Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: How many people total would have died in a US invasion of the Japanese islands in 1945-46? [View all]GreatGazoo
(4,525 posts)17. 2 Nuclear bombs did not force Japan to surrender
The A-bombs had less destructive force than many other bombing raids late in the war. The Soviets declared war on Japan Aug 8th and invaded Manchuria. The best argument I have heard is that the combination of impending loss and a now 2-front war forced the surrender.
We often imagine, because of the way the story is told, that the bombing of Hiroshima was far worse. We imagine that the number of people killed was off the charts. But if you graph the number of people killed in all 68 cities bombed in the summer of 1945, you find that Hiroshima was second in terms of civilian deaths. If you chart the number of square miles destroyed, you find that Hiroshima was fourth. If you chart the percentage of the city destroyed, Hiroshima was 17th. Hiroshima was clearly within the parameters of the conventional attacks carried out that summer.
From our perspective, Hiroshima seems singular, extraordinary. But if you put yourself in the shoes of Japans leaders in the three weeks leading up to the attack on Hiroshima, the picture is considerably different. If you were one of the key members of Japans government in late July and early August, your experience of city bombing would have been something like this: On the morning of July 17, you would have been greeted by reports that during the night four cities had been attacked: Oita, Hiratsuka, Numazu, and Kuwana. Of these, Oita and Hiratsuka were more than 50 percent destroyed. Kuwana was more than 75 percent destroyed and Numazu was hit even more severely, with something like 90 percent of the city burned to the ground.
Three days later you have woken to find that three more cities had been attacked. Fukui was more than 80 percent destroyed. A week later and three more cities have been attacked during the night. Two days later and six more cities were attacked in one night, including Ichinomiya, which was 75 percent destroyed. On August 2, you would have arrived at the office to reports that four more cities have been attacked. And the reports would have included the information that Toyama (roughly the size of Chattanooga, Tennessee in 1945), had been 99.5 percent destroyed. Virtually the entire city had been leveled. Four days later and four more cities have been attacked. On August 6, only one city, Hiroshima, was attacked but reports say that the damage was great and a new type bomb was used. How much would this one new attack have stood out against the background of city destruction that had been going on for weeks?
In the three weeks prior to Hiroshima, 26 cities were attacked by the U.S. Army Air Force. Of these, eight or almost a third were as completely or more completely destroyed than Hiroshima (in terms of the percentage of the city destroyed). The fact that Japan had 68 cities destroyed in the summer of 1945 poses a serious challenge for people who want to make the bombing of Hiroshima the cause of Japans surrender. The question is: If they surrendered because a city was destroyed, why didnt they surrender when those other 66 cities were destroyed?
From our perspective, Hiroshima seems singular, extraordinary. But if you put yourself in the shoes of Japans leaders in the three weeks leading up to the attack on Hiroshima, the picture is considerably different. If you were one of the key members of Japans government in late July and early August, your experience of city bombing would have been something like this: On the morning of July 17, you would have been greeted by reports that during the night four cities had been attacked: Oita, Hiratsuka, Numazu, and Kuwana. Of these, Oita and Hiratsuka were more than 50 percent destroyed. Kuwana was more than 75 percent destroyed and Numazu was hit even more severely, with something like 90 percent of the city burned to the ground.
Three days later you have woken to find that three more cities had been attacked. Fukui was more than 80 percent destroyed. A week later and three more cities have been attacked during the night. Two days later and six more cities were attacked in one night, including Ichinomiya, which was 75 percent destroyed. On August 2, you would have arrived at the office to reports that four more cities have been attacked. And the reports would have included the information that Toyama (roughly the size of Chattanooga, Tennessee in 1945), had been 99.5 percent destroyed. Virtually the entire city had been leveled. Four days later and four more cities have been attacked. On August 6, only one city, Hiroshima, was attacked but reports say that the damage was great and a new type bomb was used. How much would this one new attack have stood out against the background of city destruction that had been going on for weeks?
In the three weeks prior to Hiroshima, 26 cities were attacked by the U.S. Army Air Force. Of these, eight or almost a third were as completely or more completely destroyed than Hiroshima (in terms of the percentage of the city destroyed). The fact that Japan had 68 cities destroyed in the summer of 1945 poses a serious challenge for people who want to make the bombing of Hiroshima the cause of Japans surrender. The question is: If they surrendered because a city was destroyed, why didnt they surrender when those other 66 cities were destroyed?
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
74 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
How many people total would have died in a US invasion of the Japanese islands in 1945-46? [View all]
Recursion
Aug 2015
OP
Japan was getting mighty scared about Russia getting involved in the war - they
MillennialDem
Aug 2015
#45
Innocents in countries occupied by Japan would have continued to die in massive numbers
hack89
Aug 2015
#21
Russia invaded China and rolled over the Japanese army without that happening.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Aug 2015
#31
So we killed thousands on the chance that they would release the prisoners?
Tierra_y_Libertad
Aug 2015
#43
What about the tens of thousands of Chinese/Koreans/Filipinos forced into slave labor in Japan?
NutmegYankee
Aug 2015
#49
I pointed out in the options that the Tokyo firebombing killed twice as many as the two nukes
Recursion
Aug 2015
#19
read about the planning done for Operation Downfall, total deaths could easily top 1 million
Amishman
Aug 2015
#13
Uhm japam was willing to surrender before the bombs were deployed people. eom
Malraiders
Aug 2015
#29
Tojo didn't want to surrender. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki it took continued firebombing of Tokyo.
EndElectoral
Aug 2015
#39
My father was in the front lines of Okinawa, so had there been invasion I might not be posting this.
EndElectoral
Aug 2015
#37
General MacArthur's staff anticipated about 50000 American casualties, and several time that number
still_one
Aug 2015
#52
Considering Hirohito himself cited the atomic bombings--and not the USSR--as his main reason
NuclearDem
Aug 2015
#60