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

GreatGazoo

(4,525 posts)
17. 2 Nuclear bombs did not force Japan to surrender
Thu Aug 6, 2015, 12:37 PM
Aug 2015

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 Japan’s 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 Japan’s 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 Japan’s surrender. The question is: If they surrendered because a city was destroyed, why didn’t they surrender when those other 66 cities were destroyed?


http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Could have been 0 Johnny2X2X Aug 2015 #1
I updated the choices to include less than 5,000 Recursion Aug 2015 #6
Japan was getting mighty scared about Russia getting involved in the war - they MillennialDem Aug 2015 #45
Nah.. They were done after Okinawa, and they knew it. Adrahil Aug 2015 #70
Innocents in countries occupied by Japan would have continued to die in massive numbers hack89 Aug 2015 #21
Many Sherman A1 Aug 2015 #2
The going estimate was 600,000 US casualties, X2 Japanese Recursion Aug 2015 #3
If anything, military plans sarisataka Aug 2015 #12
As a side note on casulties oneshooter Aug 2015 #48
Yes they are. neverforget Aug 2015 #72
Civilians and military? GusBob Aug 2015 #4
Good point, yes: including civilians Recursion Aug 2015 #5
Then in my view way over a million GusBob Aug 2015 #16
Not to mention exposure and starvation during the occupation (nt) Recursion Aug 2015 #26
The minimum estimate for just US deaths was 100,000. HooptieWagon Aug 2015 #7
I agree. The Japanese army would have hifiguy Aug 2015 #25
There was no need to invade Japan. Tierra_y_Libertad Aug 2015 #8
So the war would have ended... magically? (nt) Recursion Aug 2015 #9
To all intents and purposes the war was over. Tierra_y_Libertad Aug 2015 #10
The alternate plan to end the war sarisataka Aug 2015 #15
Russia invaded China and rolled over the Japanese army without that happening. Tierra_y_Libertad Aug 2015 #31
AFTER Hiroshima. hobbit709 Aug 2015 #35
So what? Tierra_y_Libertad Aug 2015 #42
And the bombs had been used sarisataka Aug 2015 #73
Millions would died of starvation. MicaelS Aug 2015 #22
Why blockade. What would be the point? Tierra_y_Libertad Aug 2015 #32
To force the Japanese to surrender. n/t MicaelS Aug 2015 #33
So, it was for the winning trophy? Tierra_y_Libertad Aug 2015 #40
They were not defeated. NutmegYankee Aug 2015 #57
The war had to end to get the POWs released. NutmegYankee Aug 2015 #36
So we killed thousands on the chance that they would release the prisoners? Tierra_y_Libertad Aug 2015 #43
Are you trying to imply the Japanese were innocent? Because they weren't. MicaelS Aug 2015 #46
Once Japan surrendered, the POWs were released. NutmegYankee Aug 2015 #47
Millions of innocents in countries occupied by Japan would die. hack89 Aug 2015 #24
Those occupations were over or ending. Tierra_y_Libertad Aug 2015 #38
What about the tens of thousands of Chinese/Koreans/Filipinos forced into slave labor in Japan? NutmegYankee Aug 2015 #49
Not in the minds of some, apparently. MicaelS Aug 2015 #50
2 Nuclear bombs did not force Japan to surrender GreatGazoo Aug 2015 #17
I pointed out in the options that the Tokyo firebombing killed twice as many as the two nukes Recursion Aug 2015 #19
Likely they expected better terms from the US than from the Soviets GreatGazoo Aug 2015 #20
Bingo! The Japanese feared the Soviets more than us. Tierra_y_Libertad Aug 2015 #44
you really mean this? wow, just wow n/t irisblue Aug 2015 #53
Speculation. NO possible way to tell. cherokeeprogressive Aug 2015 #11
read about the planning done for Operation Downfall, total deaths could easily top 1 million Amishman Aug 2015 #13
Numbers I have seen 1939 Aug 2015 #56
When I was growing up matt819 Aug 2015 #14
Given the way they fought for a piece of crap island like Iwo Jima, geek tragedy Aug 2015 #18
Wow concern trolling one OP right after the other huh? Rex Aug 2015 #23
Dick Cheney said edhopper Aug 2015 #27
There is a reasonable chance that I would not be here. TexasTowelie Aug 2015 #28
Uhm japam was willing to surrender before the bombs were deployed people. eom Malraiders Aug 2015 #29
Were they? Recursion Aug 2015 #30
Tojo didn't want to surrender. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki it took continued firebombing of Tokyo. EndElectoral Aug 2015 #39
If they were willing, why didn't they surrender? n/t MicaelS Aug 2015 #34
My father was in the front lines of Okinawa, so had there been invasion I might not be posting this. EndElectoral Aug 2015 #37
No way to know. Motown_Johnny Aug 2015 #41
US Military estimates of US casualties in the invasion of Japan 1939 Aug 2015 #51
General MacArthur's staff anticipated about 50000 American casualties, and several time that number still_one Aug 2015 #52
None. Some historians say that Japan was ready to surrender Cleita Aug 2015 #54
+1 rug Aug 2015 #55
It's not that simple. NuclearDem Aug 2015 #58
We still didn't have to drop a nuclear bomb on them. eom Cleita Aug 2015 #59
Considering Hirohito himself cited the atomic bombings--and not the USSR--as his main reason NuclearDem Aug 2015 #60
Bombing civilians is a war crime. Rex Aug 2015 #61
No argument from me on that point. NuclearDem Aug 2015 #63
Cited what as his main reason for what? Cleita Aug 2015 #65
Cited the atom bomb as his main reason for surrender. NuclearDem Aug 2015 #67
So he had a face saving excuse. He was ready to surrender before we dropped the bomb. Cleita Aug 2015 #68
A LOT of revisionist history going on here hueymahl Aug 2015 #62
The War of 1812 say Rex Aug 2015 #64
Not that many. former9thward Aug 2015 #66
It's interesting how the wartime propaganda still lives on. hunter Aug 2015 #69
I remember watching those bomb tests on TV. Cleita Aug 2015 #71
We are very fortunate Hirohito was a man of some sense. roamer65 Aug 2015 #74
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»How many people total wou...»Reply #17