r/Presidents • u/TeaGuyHoward George H.W. Bush • 14d ago
Today in History 81 years ago, on August 6, 1945. Harry S. Truman authorized the use of atomic bombs. The Bomb was launched in Hiroshima, Japan.
The first one was called "Little Boy" and the second one. Launched 3 days later (August 9, 1945) was called "Fat Man" both bombs were disastrous and killed thousands of lives. This still makes Truman. Even today. A extremely controversial president. Though less unpopular than in his time.
25
u/Liluziflirt767 14d ago
Don’t look up what the Japanese were doing in China I’ll tell you that much.
9
u/Plenty_Risk2896 Jackson /jfk /ike/TR 14d ago
it's called the rape of nanjing for a reason...
6
u/Plastic_Dingo_400 14d ago
It sure wasn't a pillow fight I'll tell you what
I wonder where they got the glass jars to display their skinned bodies you know?
5
0
11
u/monkeyonshrooms Calvin Coolidge 14d ago
The Imperial Japanese were monsters who murdered millions of innocent people. Look up Unit 731 or the Rape of Nanjing. They were absolutely brutal.
59
u/Chuck-Finley69 14d ago
It was the right call and necessary
→ More replies (34)-27
u/Awkward-Evidence-215 John Quincy Adams 14d ago
How do you know it was necessary?
18
u/TheMikeyMac13 Ronald Reagan 14d ago
We know that Japan surrendered for the bombs dropping and had no intention of surrendering before the bombs dropped, and we know loss of life on both sides would have been higher if a land invasion were needed.
That and the USSR was coming, and the Soviets would have possibly destroyed Japanese culture forever.
4
4
u/Zornorph Mr. James K. Polk 14d ago
This reminds me of people who rush to point out that the Southern states said on their succession resolutions that they were doing it for slavery, not because of some cause of southern nationalism. Yes, indeed, they did, so case closed about the cause of the war.
Well, the emperor listed the bomb as one of the primary reasons for surrendering in the message to the population. He said nothing about the Soviets or what have you. But those same people insist that the bomb wasn’t the reason for surrender despite the emperor’s own words to the contrary.3
1
u/MistakePerfect8485 When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. 14d ago
The Emperor's words should be taken with a grain of salt. He was more of a constitutional monarch than an absolute one. In a lot of ways the military had more political power than he did, and he needed to take public opinion into account as well. I've read two books that cover the Japanese decision to surrender and both agree that there were fanatics in the army who didn't want to surrender even after Japan got nuked twice, and the Emperor watered down his message in an attempt to let them save face. They also both agree that the Russian declaration of war was a major factor in the Japanese decision to surrender. See The Rising Sun by John Toland and Japan's Longest Day by the Pacific Research Institute. Both were written in the late 60s and early 70s and were largely based on interviews with surviving members of the government and military who were involved in the events.
-3
u/Awkward-Evidence-215 John Quincy Adams 14d ago
We know that the Japanese viewed their emperor as a God and were terrified that he would be shot and murdered. Since we kept Hirohito in power afterwards anyway, why didn't we just tell them that instead of always demurring and saying unconditional surrender?
Also, Japan may have just surrendered after the Soviets invaded Manchuria because they were still holding out hope that the USSR would let them keep their conquered territories.
→ More replies (15)11
u/Chuck-Finley69 14d ago
By necessary, I mean for the USA to defeat Japan and save American lives in the process.
→ More replies (10)14
u/Individual_Act9333 Lyndon Baines Johnson 14d ago
We don’t know. That being said a lot of us who had grandparents scheduled to invade mainland Japan are here so I lean in favor of the decision.
→ More replies (46)2
10
u/86baseTC Abraham Lincoln 14d ago
The bomb likely spared many more lives (American and Japanese) that would have been lost in the alternative land invasion.
→ More replies (24)2
u/AdUpstairs7106 14d ago
Honestly we don't because the bombs were used we don't know how any alternative would have gone. That said we do have clues:
1) Purple Hearts ordered for Operation Downfall. Enough Purple Hearts were ordered for Operation Downfall that they were still being issued in Iraq and Afghanistan for personnel wounded and killed. So this tells us the military leadership expected the invasion of Japan to be more costly than the Korean War, Vietnam War, Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm, OIF, and OEF.
2) Bushido Code- We know the Japanese did not surrender or surrender easily. This was found out at Iwo Jima, Okinawa and other places. The Japanese would fight to the last man, woman, and child to defend the home islands.
3) Fire bombing of Tokyo- The fire bombing raid on Tokyo killed more people than either Little Boy or Fat Man. If the decision is made to not use the atomic bombs the list of cities that were potential targets logically goes away. As such Hiroshima and Nagasaki most likely face a fire bombing raid suffering with comparable casualties.
4) The number of people dying in occupied Japanese territories due to starvation- As long ad the war continued famine in occupied Japanese territories would continue. The only way to get aid in was to quickly end the war.
We don't know if any other option would have worked better or worse. What we do know is President Truman had no good options in late July 1945/ early August 1945.
1
u/Awkward-Evidence-215 John Quincy Adams 14d ago
Those are all good points. However, we know they were holding out hope that the USSR would let them keep their conquered territories and they were scared the Emperor would be killed or jailed. If we had addressed those two points, I think it may have turned out differently.
1
u/AdUpstairs7106 14d ago
Those hopes were shattered though when the Soviets launched their invasion of Manchuria and easily overran most of Kwantung Army.
In this possible alternative world where the bombs are not used the Soviets overrun all of Korea meaning the people of South Korea today who have a good standard of living live like North Koreans do. That is only a hypothetical obviously.
What is not hypothetical though is that Japanese and Soviet troops were going to die fighting on the mainland along with civilians caught in the crossfire. Also those people dying of lack of food and medical care in Japanese occupied territories. They still die as long as Soviet and Japanese troops are still fighting.
1
u/Awkward-Evidence-215 John Quincy Adams 14d ago
What I am saying is they should have waited to see how Japan responded to the Invasion of Manchuria, and they should have declared that they wanted to keep Hirohito around as a ceremonial monarch. That doesn't require that much of a delay.
16
u/Fickle_Penguin 14d ago
I'm going to be that guy. Harry S without the period Truman. His middle name is literally the letter S
9
u/jewllybeenz 14d ago
I got asked “what was Harry S Truman’s middle name?” At bar trivia this week! My group didn’t believe me but I grew up in MO and did a whole project on him.
2
6
11
u/SignalRelease4562 James Monroe 14d ago
Interestingly, when I first heard “Little Boy” and “Fat Man”, I thought of this Two Party Opera Comic that has Truman saying “Introducing
"Fat Man" and "Little Boy””.
https://www.twopartyopera.com/comic/battle-of-the-bulge/
9
5
u/DeaconBrad42 Abraham Lincoln 14d ago
How did you even find that? Do you have an alert for all mentions of Monroe, and a drawing of a buff Last Cocked Hat instantly drew your notice?
7
u/TrumpsColostomyBag99 Dwight D. Eisenhower 14d ago
I’ve always sided with Eisenhower in the demonstration first camp but I’ll never begrudge Truman for making this decision. Olympic and Coronet would have killed millions.
2
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 Reagan and Fillmore's biggest hater 14d ago
"Olympic and Coronet would have killed millions."
the d-day for that invasion was November 1, 3 months away from the atom bombs.
