Large Scale Central

Anybody read anything about this?

General Discussion
#1

In high school, we were taught that the A-bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki forced Japan to surrender. The bombs were the only way to break Japan’s fanatical resistance.

We were also taught that the Russians got in quickly at the end of the Pacific War, after the US had done all the heavy lifting. We were told their aim was to gain control over areas of the Far East, specifically Korea north of the 38th parallel.

The bit about the Russians went south in college. Even a cursory study of US foreign policy at the time made it obvious that Truman did everything in his power to bring the USSR into the war against Japan in 1945. However, until recently I’ve never had cause to question the “A-bombs won the war” thesis.

I’ve recently read a few things that have caused me to reconsider:

  1. The Japanese were able to reinforce Kyushu, the southernmost of their four home islands, with a much higher number of troops than the Americans had initially estimated. Kyushu was to be the scene for the initial US attack on Japan in late 1945.

  2. The Japanese had far more planes in the south of the country than the US knew about. Given the success of the kamikaze attacks off Okinawa, it’s likely the USN would have taken a hammering.

  3. Most interesting is the thesis that the Japanese surrendered largely because of the Soviet Union’s entry into the war. The argument is that Japan, having concentrated its resources in the south to deal with the American threat, had precious little left to defend Hokkaido, the northernmost of their four home islands. The Japanese chose to surrender rather than lose Hokkaido to the Russians.

Given the cynical way civilians were treated by the Japanese military on Saipan and Okinawa, it is reasonable to suppose the civilian casualties at Hiroshima and Nagasaki hardly raised an eyebrow in the corridors of power. However, the rulers of Japan may have cared big-time about losing Hokkaido.

Anybody read anything about this?

#2

A theory that I heard (possibly the PBS series on US presidents - Truman episode) was that the emperor surrendered because he didn’t want the his lineage wiped out. (No way to continue his family’s “dynasty” with his entire family dead.)

He had no concern for his subjects, as they were all expected to die for their emperor.

The US was cranking out B-29s, (specifically designed to bomb Japan) and their intelligence (or the emperor himself) incorrectly assumed that each one carried an atomic bomb.

In reality, we had only enough fissionable material (stolen from the Germans?) for three bombs: Trinity (test, NM), Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I’m sure we wanted Japan to believe that we had more to drop, but their belief in “one atomic bomb per bomber” had to be dumb luck for us.

#3

I have not come across that argument, but the post WWII era is not my research specialty, So although it’s outside my area of expertise, I’d say it’s reasonable, but not likely.

From my uniformed status, I’d want to look at three things

  1. if the Russians were really a plausible military threat to Japan at that point? They had been heavily heavily hurt fighting Hitler, and all their military capacity was on the European front. Could they have moved all those exhausted men and that equipment quickly enough?

  2. The US was the real, tangible, on the ground enemy–we had been extremely successful , we had the men and equipment there. It’s hard for me to believe you’d look out your door, see a 800 lb gorilla, and surrender because there was another 800 pound gorilla 2 miles away. There was an immediate and overwhelming military force already present–why look for another one?

  3. My understanding is that Japan was basically screwed at that point–they may have had planes but they had no gas to fuel them. They were short on all the material of war and on manpower. All their supply lines were cut, and they had no native source of oi. Everyone says that they would have fought fanatically to defend their homeland–I certainly would, that makes sense–but in fact they seem to have been pretty happy to surrender and get the damn war over with. There’s none of the constant terrorist sniping and attacks that, for example, Union Force experienced in the South after the Civil War. Even if they had fought bitterly and fanatically, there is no way they could have one–it was obvious to everyone at the time. The only issue was how big a price would the US have to pay.

That’s my take, but again, though I’m a historian I’m not a military or diplomatic historian and the post War era is outside my research specialty, so I’m not a particular expert

#4

Good points Dave,
Japanese authorities were trying to devise ways, or at least create the impression of ways, to defeat the atomic bomb. I recall reading of one Japanese official commenting " See, it only burns half of your face!"
Point 2 is interesting, but the USN was operating off the coast of Japan by that time with no resistance whatsoever, with virtual impunity. I recall reading estimates of around 10,000 aircraft left in the Japanese Air Force at that time. If Japan was saving up for another Divine Wind Attack on the invasion force, I am sure not much would have been left.
Manchuria (Manchucko) was a source of raw materials for the Japanese war effort and its loss was devastating. Japan lost over a million men to the Soviets in that short campaign.
Another point contributing to the surrender were the Tokyo Fire Raids which were far more destructive than most people consider.
Once the Military lost it’s influence in the Diet, Japanese Parliament, saner heads convinced the Emperor to surrender. I believe all events contributed, but the watered down version taught to students here in the USA, at least, is that the evil atomic bomb caused the end of the war. The estimated Allied losses (KIA, wounded,missing) for Operation Olympic would have been in the 300,000 men range. I have no doubt that the bomb had to be used.

