So I've been thinking about Truman and his choice to drop the bomb.
What if America never dropped it? The war between America and Japan would of gone on many more years that much is obvious.
But what I'm curious about was using the bomb and seeing the destructive power it contained from the radiation after effect as well as the impact an action that actually caused Russia and America to not jump right into launching nuclear weapons carelessly at each other when they started to engage in a standoff of nuclear war during the cold war?
I guess what I'm wondering mostly is would America and Russia have engaged in Nuclear war if we didn't get to see the real horrifying destructive after effects nuclear weapons had on people that we learned from the examples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Did dropping the bomb actually serve as the deterrent to a nuclear war?
> The war between America and Japan would of gone on many more years that much is obvious.
It isn't obvious to me. Japan's transportation network was shot to ribbons and within one year, you'd have mass starvation.
That's assuming, of course, that the invasion didn't go through and bring an end to the regime directly, which would probably take 4-8 months, tops. (Even if it would be horrendously expensive and bloody).
>I guess what I'm wondering mostly is would America and Russia have engaged in Nuclear war if we didn't get to see the real horrifying destructive after effects nuclear weapons had on people that we learned from the examples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Gut opinion is probably not. Nuclear deterrence wasn't the sum of deterrence; you still had plenty of conventional deterrence in the form of the West's greater manpower and industrial resources, balanced against the difficulties involves din invading and occupying the soviet Union if they wanted to take an offensive posture.
Far more likely than out and out nuclear war is a hedging of bets within NATO and far more of a conventional military buildup instead of relying up on nuclear deterrence as proof against conventional force buildup.
Ian Collins
>would of
Easton King
>would of
I think they would have surrendered either way.
>did it serve as a deterrent
Nah, I think it served to increase the advancement of nuclear bombs. Generals got off to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was the H-bombs where they really started thinking about the consequences on a more fundamental level
Joshua Torres
>What if America never dropped it?
Japan undergoes a massive famine with millions of people starving to death into 1946. This just barely got averted in the OTL by massive shipments of food from the USA. If Japan continues to resist, which they will, it can't be averted. And the USN and USAAF had already abandoned the Downfall plan, and it seems very unlikely for Truman to ignore them on this seeing as even in the USA the only one really pushing for it was MacArthur.
Noah Lewis
>Did dropping the bomb actually serve as the deterrent to a nuclear war?
The two bombs dropped on Japan were actually quite small (15 and 20 kt) and both detonated high enough so that the ground wasn't irradiated. You can see just how small they were in comparison to later cold war tests on nukemap nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
I don't think it was the actual bombings so much as the clear display of our willingness to bring about such destruction that made deterrence effective. Air bursts create more physical damage, but we had already exceeded that with the firebombing of Tokyo. If it was only about demonstrating nuclear horror, you'd let it detonate on the ground. That said, I do tend to agree with Max Hastings;
>"Of the atomic bombs, a modern American historian has written: “If the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the apogee of the nation-state—for what other political entity could possibly have financed and manned such an undertaking as the Manhattan Project…then that moment was also the birth of the universal vulnerability of the nation-state.” Not only does the use of the atomic bombs seem to have been justified in the circumstances prevailing in August 1945, but I am among those convinced that the demonstration of nuclear horror, and the global revulsion which it provoked, has contributed decisively towards preserving the world since. If the effects of nuclear attack had not been demonstrated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is overwhelmingly likely that in the Cold War era, an American or Russian leader would have convinced himself that the use of atomic weapons could be justified. Korea in 1950 offers an obvious example, when some U.S. generals, above all MacArthur, favoured exploiting against China the advantages supposedly conferred by America’s nuclear arsenal. Such a point is irrelevant to the debate about whether the original decision in 1945 was valid, but is surely worthy of consideration more than six decades later."
Justin Perry
Come on man, look for the clouds with the silver lines in. It's a doggy dog world
Blake Morris
>doggy dog world
I used to say this as a kid
No regrets
Hudson Adams
Also, since it's difficult to put ourselves in the shoes of those who actually lived it, these transcripts are worth a read. The reactions of ten German Nuclear Physicists after being told of the bombings, being secretly recorded while incarcerated in England.
Interesting read. I was surprised by how many of them seemed relieved that they failed out of concern about what Hitler would have done with it.
Cooper Evans
>finally create the atom bomb >don't use it on another nation
That's pretty unthinkable desu. It'd be like finally building a space shuttle that can take men to the moon but then never sending it. You have to use creations like that, they're too powerful not to use them for real at least once.
Dominic White
I hole-hardedly agree, but allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go. Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it’s a peach of cake.
Robert Myers
We'd have dropped it ten years later fighting the Soviets, and we'd have dropped a lot of them.
It was better to nuke an already defeated colored country to serve as a warning than end up with WWIII and millions more European dead.
Jaxson Jones
Other considerations aside, I expect Truman was aware that now that the US had the bomb, it was going to just be a matter of time until others did as well. You don't want to go into a stand-off situation with the Soviets where you have the bomb but aren't too sure how it will work in practicality, and neither does your enemy when he shortly thereafter gets it. Makes it much more likely you see a large exchange later, after arsenals are built up, someplace like Korea.