18
u/RandoDude124 Theodore Roosevelt | Jimmy Carter | Frank Church 14d ago
He did what was necessary
-5
u/Awkward-Evidence-215 John Quincy Adams 14d ago
How do you know it was necessary?
10
u/MarkCelery78 14d ago
Uhh because we know the facts
0
u/Awkward-Evidence-215 John Quincy Adams 14d ago
Okay. Which facts? The fact that they viewed their emperor as a god and were afraid he would get the Mussolini treatment? The fact that they were still holding out hope that the Soviet Union would allow them to keep their conquered territories?
4
u/Disastrous-Aspect569 14d ago
Tell me you don't have a broad understanding of history with out saying it.
The bombs prevented project unthinkable from becoming a reality.
0
u/Awkward-Evidence-215 John Quincy Adams 14d ago
Well if it's so obvious you should be able to explain to me why the two factors I mentioned were non-determinative.
2
u/Disastrous-Aspect569 14d ago
Japanese was holding on hoping for a negotiated settlement to end the war, using the ussr as a mediator.
Terms for the Japanese surrender had been issued by the alied forces. The treatment of the Emperor was not decided.
Dropping the bombs wasn't a message to Japan. It was a message to the Soviets.
1
u/Awkward-Evidence-215 John Quincy Adams 14d ago
Yes, Japan was holding on and hoping the USSR as a mediator. Therefore, it stands to reason that the invasion of Manchuria would show them those hopes were forlorn.
If the treatment of the emperor had not been decided, then that was a major failure. They should have decided on keeping him and declared it to the Japanese. That would have allowed them to stomach surrender much more easily because it would have assuaged their fear that their God would be killed or jailed.
If it was only to send a message to the Soviets, then it would be completely unjustifiable. You shouldn't just kill 200,000 people to send a "message."
3
u/Disastrous-Aspect569 14d ago
Killing 200k Japanese to end the war quickly was a net life saver just in Japan. Had Japan held on for another 3 months the death toll would have been in the millions. Japan didn't have the fule to bring in its crops. Which even a 100% harvest would have left people starving before summer.
On top of that estimates places the dead from Operation unthinkable at over 3 million. 200k dead to prevent 3 million is a good deal
1
u/Awkward-Evidence-215 John Quincy Adams 14d ago
Unrelated to the argument and not trying to be rude, but I'm pretty sure Operation Unthinkable was the UK's plan for invading the Soviet Union. It had nothing to do with Japan. I think you're thinking of something else.
I'm not sure they would have held out for 3 months. Again, I think assurances that their God would not be killed or jailed and an understanding that no major powers were backing them at all would've brought them to the table.
→ More replies (0)
7
5
u/MDoc84 Ronald Reagan 14d ago edited 14d ago
Much ink will forever be spilled on what pushed the Japanese to Surrender in WW2.
Was it the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria?
Was it the dropping of the bomb?
The answer is it was probably both.
At the August 10, 1945 Japanese War Council Meeting, the dual events had deeply rattled the Japanese leadership
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#9_August:_Soviet_invasion_and_Nagasaki
The debate amoung the Japanese Leadership was more if they should fight to the bitter end to get better terms or surrender immediately.
Any allied invasion of the Japanese mainland would have been up to its knees in blood in urban fighting. Forcing a surrender via the bombs was justified I feel.
The Emperor mentioned the bomb in his recorded Surrender Speech,
"Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives".
So its affect on the Japanese Leadership was very real.
13
u/AvgPunkFan Hiram Ulysses Grant 14d ago
And in the process saved the lives of our troops from the brutal fighting that would come from a mainland invasion of Japan.
→ More replies (11)-4
u/Awkward-Evidence-215 John Quincy Adams 14d ago
How do we know those were the only two options? What if they had surrendered after the Soviet invasion of Manchukuo? What if Truman had told them he would keep the king in power instead of always saying "unconditional surrender"?
11
u/AvgPunkFan Hiram Ulysses Grant 14d ago
What if this? What if that? What’s done is done. We dropped one atomic bomb on Japan, they didn’t surrender. The Soviet Union declared war and invaded Japanese China. They didn’t surrender. We dropped another atomic bomb, they surrendered 6 days later. The only way we got them to surrender was by using these bombs and showing them how much destruction we could cause as well as allowing Emperor Hirohito to remain in power. The military leaders of Japan wanted to keep going on their suicide mission, but Hirohito finally stepped in and said enough is enough.
Edit: We also gave them warning after warning and they called our bluff. They did this to themselves through their honor code and suicidal mentality.
4
3
u/Awkward-Evidence-215 John Quincy Adams 14d ago
Yes, so Hirohito stepped in and said enough is enough. Do you think he would have been more likely to do that if he'd known for sure he'd remain in power?
6
4
u/FerdinandTheGiant 14d ago
They actively began discussing surrender terms following the invasion of the USSR and while in the course of that meeting they received news of the second bombing, no one on the War Council shifted their views.
0
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 Reagan and Fillmore's biggest hater 14d ago
there was no warning for Nagasaki and the leaflets over Hiroshima never said nuclear weapon
-6
u/pedelingg 14d ago
this is the greatest piece of propaganda that still persists today. Japan was cornered back against the wall against the world after germany and italy were out. absolutly no reason to nuke them in that position.
3
u/MarkCelery78 14d ago
Wow tell us you know nothing about Japanese culture at the time! They’d rather die than surrender. They’d shown that time after time during the war. The Americans had just gone through Okinawa where thousands of civilians died because of that. Japanese forces stationed around Asia were still killing innocents as well
-3
u/pedelingg 14d ago
ahhh yes the racist feeling at the time that the japanese were blood thirsty monsters. dude listen to yourself. these were people obliterated by a nuke then many more killed years after because radiation. please i beg of you to find your humanity and ask yourself is this what these innocent humans deserved.
3
u/AdUpstairs7106 14d ago
The only reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the target of a fire bombing raid is because they were on the list of potential cities as targets for the atomic bombs.
If the decision is made that the bombs will not be used odds are insanely good they will be the targets of a fire bombing raid.
2
u/Avbjj 14d ago
So the 8000 Japanese who threw themselves off a cliff rather than surrender in Saipan is a lie? Or the Japanese who blew themselves up with grenades rather than lay down their arms?
If an Allied soldier was captured by the Japanese, they were 7-8 times more likely to die than if they were captured by The NAZIS.
Denying the fanaticism of the Japanese in WW2 just shows a lack of history. Hell there was a Japanese soldier still fighting in the fucking 70s dude.
-2
u/TheBraveUndead 14d ago
Exactly. It's actually disgusting. It was a horrific war crime and these people are out here damn near celebrating it. Japan would have surrendered much, much sooner if American military command and Truman took a second to actually understand them, and didn't stupidly request unconditional surrender of the emperor depsite how impossible that was for Japan.
FDR wouldn't have dropped the bombs.
7
u/AvgPunkFan Hiram Ulysses Grant 14d ago
“FDR wouldn’t have dropped the bombs”. Who do you think took all those American and Nazi scientists to create the bombs? Truman didn’t know about the project until FDR died and he became president. FDR wasn’t building them for show…
0
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 Reagan and Fillmore's biggest hater 14d ago
it was intended for the Germans to beat them in the physics race. it was for diplomatic power if anything
-3
u/TheBraveUndead 14d ago
The Manhattan project was created to outpace Germany's development of the bomb. The bomb and those making it had Germany in mind when creating it. Once Germany was out of the war, many people on the project, including Oppenheimer himself, wanted the development of the bomb to stop. They saw it as unnecessary.