Paul

#5

As an amateur miliatry historian, this has been an area of interest to me for a number of years. As I understand it:

  • the US air force was encountering virtually no resistance over Japan. They were so cocky that Curtiss Lemay was able to drop pamphlets warning the Japanese population the day before an air raid. This (brilliant) tactic had 2 effects. It told the Japanese that the US had no fear of letting their enemy know the time and place of an upcoming raid, ie. they had no fear of Japanese defenses. It also helped to create the impression that the US was not a monster and that by urging the civilians to take shelter, it created the impression of a degree of compassion.

  • On urging from the other allies, Stalin had promised to attack Japan 3 months after the surrender of Germany. He kept that promise to the very day. The USSR had 3 months to move up their military into pace. The Japanese army in Manchuria was, on paper, quite strong. But when the USSR attacked it was like a sledgehammer hitting a bug. The ferocity and audacity of the Soviet attack terrified the Japanese. One Soviet tactic was to use paratroops to capture airfields behind Japanese lines. They then flew in supplies, which allowed to advancing ground forces to resupply without waiting for their supply lines to catch up. This meant the offensive rolled forward at an alarming rate and the Japanese never got a chance to regroup.

  • Up to the time of the Soviet attack, the Japanese had been hoping to broker a peace through their non-aggression pact with the USSR.

  • Hasegawa, a Japanese historian, hypothesized that it was the Soviet attack that brought about Japan’s surrender.

Had I been in Truman’s seat I would have had no hesitation to use the bomb. His first duty was to spare the lives of US servicemen. How would history have judged him if he’d withheld the bomb and ordered the invasion instead - with the loss of hundreds of thousands of American lives? I also believe the Japanese got off light. How many Japanese would have died in the invasion? They had a local defense force of around 28 million civilians - mostly armed with pitchforks and bamboo spears. Can anyone imagine the carnage of human wave attacks against machine guns.

Japan did not surrender unconditionally but were allowed to keep their emperor. I also note that they have never apologized for their crimes committed during the war.

#6

I’m not certain I’d agree about the US wanting Russia involved in the Asian theater. While Truman’s writings in his diary seem to indicate that the Russian’s involvement in the war against Japan would help bring about its end, there was the counter-issue of not Truman not wanting Stalin to gain any more influence in that sphere. He had already expressed concerns over Stalin’s plans for eastern Europe, and didn’t want to have to deal with that in the Pacific. It’s commonly argued that Truman had hoped the bomb would convince the Japanese to accept the conditions of the Potsdam declaration before Russia’s 3-month “hiatus” was over on August 8. (Missed it by that much–doggone weather!) That’s not to say Truman didn’t think that Russia’s entrance into the conflict was a bad thing–he wrote that their involvement would definitely bring about its close–but if he could leave Stalin out of the reparations, all the better.

As to what–exactly–led to end of the war, that’s as prone to interpretation as the current wrangling over who’s responsible for the current financial mess. There is no answer.

Later,

K

#7

Thanks for the interesting and varied responses!

One of the most intriguing items I’ve come across while researching this topic is a transcript of “OPERATION DOWNFALL [US invasion of Japan]: US PLANS AND JAPANESE COUNTER-MEASURES” by D. M. Giangreco, US Army Command and General Staff College, 16 February 1998. You can find it at http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/giangrec.htm

Jack, my godfather, fought with Third Army across Europe. He was transferred to the Far East after Germany surrendered. He didn’t know, or care, what an atomic bomb was. Anything that meant he didn’t have to do more fighting was fine by him.

I completely agree that the US had to use the bomb in 1945. However, I’m now less convinced that the Japanese surrender was caused by its use than I was a year ago.

A little anecdote for you. When Jack returned to the US in 1946, after serving with the Japanese occupation force, he and the thousands of other guys on the troop transport disembarked in New York. It was pouring rain.

The Army, in its wisdom, had stationed people at the end of the pier to collect the raincoats from the returning GIs!!! Now there’s a job you coudn’t pay me to do!

Dunno how many raincoats the collectors collected, but something tells me the old adage about discretion being the better part of valour was applied. Jack definitely kept his!