

The Japanese people could have sabotaged equipment and machinery used in the production of war materiel.

The Japanese people could have destroyed roads, bridges and rail lines to halt the production of war materiel.

The Japanese people could have destroyed warehouses and supply depots where the raw materials, parts and other items used for production of war materiel are stored.

And if that failed, the Japanese people could have overthrown their government, and if they were unable to do that, then they should have fled Japan.

Did the Japanese people do any of that?

No, they didn't. They happily paid their taxes and dutifully worked as hard as they could to produce war materiel. That means the Japanese people aided and abetted the war; were complicit in the war; were conspirators in the war; and were accessories before and during the fact. The Japanese man that made the bullets used by Japanese soldiers was just as involved in the war as the soldier himself.

The Japanese people deserved to be attacked and killed, if for no other reason than it interferes and impedes the ability of the country to wage war.

You start indiscriminately killing civilians en masse, and you'll put an end to war real fast.

Click to expand...

The consent and support of the IJ people was taken for granted in Japan - that had been worked out during the Samurai period. & the IJ military government by Dec. 1941 was very well entrenched. The military had been radicalized, to the extent that political assassinations of IJ nobles had taken place. TMK the press, the religious authorities, the political apparatus, the police, justice, radio - all were cooperating with IJ's military campaigns (see also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Japan#Military_and_social_organizations

"Overall, during the 1920s, Japan changed its direction toward a democratic system of government. However, parliamentary government was not rooted deeply enough to withstand the economic and political pressures of the 1930s, during which military leaders became increasingly influential. These shifts in power were made possible by the ambiguity and imprecision of the Meiji Constitution, particularly as regarded the position of the Emperor in relation to the constitution.

"Military and social organizations[edit]

"Important institutional links existed between the party in government (Kōdōha) and military and political organizations, such as the Imperial Young Federation and the "Political Department" of the Kempeitai. Amongst the himitsu kessha (secret societies), the Kokuryu-kai and Kokka Shakai Shugi Gakumei (National Socialist League) also had close ties to the government. The Tonarigumi (residents committee) groups, the Nation Service Society (national government trade union), and Imperial Farmers Association were all allied as well. Other organizations and groups related with the government in wartime were: Double Leaf Society, Kokuhonsha, Taisei Yokusankai, Imperial Youth Corps, Keishichō (to 1945), Shintoist Rites Research Council, Treaty Faction, Fleet Faction, and Volunteer Fighting Corps."

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

So - the people withholding their consent & support of government is plausible in UK & the US & a handful of other countries. It was not plausible in IJ, where the ground rules were set long before, & denied the farmers & lower economic classes any real political choices. It was a tragedy, & all the more reason to advocate for representative government in the World - that way, if we have to wage war, we can @ least know that we're punishing the right people.

Re: All the world's a stage

Dropping those two a-bombs showed the world just how powerful they were. I believe this has been a big factor in preventing a nuclear war since.