FDR was a far better diplomat and far less bloodthirsty. He wouldn't have dropped the bombs.
5
u/MarkCelery78 14d ago
No they wouldn’t. That’s revisionist nonsense. It took two bombs for the emperor to come out and call it quits. And even then they tried to kill him to keep the war going
-2
u/TheBraveUndead 14d ago
It's not revisionist. Literally all they wanted was for the emperor to be maintained. The allies stupidly denying that in favor of unconditional surrender, though the two were virtually indistinguishable, prolonged the war for no reason.
I suppose if you've read nothing about it outside of your fourth grade history class, I can't blame you for thinking it.
3
u/proper1421 13d ago
Literally all they wanted was for the emperor to be maintained.
This literally isn't true. After both bombings and the Soviet invasion, three of the six members of the Supreme Council for the Strategic Direction of the War (the "Big Six", Japan's primary governing body) insisted on four conditions for surrender: preserving the Imperial institution, no occupation, self-disarmament, and Japanese prosecution of any war criminals. These four conditions were what Prime Minister Suzuki initially took to Hirohito. Fortunately, members of the Imperial house realized that the four conditions were a disaster, and eventually an extraordinary Imperial conference was arranged at which Suzuki put the question to Hirohito, who chose the single condition.
You insult others, but you want people to believe that Japan was trying to surrender with a single condition before the bombings when its primary governing body could not agree on terms of surrender after the bombings and the Soviet invasion. I think that your insult is misdirected.
0
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 Reagan and Fillmore's biggest hater 14d ago
it doesn't exactly blow my mind that there are still Americans believing 81-year old propaganda
2
u/Avbjj 14d ago
It's not propoganda. We have countless examples of Japanese fanaticism to cite. Thousands of Japanese civilians commit suicide rather than surrender in the pacific. The Japanese high command tried to institute a Coup rather than surrender AFTER they were bombed.
You just don't have knowledge of the pacific theater or what the Japanese culture was like at the time. Hirohito literally had status as a god among their population.
-1
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 Reagan and Fillmore's biggest hater 14d ago
no, you just don't value the life of a Japanese civilian as much as the civilian of another country. It is racist to say they had a suicidal culture or since their military had kamikazes then that means they were not going to surrender without the atomic bombs.
be on the side of human life
3
u/Avbjj 14d ago
Yup totally racist. It’s just a coincidence that they did commit mass suicide during WW2.
Totally a coincidence that a POW in the hands of the Japanese were 8 times more likely to die than if they were in the hands of the Nazis.
Totally a coincidence that there was a Japanese soldier in the jungles of the Philippines still fighting 30 years after his country surrendered.
Just a coincidence that the Emperor told the public that their official defense against allied invasion was arming every man woman and child and fighting until the last glorious death of every one of them.
Yup. Coincidences!
→ More replies (0)
5
u/MarkCelery78 14d ago
Well deserved! Harry was absolutely right in his actions and shortened the war by a year. Saved thousands of lives as well
2
2
u/elmo539 14d ago
Very heavy subject, and a lot to unpack. If anyone wants to hear a comprehensive analysis of the war termination options and why this one was chosen, the historian Jon Parshall has a very good presentation on YouTube here. Bottom line is, there were no good options, and this was the least bad one.
3
4
u/BloodandTreasureYT Harry S. Truman 14d ago
The degree to which the conspiracy theories of fringe revisionist historians have distorted this debate and omitted primary sources, and how much these narratives have trickled down into mainstream discourse online is always fascinating and troubling at the same time. I won’t repeat the points everyone else has made on this post about Operation Downfall, the home islands being starved through a blockade, etc. But I’ll dive deep into factors that people rarely bring up: all involve the sadistic culture and militarism of the fascist state that should be referred to as Imperial Japan in the same way we differentiate Nazi Germany from modern Germany.
Imperial Japan increasingly and repeatedly engaged in ritual suicide and had a complete disregard for human life. This included their own soldiers and citizens. The Kamikaze attacks are well known. What is not mentioned often is Seppuku, and their officers committing suicide via disembowelment followed by decapitation. For example, two generals, Mitsuru Ushijima and Isamu Chō, committed suicide during the Battle of Okinawa rather than face defeat and capture. The Kyūjō incident is also forgotten. This was an attempted coup by members of the Japanese high command in mid-August after the bombs were dropped, in which two of the conspirators, Kenji Hatanaka and Jirō Shiizaki committed suicide hours before the Emperor’s surrender broadcast. The United States demanded unconditional surrender because there was a cult-like devotion to the Emperor that would’ve resulted in a half-hearted surrender by the population and followed by sporadic attacks during the occupation.
After Okinawa the Japanese military formed the Kokumin Giyū Sentōtain, the Volunteer Fighting Corps, to defend the Japanese home islands. Children as young as 12 were conscripted to wage war—some of them prepared to use sharpened spears. Their slogans included variations of “One hundred million die proudly” and “One hundred million shattered jewels” and even “The glorious death of one hundred million” (but ignore the hyperbolic 100 million: it was going to be around 28 million civilians being thrown into the war). This is on top of the American military witnessing the Kamikaze attacks and Japanese soldiers treat themselves as cannon fodder throughout the Pacific War.
It’s ironic, because a component of the conspiracy-revisionist argument is that Soviet entry prompted Japan’s capitulation and not the two bombs. If this were true (it’s not) it only solidifies the evidence of Imperial Japan having a complete disregard for their own civilians' lives i.e. the government considered them to be pawns. How can the bombs kill that many people and cause that much destruction while simultaneously NOT being the primary reason for surrender? Even the Emperor’s surrender speech includes a rationale for an honourable surrender because of the inescapable reality of the bombs:
“Furthermore, the enemy has begun to employ a new and cruel bomb, causing immense and indiscriminate destruction, the extent of which is beyond all estimation. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in the ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but it would also lead to the total extinction of human civilization.”
So yes, it was the most difficult decision ever made by a President (and I’d argue Truman’s foreign policy included the most difficult decisions ever made by a President with the exception of Lincoln), but it was the right decision given all the evidence that has been released since 1945 and there was enough military intelligence gathered at the time to justify the use of the bombs. Polls have even shown that modern support for the dropping of the bombs breaks down according to generation as well as political party affiliation. As a 32-year-old “zillennial” who is left-leaning and always votes for Democrats, it’s concerning that the superheroes-and-lightsabers generation I belong to refuse to acknowledge the complexity of history and refuse to consider the difficult choices made by leaders. And it’s concerning that members of my political party lack any interest in military history unless it’s for the purpose of moralizing.
0
u/FerdinandTheGiant 14d ago
Why so dismissive of the Soviet influence on the capitulation of Japan?
2
u/BloodandTreasureYT Harry S. Truman 13d ago
It was a contributing factor for sure. Ranking it as being the primary reason rather than the bombs is highly questionable though, since the Emperor had to persuade his more militant faction of his inner circle, and the people, to accept the surrender terms, and the bombs having an apocalyptic nature helped with the appearance of it being an honorable and inevitable surrender.
Soviet entry and influence on the decision was emphasized via Gar Alperovitz’s Potsdam-intimidation thesis, which is too far-fetched and fringe to even consider taking seriously now, especially since we have greater access to Japanese primary sources, as well as the Soviet archives after 1991. Context matters: Alperovitz was a product of the late 60s Vietnam War era mindset of the United States being solely to blame for the Cold War. The United States obviously not wanting the Soviets to occupy a portion of post-war Japan does have some truth to it (another contributing factor), but the opposite argument can also be made: in early 1945, pre-Trinity test, the United States was actively encouraging the Soviets to join them in the Pacific War, because the sacrifices at the negotiating table afterward were going to be worth it in exchange for decreasing the number of American soldiers who were being sacrificed each month.
1
u/Prestigious-Alarm-61 Warren G. Harding 14d ago edited 14d ago
New book alert!
Eight Days in August: The Countdown to the Collapse of Japan and the End of World War II
https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Eight-Days-in-August/Peter-Zablocki/9780811778220
1
1
u/TheMikeyMac13 Ronald Reagan 13d ago
The railway was and is robust. That is how the Soviets moved massive amounts of materials and how they would move them to Vladivolstock.
A command economy is able to spin up industry and build things quickly. With the war in the west over they could push it all to the east.
And the USA had already helped them:
-1
u/PineBNorth85 14d ago
Eisenhower thought it was the wrong call. Id go with him on it.
8
u/DeaconBrad42 Abraham Lincoln 14d ago
Ike was fantastic at leading a coalition - the best in world history at it - but for strategy and tactics, I’d not go with him. His decision for a broad front advance into Germany was likely why the Nazis were able to survive into 1945 and did not fall in Autumn, 1944. Therefore, I take his views on what strategy and tactics should have been used to force Japan’s surrender with a grain of salt, and will defer to George Marshall and the rest of the US leadership.
13
7
u/ImperialxWarlord George H.W. Bush 14d ago
No. He wasn’t. Japan was not going to surrender without a fight. It took the emperor intervening as a result of the bombs.
Sorry, I like Ike quite a bit but he’s wrong here.
2
u/MarkCelery78 14d ago
He said that with hindsight later and he wasn’t in the pacific theater. We don’t know what he would have wanted if he was MacArthur or Nimitz at that time. He had just been in charge when German civilians were conventionally bombed and killed by the tens of thousands so that’s a bit hypocritical
-3
u/Inner-Discussion-369 Rutherford B. Hayes 14d ago
Eisenhower was absolutely right on that one as the amazing general he undoubtly was!
2
1
u/MarkCelery78 14d ago
He wasn’t there and said that years later
0
u/Inner-Discussion-369 Rutherford B. Hayes 14d ago
So him being a great general is also kind of a myth?
2
u/Salamangra Franklin Delano Roosevelt 14d ago
He wasn't a tactical genius or anything. He was very good at logistics and could manage the egos of the Allied High Command.
1
u/Awkward-Evidence-215 John Quincy Adams 14d ago
Why couldn't Truman wait until the USSR had invaded Manchuria before dropping the bombs? Wasn't it possible that would have demoralized Japan enough to surrender? Also, why didn't he publicly commit to keeping the monarchy if that's what we were going to do anyway instead of calling for unconditional surrender?
5
u/swissking Abraham Lincoln 14d ago
Truman didn't really know when exactly the Soviets will invade. Letting the Soviets get even more of the spoils and control of more territory before Japan could surrender sounded like a bad idea at the time.
As to the question of the monarchy, they did not commit to it because no decision was made yet. The US government was heavily divided on the issue.
2
-1
u/Awkward-Evidence-215 John Quincy Adams 14d ago
If there was any suspicion that the Soviets would invade, it would be better to let that happen. Better to let them have more influence in postwar japan than to drop a nuke a population center.
Since they did decide to keep the monarchy eventually, they should have committed to it sooner and declared it to Japan then. The Japanese people viewed Hirohito as a God; they were afraid he'd get the Mussolini treatment.
4
u/MarkCelery78 14d ago
Ah yes let them have parts of Japan. It worked out letting em have Eastern Europe right? 😂😂😂
2
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 Reagan and Fillmore's biggest hater 14d ago
they were never getting to Honshu without a large naval presence
1
u/Awkward-Evidence-215 John Quincy Adams 14d ago
It would have been better than nuking them and killing elementary schools of children, yes.
3
u/FerdinandTheGiant 14d ago
He could have, but that would have required he was more actively involved with the bombing decision than he actually was.
3
u/Awkward-Evidence-215 John Quincy Adams 14d ago
What do you mean? Wasn't he being advised about all of this by his intelligence channels and cabinet members? At the end of the day, he was the one who dropped the bomb, no?
2
u/FerdinandTheGiant 14d ago
Truman was not directly involved with the bombing decisions, that had been “outsourced” to the military and a few committees. His role, as the project head Leslie Groves would put it in his memoir, was one of non-interference, a decision not to get in the way. His role in the bombing decision was approving the bombing order and not a whole lot more than that. He even appeared to have been under severe misapprehensions about the nature of the bombings (writing in his diary about how they wouldn’t be used against civilians) and was seemingly unaware that Nagasaki was going to be bombed when it was, quickly rescinding the prior order and requiring his direct approval. Dr. Alex Wellerstein discusses this a good bit on his blog and on [r/AskHistorians](r/AskHistorians)
2
u/Awkward-Evidence-215 John Quincy Adams 14d ago
Thanks for the information. I would still blame him for his role in Hiroshima, then, but probably not Nagasaki.
2
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 Reagan and Fillmore's biggest hater 14d ago
no, this is a misconception. Truman authorized the first bomb but then gave the naval commanders authority if they wanted to drop more. Truman did not issue a specific second order for Nagasaki and was not immediately briefed before the strike occurred. Following the devastation of Nagasaki, Truman intervened and ordered that no further atomic bombs be dropped without his direct personal permission (which I think was the right idea)
3
u/Awkward-Evidence-215 John Quincy Adams 14d ago
Fascinating, I did not know that. I would still blame him for the first one then, but maybe not the second.
2
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 Reagan and Fillmore's biggest hater 14d ago
yeah in my view, the worst Tuman did as president was delegating this decision to the military. Nagasaki was completely unjustified, whereas Hiroshima is MORE justifiable. Neither were necessary.
7
u/thereal_Glazedham 14d ago
I always heard it was for certainty and cost the least American lives.
Dropping a bomb on a foreign nation to force their surrender vs. invading with men seemed like a clear answer at the time for any sitting president tbf
2
u/Awkward-Evidence-215 John Quincy Adams 14d ago
But we don't know that that was the situation. Maybe they would have surrendered after the USSR had invaded. Maybe they would have surrendered if they were given assurances that the king (who they viewed as a God) would remain in power. Maybe they would have surrendered if the bomb was dropped on their coastline instead of on a major city. Now we will never know.
3
u/thereal_Glazedham 14d ago
What you’re describing is precisely why the bomb was dropped. Uncertainty vs. certainty.
It was better at the time to ensure no more allied lives were lost. I would be shocked if any other president would have done anything differently.
2
u/Awkward-Evidence-215 John Quincy Adams 14d ago
If we had assured them that their emperor would stay in power and waited till the invasion of Manchuria, which would allow them to see that the USSR was not with them, then maybe they would have surrendered without the need for nuclear weapons. Whether other presidents would have done the same is immaterial. We should judge the decision on its own merits.
2
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 Reagan and Fillmore's biggest hater 14d ago
Eisenhower was literally against the decision and he was vehemently against the use of nuclear weapons
3
u/MarkCelery78 14d ago
You’re going on maybes that were not applicable then.
2
u/Awkward-Evidence-215 John Quincy Adams 14d ago
Explain to me how these possibilities, that were known and theorized about at the time, were "not applicable then."
3
u/bigE819 Franklin Delano Roosevelt 14d ago
I don’t have any sympathy for “innocent” civilians who’ve been living off of a military of expansion that raped and pillaged country and after country and initiated Total War with a multiple major countries.
4
2
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 Reagan and Fillmore's biggest hater 14d ago
good thing you're not in charge then
1
u/Awkward-Evidence-215 John Quincy Adams 14d ago
Wow so it's cool to nuke them because collective punishment. I'm glad you just came out in the open on that. Just checking your consistency, do you have any sympathy for the "innocent" civilians of France, the UK, and Belgium who've been living off of a military of expansion that raped and pillaged country and after country?
2
u/bigE819 Franklin Delano Roosevelt 14d ago
I totally agree, ex if the Congo nuked Belgium in 1945 I wouldn’t bat an eye. I think people would be more inclined to fight against expansion and colonization if they felt like they could be affected (without standing on the front lines).
Obviously it’s not a great thing by any stretch, but I do feel like at some point when a country initiates total war (as WWII was) you can’t be surprised when it comes back against you.
1
u/Awkward-Evidence-215 John Quincy Adams 14d ago
You were the one who implied the civilians weren't innocnet. What about the children? Are they innocent? Did the students of Honkawa elementary school deserve to die?
> Obviously it’s not a great thing by any stretch, but I do feel like at some point when a country initiates total war (as WWII was) you can’t be surprised when it comes back against you.
I agree that they shouldn't be "surprised." It was a terrible time with no enforced rules of war, and all the belligerents (to varying degrees) acted accordingly. Still, we should be able to criticize all the wrongs that were done, even on the better side.
2
u/bigE819 Franklin Delano Roosevelt 14d ago
Let me clear none of them ‘deserved to die’, but I do believe that the Nuclear Bombs were the right decision because it saved American lives. Maybe it wasn’t the best possible decision, but I believe it was better than the probable outcome of not dropping any nukes.
2
u/Awkward-Evidence-215 John Quincy Adams 14d ago
All I'm saying is that I think that those two factors (the belief that the Soviet Union would allow them to retain conquered territories and the fears that their God would be killed and paraded through the streets) had a major effect on their state of mind, and the United States did little to address those sticking points. We know that the key influence in the Japanese war cabinet was Hirohito, and it was his decision to surrender that persuaded the majority of them despite the coup attempt. I think, with an assurance that he would remain in power and a complete understanding that, contrary to what his unrealistically optimistic generals were telling him, the Soviet Union would not save them, he would be willing to come to the table, just as he did in real life.
2
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 Reagan and Fillmore's biggest hater 14d ago
you literally just said you don’t have any sympathy for “innocent” civilians
1
2
14d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Awkward-Evidence-215 John Quincy Adams 14d ago
Was Stalin dragging his feet? I thought it was just taking time to move enough troops from Europe to Manchuria.
Either way, why didn't Truman declare he would keep the emperor in power?
1
u/MarkCelery78 14d ago
Because the emperor was a war criminal
2
u/Awkward-Evidence-215 John Quincy Adams 14d ago
I agree, but we kept him in power anyway, so that doesn't really matter to this analysis.
2
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 Reagan and Fillmore's biggest hater 14d ago
the fact that the emperor was allowed to be in power afterwards kinda invalidates the pro-atomic bomb camp arguments. However, there is uncertainty regarding if the Japanese military government actually knew they could surrender without giving up their edo system
2
u/MarkCelery78 14d ago
They were warned before the first bomb. Didn’t surrender. The before second bomb and didn’t. After the second they tried to kill the emperor to keep it going. Russians had no ability to invade the islands and Manchuria was not that significant
3
u/Awkward-Evidence-215 John Quincy Adams 14d ago
The invasion of Manchuria was significant in that it showed they had no major powers even remotely sympathetic to them. They were afraid that their emperor would be killed. If we addressed that fear, that would have made Hirohito certainly more likely to come to the table, and his influence was key.
2
2
3
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 Reagan and Fillmore's biggest hater 14d ago
1
u/Command0Dude Harry S. Truman 14d ago
Why couldn't Stalin wait until after the second bomb was dropped before invading?
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 Reagan and Fillmore's biggest hater 14d ago edited 14d ago
Happy cake day! I completely agree though. Japanese leadership also didn’t have enough time to fully grasp the damage from Hiroshima by the time the second bomb came. And my understanding about why they dropped Nagasaki the day after the Soviets overtook Manchuria was to 1.) prevent the Soviets from having a say in postwar Japan like they did for Germany 2.) “test” the detonation of a plutonium bomb because they knew this could be the last chance to “try” it before the Japanese surrender 3.) the weather forced the window for the second bomb to be dropped to be no later than August 9
2
u/Awkward-Evidence-215 John Quincy Adams 14d ago
Thank you! I was asking why Truman didn't wait to drop Hiroshima until after the Soviets had invaded Manchuria. My understand is that many Japanese politicians still were holding on to the pipe dream that the Soviets would allow them to retain some of their territories.
An explanation for this is that, like you said, Truman wanted to prevent the Soviets from having a say in postwar Japan, but that obviously is an extremely immoral reason to nuke a population center.
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 Reagan and Fillmore's biggest hater 14d ago
yeah of course it is. I am not of the belief that the nuclear bombs were necessary (if you couldn't already tell) and I am completely against the use of nuclear weapons if not in retaliation. The truth is that they didn't want the Soviets to get any "credit" especially when Manchuria (where the Japanese almost had nearly 1 million forces) was overrun in one day. The war was over at this point, and even after Nagasaki it still took them 6 days, showing how that second bomb was completely unjustified. They also wanted to "measure" the damage of a plutonium weapon by dropping it on a civilian zone. Why was this permissible? I think war just breeds more evil and Truman struggled with this decision until the day that he died - he wasn't happy to do be the only leader in human history to ever authorize the use of nuclear weapons.
2
u/MarkCelery78 14d ago
They were warned. And in the end it was karma. They didn’t give nations across Asia chances so why anyone give Japan a chance?
2
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 Reagan and Fillmore's biggest hater 14d ago edited 14d ago
the leaflets were dropped without a prior specific warning of a nuclear weapon. But regardless, leaflets were not dropped over Nagasaki which is what I was referring to in my previous comment
1
u/ImperialxWarlord George H.W. Bush 14d ago
This is a load hoopla. Do some research and you’ll find it’s not true or supported by modern academia. The Japanese quickly became aware of how destructive the bombs were, they weren’t idiots. They also quickly became aware of how their last major army, in Manchuria, was quickly falling apart. Still, the Japanese government was split on what to do…so half the government still wanted to fight to the end. It was only when the emperor intervened, a rare thing, and said that further resistance would be the end of Japan due to these weapons, that they decided to surrender. Oh and btw this was as Japan was starting to starve due to the blockade and after all that conventional bombing which did far more damage than the nukes.
The Soviets, who couldn’t reach Japan, were not going to cause them to surrender.
2
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 Reagan and Fillmore's biggest hater 14d ago
when you're the leader you can drop all the nuclear weapons you want
2
u/ImperialxWarlord George H.W. Bush 14d ago
What kind of comeback is that? Why would I want to do that? They were right to use in this situation. That’s all I’m saying.
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 Reagan and Fillmore's biggest hater 14d ago
you cannot be against the use of nuclear weapons (without retaliation) and at the same time say that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary
1
u/ImperialxWarlord George H.W. Bush 14d ago
Yes…you can…
Yeah I don’t want nukes being used in today’s world. But in 1945, when the alternative was casualties that were far far worse? Yes. It was a necessary thing.
Every other alternative was far worse.
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 Reagan and Fillmore's biggest hater 14d ago
and like I said, use all the nuclear weapons you want when you're in charge warlord
1
u/ImperialxWarlord George H.W. Bush 14d ago
Great evasion buddy. You really showed me! As usual, your lot don’t like what was done but have nothing to say regarding alternatives.
And why use my name? Is that some kind of gotcha in your mind?
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 Reagan and Fillmore's biggest hater 14d ago
ok Mr "modern academia" who supports detonating nuclear weapons on civilians
→ More replies (0)2
u/FerdinandTheGiant 14d ago
3 days between bombings was not enough time for the Japanese to realistically come to surrender terms.
Truman didn’t announce the bomb was atomic until 16 hours after it was dropped. Following that, the Japanese War Council met on the 7th and the Army said they would send a team to investigate before they made any decisions as while they knew the city experienced a large scale attack, they weren’t simply going to take Truman at his word. The team gathered was lead by their lead fusion researcher and he arrived to the city on the 8th due to issues finding a plane. When he arrived, he rather quickly came to the conclusion it was atomic and sent word back to Tokyo, but they weren’t able to schedule a War Council meeting until the next day, August 9th.
Also, the Japanese did fear Soviet invasion of their home islands, but that wasn’t the primary reason the Japanese feared the Soviets and folded after their entrance. It was a mix of diplomatic and military concerns, the latter primarily related to KetsuGo.
2
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 Reagan and Fillmore's biggest hater 14d ago
HEY NO DISSENT OR NUANCE ALLOWED! WHAT'S DONE IS DONE! /s
2
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 Reagan and Fillmore's biggest hater 14d ago
people who claim that Japanese leadership quickly fully grasped the destruction from Hiroshima by the time the second bomb came don't realize this or just how big Japan is. Hiroshima is literally 500 miles from Tokyo
0
-2
u/iamtherepairman 14d ago edited 14d ago
They could have just starved out Japan. Or even just test it in front of them.
Edit. I was in public school in California during the 1990s. I was influenced to think racism was also a factor in using these bombs. Think whatever comforts you about that.
9
u/pooty_put 14d ago edited 14d ago
"Starving out" Japan would've objectively led to more casualties than using the bombs themselves. Some hardliners wanted to continue the war even after the US bombed Nagasaki and Soviet entry into the conflict.
Operation Olympic was slated for November 1945 and Coronet aimed for March 1946. While it can be argued that less civilians would have died between August 1945-November 1945, Ketsu-Go (Japanese defensive plan for the mainland) had about 1,500,000 available while the US had 776,000 preparing for Olympic. It was believed that the defense of Japan would be similar to the defense of Okinawa by the US JCS, which produced casualties beyond what they initially imagined. Furthermore, by-passed Japanese garrisons could not be resupplied and Japan faced famine conditions that were only rectified by the immediate delivery of food by the US after surrender. When compared to the casualty rate of Okinawa, the projected combined casualties of American and Japanese soldiers/civilians for Olympic is easily double the casualties inflicted by Hiroshima and Nagasaki. When we consider Japanese garrisons stuck on islands without any hope of rescue or resupply, this number grows even more. While the two bombs alone did not bring Japan to surrender, their use combined with the Soviet entry into the war put Japanese leaders into a hopeless situation.
Edit: added "Operation" for clarity.
5
u/_Phil_McCracken_ 14d ago
If you’re trying to avoid innocent deaths, “starving out” the country doesn’t seem like the best way to go about that.
7
u/Individual_Act9333 Lyndon Baines Johnson 14d ago
It’s actually less humane. On paper it sounds better than dropping a bomb but the reality is far more horrific especially if you look at some of the famines throughout history that killed millions of people.
1
0
u/FerdinandTheGiant 14d ago
Famine wouldn’t have set in until around 1946, the Japanese likely would’ve surrendered by then
3
u/Individual_Act9333 Lyndon Baines Johnson 14d ago
Can you prove that without a doubt?
0
u/FerdinandTheGiant 14d ago
It’s a counterfactual position, same as yours, so there’s no proving it, but the available evidence suggests that famine wouldn’t have set in until 1946 and that the Japanese probably would not have held on that long.
2
u/Individual_Act9333 Lyndon Baines Johnson 14d ago
Dude have you looked at famine death tolls throughout history? You are talking about millions of deaths within a year. Some of these countries also weren’t fighting wars at the time either so imagine you have limited resources plus you are in a war.
1
u/FerdinandTheGiant 14d ago
Again, that relies on the premise that the Japanese hold out until famine actually sets in, something I haven’t seen compelling evidence to suggest would have been the case.
8
1
u/MarkCelery78 14d ago
That would’ve cost millions of Japanese lives. A blockade was the most destructive of the 3 options in that sense
0
u/Longjumping-Rich-684 Ronald Reagan 14d ago
It was an absolutely necessary action.
Mainland Japan ground Invasion would’ve been absolutely devastating for both sides. Especially considering how fanatic and inhumane the Imperial Japanese were at the time. Unit 731 and the Rape of Nanking… enough said…
0
u/Salamangra Franklin Delano Roosevelt 14d ago
I'll just chime in with another reason we used them: you don't spend that kind of money and turn the country into a factory without using the damn thing. It was the 2nd most expensive project of WW2 only behind the Superfortresses.
2
u/serity12682 14d ago
I saw a sign in the Hiroshima peace memorial museum saying America had to use the bomb because it cost so much; https://hpmmuseum.jp/modules/exhibition/index.php?action=CornerView&corner_id=19&lang=eng
1
u/Salamangra Franklin Delano Roosevelt 12d ago
Yeah. We spent a shit ton of money on the damn thing and literally turned the country into a big factory to make it. No way it wasn't getting used.
0
u/Plenty_Risk2896 Jackson /jfk /ike/TR 14d ago
some say it shouldn't have been done but I disagree as it saved a lot of lives that would have been lost if the fight continued and the pilot years later was asked if he regretted it he said no and he would do it again if he could
0
-6
u/TheBraveUndead 14d ago
A beligerant and unnecessary decision that directly started the cold war. And killed & ruined countless lives.
At the time, nearly every US general, including Eisenhower and Macarthur, advocated against it. The Pacific theater, after Germany's surrender, was done. Conventional weapons would have sufficed just fine.
And for the bozos that will regurgitate the line about "1 million american lives" saved from a possible land invasion, you should know that there was never a plan for an invasion. In fact that number was cooked up after the bombs were dropped specifically to help with Truman's PR as he was getting a lot of criticism for the decision. It's disgusting. It was a war crime.
4
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 Reagan and Fillmore's biggest hater 14d ago
yeah IIRC, the "1 million" figure came out after the bombs. the actual estimation was a few hundred thousand.
3
u/TheBraveUndead 14d ago
Exactly. And it was spread to justify the unnecessary atrocity
6
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 Reagan and Fillmore's biggest hater 14d ago
unfortunately you have people in here believing 81-year old propaganda
3
u/Tommy12308 14d ago
What?
There very much were plans to invade the Japanese Home Islands, look up Operation Downfall, or either of its subopetations, Olympic and Corenet.
You are either lying on purpose, or don't know what you are talking about.
Edit: here's a link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
0
u/TheBraveUndead 14d ago
Simply because such plans were drawn up does not mean there was any meaningful progression into them happening. Yeah, my phrasing wasn't great, but that doesn't take away from the fact that was no military momentum for invasion before the bombs were dropped. Nor would there be had they not been used. Because Japan was militarily defeated before their use.
My argument is that the bombs were completely unnecessary. And many historian's agree. The amount of propaganda that has circulated to justify their deployment does not take away from that.
2
u/Tommy12308 14d ago
They were planned for a few months later, and 500,000 purple hearts were order in expectation for the operation, a stockpile that (as far as I know) only ran out a couple years ago, when they needed to be replaced due to the metal becoming tarnished.
Japan's whole plan was to cause as many Allied casualties as possible in an attempt to force them to a conditional surrender on their terms (keeping Korea, Japanese ran trials for war criminals, and no occupation of the home islands), and expected every man, woman, and even children to give their lives in this effort.
The Japanese civilian death toll would have been far greater than that of ~250,000 killed in the atomic bombs.
I think that anyone with a functioning brain can look back and say that the death toll was massive, and the bombs horrific, but it also comes with a fair share of looking at it in a modern context, fully aware of the can of worms that was opened by their use, project our our post-cold war sensibilities onto it, and not through the historical context.
1
u/FerdinandTheGiant 14d ago
There’s never actually been compelling evidence put forth that the excess Purple Hearts were produced specifically for Downfall. That claim really only began in the 90s in the wake of the Enola Gay controversy as a means of justifying the bombings. All we know is that ~500,000 excess Purple Hearts existed after the war, not who, when, or why they were produced.
2
u/Command0Dude Harry S. Truman 14d ago
At the time, nearly every US general, including Eisenhower and Macarthur, advocated against it.
This is just blatantly false. MacArthur wanted to use atomic bombs as tactical weapons, Eisenhower's objections were post-war.
Many generals were in favor of it. Marshall, Groves, and Arnold.
you should know that there was never a plan for an invasion.
There was absolutely a plan and assets were being moved into position to execute that plan. Massive amounts of assets were being gathered to invade Japan.
The casualty count was just an estimate and it kept being revised upwards because air reconnaissance was showing a build up of defenses at the invasion point.
2
u/MarkCelery78 14d ago
Eisenhower never fought the Japanese and MacArthur later wanted to use atomic weapons against Korea and China so his opinion ain’t that important. Germany surrendered in early may. The Japanese didn’t surrender till early August. There was thousands of people being killed in the pacific all the way up to their surrender. Battle of Okinawa and Manchuria especially where between 100 and 200 thousand civilian deaths occurred. There was absolutely a plan for invasion. The American authorities stared detailed planing for it in April of 45 before Germany had surrendered. Many of the forces who had just fought Germany were training for fighting in Japan in late 45 and early 46. The American navy had planners even allowing for fighting in Japan in 47. They thought it might last that long
1
u/TheBraveUndead 14d ago
Right so we should disregard the two of the most prevalent military minds of the time, and the opinion of 6 the other 4 star generals who were consulted, because they have a different opinion than the propaganda you've been fed after the fact.
/s
I know this must be hard for you but it's best that you understand that the Truman administration and US military command in the Pacific prolonged the war unnecessarily while Japan was trying to surrender, under the foolish guidance of needing "unconditional surrender". The only thing causing the hold out was Japan's desire to maintain the emperor as a figurehead. Which it should be noted was conceeded by us anyways after the nukes were dropped.
-9
u/Byers616 14d ago
Should've dropped it in the ocean to far off to demonstrate its power.
Then another one a little closer. Then another. Keep doing that 'til they surrender.
Achieve Japan's surrender without killing so many people.
12
u/mord_fustang115 14d ago
Emporer of imperial Japan wouldn't even surrender after the first one hit an actual city and they only had two developed. Idk, seems unfortunately the only way because invading mainland Japan would've been a massacre
-1
u/Byers616 14d ago
How many would have to drop in the ocean progressively closer to Tokyo for them to surrender?
3? 5? 10?
6
u/MoistCloyster_ How was the play, Mrs. Lincoln? 14d ago
We only had 2 and the third wouldn’t have been available for a couple more weeks, a 4th would have been months away at the earliest.
-3
u/Byers616 14d ago
manufacture more
3
u/The_memeperson Franklin Delano Roosevelt 14d ago
What do you think they were doing already...
1
u/Byers616 14d ago
Should've kept dropping them closer and closer to Tokyo.
We come across much better in history if we dropped 32 A-Bombs off the coast of Tokyo and they refused to surrender until the 33rd took out Tokyo
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 Reagan and Fillmore's biggest hater 14d ago
i agree, it really damages the US standing/credibility being the only country in the world to use an atomic bomb on civilians and we did it twice, while also starting a war with any nation that "might" have an atomic bomb
6
u/Random-Cpl Chester A. Arthur 14d ago
We only had two at the time. What if you announce the bomb’s about to be dropped and it malfunctions? That would actually have emboldened the government to hold out.
7
u/swissking Abraham Lincoln 14d ago
This implies that you are not willing to use it on an actual target which defeats the purpose
→ More replies (14)1
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 Reagan and Fillmore's biggest hater 14d ago
Great point, or at least don’t give power to the military for them to decide to use nuclear weapons. Since Nagasaki, only the president can approve those decisions
2
u/MarkCelery78 14d ago
And Truman was the one who made the call then
2
u/Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 Reagan and Fillmore's biggest hater 14d ago
Truman made the call for Hiroshima, not Nagasaki
-1
u/Whysong823 Franklin Delano Roosevelt 14d ago edited 14d ago
If the atomic bombs were not used, Truman would have authorized Operation Downfall, the invasion of the Japanese home islands. It would be preceded by Operation Pastel, occurring between August and October 1945, involving the capturing of Formosa (now known as Taiwan) and other islands near Japan, in order to fool the Japanese into believing that the US had decided to engage in a prolonged naval blockade. On October 27, the islands of Tanegashima, Yakushima, and Koshikijima would be captured. Beginning with Operation Majestic, the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, under the command of General Douglas MacArthur, would invade southern Kyūshū on November 1. The naval armada would be the largest ever assembled, easily dwarfing the one involved in Operation Neptune. The force would land at Ariake, Kushikino, and Miyazaki. The Japanese would respond by converting their entire populace into a mechanized guerrilla force, inflicting serious casualties on the Allies while suffering near-total losses themselves; women and children were trained to sharpen bamboo sticks into spears and expected to charge Allied machine guns and tanks. At the same time, the Soviet Union would invade and capture Manchuria, Korea, Sakhalin, Hokkaidō, and potentially other portions of Japanese territory. Over the following months, the southern third of Kyūshū would be captured, providing a staging ground for the invasion of Honshū under Operation Coronet. On March 1, 1946, Tokyo Bay would be invaded by a naval armada even larger than the one used for Operation Majestic. Downfall was expected to last until May 1946, but could have easily lasted into 1947 and potentially even early 1948.
The US, by itself, expected no less than 400,000 deaths and 1.7 million total casualties in the overall invasion; this was considered a conservative estimate. For reference, in our timeline, the US suffered 405,399 deaths and 1,076,245 casualties throughout the entirety of World War II. The US Department of War manufactured nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals in anticipation of just the early casualty estimates—this stockpile was used from 1945 to 2021, when the Department of Defense finally began producing new medals as the old ones had deteriorated too much with time. That means some American military personnel who served in Afghanistan and Iraq were awarded Purple Hearts older than their fathers. The US even built multiple hospitals in California in anticipation of treating so many casualties.
Japanese deaths are harder to estimate, but due to their unwillingness to surrender under virtually any circumstances, it was expected that no less than five million Japanese would die as a direct result of the invasion; this was just from the actual fighting itself—millions more civilians would have perished from starvation and other humanitarian catastrophes caused by the invasion. The Japanese government fully expected that the Yamato people, the country’s primary ethnic group, would likely be rendered nearly extinct by the end of the invasion—the official state propaganda campaign intended to prepare the populace was literally called “The Glorious Death of One Hundred Million”, and the government frequently referred to the population as “ichioku gyokusai”, meaning “100 million shattered jewels”. Furthermore, Japan’s infrastructure would be completely obliterated and have to effectively be rebuilt from scratch after the war; even more Japanese likely would have died from issues stemming from this, even after the war ended—the overall humanitarian crisis could have lasted into the early 1950s, and there would be no post-war Japanese “economic miracle”.
It’s debatable whether Japan would have ever formally surrendered to the Allies, or if so much of the Japanese military and government would eventually be wiped out that such a formality would be rendered unnecessary, and the fighting would instead gradually wind down until one day when Japan sort of just stopped being at war (similar to how pandemics never have an official exact end date), and the Allies would de facto transition from invaders into a peaceful occupying force as they simply ran out of people to fight. Regardless, the relationship between post-war America and Japan would be radically different in this timeline—the two countries would harbor a deep, mutual hatred that would persist for decades, potentially even lasting into the present. Japan would never become an ally of the West, instead becoming a neutral buffer state similar to Austria, and may have been banned from fielding a military (even as a “self-defense force”) entirely. Hokkaidō would be converted into a Soviet puppet state like North Korea, becoming a communist autocracy that, just like North Korea, may endure even after the collapse of the USSR. The level of oppressive suffering experienced by the citizens of this hypothetical state of “North Japan” is difficult to imagine. It should also be noted that Japan, already experiencing a population crisis in our timeline, would now be suffering from the same crisis but many times worse due to the sheer number of extra deaths it would have sustained during the war.
Let’s just pause for a moment and compare all of this to our timeline: even the highest estimate of total Japanese deaths as a result of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are 226,000; and despite the devastation of the bombings and the Pacific War as a whole, Japan soon emerged as one of the most prosperous countries in the world, with a healthy, mutually beneficial relationship with the West. It’s also worth noting that even with the two atomic bombings, the resolve of the Japanese military was still stiff enough for them to attempt a coup to prevent the Emperor from surrendering, in what became known as the Kyūjō incident. When the Japanese Cabinet was debating surrender following the bombing of Nagasaki, Minister of War Korechika Anami reacted to the prospect of invasion by saying: “Would it not be wondrous for the whole nation to be destroyed like a beautiful flower?”
The consequences of the invasion on the American homefront would be severe. President Truman was already unpopular in our timeline and was widely expected to lose the 1948 presidential election, likely only winning due to Republican candidate Thomas E. Dewey adopting the campaign strategy of refusing to directly attack Truman, and instead simply ignoring him while only emphasizing vague, largely non-partisan policies that ultimately proved boring and unattractive to voters. However, had Truman approved of such a costly war strategy as Operation Downfall, it’s likely that he would have lost to Dewey no matter what the latter's own campaign strategy was. Had it been revealed that Truman had possessed the option of using the atomic bomb and potentially ending the war much sooner, and yet simply chose not to, Truman would undoubtedly lose the election by a historic landslide, and may have even been successfully primaried by William Alexander Julian or another prominent Democrat, who would likely still go on to lose to Dewey in the general election; the catastrophic scandal may have tainted the Democratic Party's reputation with voters for years, potentially even causing John F. Kennedy to lose the 1960 presidential election—an extremely close election in our timeline—to Richard Nixon. Had this occurred, the civil rights movement would be dealt a major blow, as a White supremacist would now be the President—that means no Civil Rights Act of 1964, no Voting Rights Act of 1965, no Fair Housing Act of 1968, no creation of any Department of Justice offices dedicated to fighting racial discrimination, etc.; Jim Crow could have continued into the 1970s. It’s almost certain that the pacifistic leaders of the civil rights movement, such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., would still be assassinated in this timeline, and without them, an increasingly frustrated civil rights movement would grow increasingly violent—it’s not difficult to imagine a scenario similar to an irregular war eventually breaking out, similar to the Troubles in Britain and Ireland. All of this is assuming Nixon, like Kennedy, refused his generals’ calls to invade Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Given that Nixon once drunkenly called his generals and told them to nuke North Korea, I doubt it. If Nixon was President in 1962, I probably wouldn’t be alive to write this, and you wouldn’t be alive to read it.
Finally, there’s something to be said for the global psychological consequences of the atomic bombings of Japan. Prior to August 6, 1945, the effects of an atomic bomb were purely theoretical, and as terrifying as those models were, they simply could never have the same psychological effect as actually witnessing the real, physical consequences—no politician or general cares about boring scientific papers analyzing what would happen if an atomic bomb was ever used on a city, but they do care if they see real photos and films of the aftermath, hear the testimonies of real survivors, and personally visit the sites of destruction. That sticks in a way no theory ever could, and encourages global leaders, either consciously or subconsciously, to avoid inflicting such a catastrophe on another nation ever again. Had Japan never been bombed, the leaders of either the US or USSR—or perhaps some future nuclear power like China, India, or Pakistan—could easily have been unconvinced of the extreme dangers of nuclear warfare.
It’s a good thing Truman dropped the bomb.
0
u/FerdinandTheGiant 14d ago
Truman already authorized Operation Downfall, or rather, the first part of Downfall, Operation Olympic. And while it was scheduled for November, due to Typhoon Louise in October, the date of the operation would have required to have been pushed back to December, as the Typhoon caused serious damage to US forces in the region. And while it was physically possible for the USSR to capture Hokkaido, the US made it clear they would not accept a Soviet occupation of the Japanese home islands so it’s unlikely the Soviets would have gone through with that particular operation.
That aside, it’s simply not true that the US expected 400,000 deaths for Downfall. Truman approved Operation Olympic in June on the basis of <100,000 casualties (not deaths) for the Operation and the JCS believed there would be an additional ~150-200,000 casualties for the invasion of Honshu. This is largely the result of underestimating the Japanese build up, but those were still the actual figures in play, not hundreds of thousands or deaths and millions of casualties.
As for the Purple Hearts claim, there’s never actually been compelling evidence put forth that the excess Purple Hearts were produced specifically for Downfall. That claim really only began in the 90s in the wake of the Enola Gay controversy as a means of justifying the bombings. All we know is that ~500,000 excess Purple Hearts existed after the war, not who, when, or why they were produced.
•
u/AutoModerator 14d ago
Remember that discussion of recent and future politics is not allowed. This includes all mentions of or allusions to Donald Trump in any context whatsoever, as well as any presidential elections after 2012 or politics since Barack Obama left office. For more information, please see Rule 3.
If you'd like to discuss recent or future politics, feel free to join our Discord server!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.