So you use them as a coda to a war you've already won, to see what exactly happens, and to let the other guy see exactly what happens. Then everybody is a bit more circumspect 5 years later when it's war time again and instead of two bombs, there are hundreds.
Easton Gray
Operation cherry blossom would have happened
Justin Perez
DESU, I'm not convinced that the invasion of Japan would even have gone through. The US public would not have the stomach to send millions to their deaths when Japan could be bombed and starved out instead.
Noah Phillips
Not OP, but tone down the self-righteousness, dude. Your argument is so fucking long, bland, and boring that it was a challenge for me to actually read through. I fully support nuking Japan. Hell, we should've taken out Tokyo for the hell of it, but you're arguments are so pathetically constructed that it makes me question my own beliefs.
Christian Jackson
>The war between America and Japan would of gone on many more years that much is obvious.
No. Japan was ready to capitulate as soon as the soviets entered the war. they were already fully beaten and they knew that there was no way they could win with another major enemy attacking them, in fact they must have known the war was lost long before that. Peace negotiations had already started before the bomb dropped with the only contentious point being whether the japanese could keep the emperor (which they were allowed to do anyways in the end). the dropping of the atomic bombs was nothing but a cynical display of power. truman didn't care about the civilian lives lost if he could only show the soviets how powerful the US was. The myth that the atomic bombs were the only thing that could bring about peace was invented later as a justification.
Joseph Ross
You're right that it had nothing to do with bringing Japan to heel and everything to do with giving the Soviets pause, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do. Politics is cynical, and what good is defeating fascism and the Yellow Menace if Europe and the East is immediately gobbled up by the Soviets?
To his credit, Truman could see where things were going and he was setting up the West's pieces for the next war, not the last one.
Easton Ramirez
>Millions This is a false statement that is taught throughout high schools. During this time, Japan was struggling to feed their troops, their roads and communication was fucking useless. They were struggling to manufacture any materials. The US would have done a slow push if they were planning on invading.They would most likely start from North to South taking out what was left of the agricultural areas. The war would have continued on for another 6 to 14 months with around 10k deaths, most due to air raids if anything.
Isaac Powell
>with around 10k deaths
Wow you're fucking retarded.
Christopher Wright
>Taking anything on here seriously
Alexander Martinez
>What if America never dropped it?
Japan would be divided between Gommie north and "Free" south, much like Korea. Beyond this, it's hard to tell; likely, they would unify peacefully much as Germany did, but it's also possible Gommie Japan would go full autist like Best Korea did, resulting in half the Japanese people living in poverty and slavery to this day.
Grayson Anderson
>Japan would be divided between Gommie north and "Free" south, much like Korea.
Yeah, I'm sure that the Soviets would have pulled off their invasion of North Japan with that huge fleet they didn't have and were hoping to borrow from the Americans.
Blake Jenkins
Doesn;t matter how hopeless it was, the Japanese had already demonstrated during the Pacific War that they would fight to nearly the last man. No doubt the Americans would have a massive kill-to-death ratio during an invasion of Japan, but also no doubt that they'd lose 100,000+, lives America was unwilling to sacrifice (and really why should they, they didn't start the hostilities and they had invented a genius weapon that would end the war with no more American loses, morally Truman did the right thing by prioritising American lives over Japanese """people""").
Alexander Young
By that point Japan had no navy or airforce. The soviets didnt need a huge fleet just a couple of warships and whatever else you could transport troops and supplies on
Dominic Cook
Oh and they have already landed on some of the northern islands by that point too
Oliver Flores
>The soviets didnt need a huge fleet just a couple of warships and whatever else you could transport troops and supplies on
That requires a huge fleet.
It took over 4,000 vessels to transport the D-Day force. Do you know how many landing the Soviets had in the Pacific by the end of 1945? 11.
No, they landed on the Kurils, not Japan proper. And despite the fact that Japan had "no navy or airforce" just beach defenses, they managed to lose 5 of their 16 landing craft in doing so, which is why they were down to 11 for an invasion of Hokkaido.
Carson Gray
The reason the Japanese surrendered wasn't because of the bomb. They surrendered fearing a Soviet invasion.
Nolan Collins
"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. Should We continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.
Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers."
-Emperor Hirohito
Yeah, no.
Jason Robinson
>that much is obvious.
No it's not. They had already firebombed Tokyo and killed 250000 people in the largest air raid in the history of mankind.
I doubt the nukes had the impact people imagine.
Brandon Turner
Dday forced used that many vessels because they wanted rapid, overwhelming forces to not give the Axis time to regroup and counter their initial landing forces
Japan didn't have anything to stop a Russian invasion
Brody Bennett
Tankies will believe anything as long as it fits their preconceptions. Otherwise it's WESTERN LIES.
Let us also ignore that the Kwantung Army Group was still fully intact when Japan surrendered, pulling back to defensive positions in line with its defense plan, had checked the Soviet advance in places, were trading roughly 2-1 with the USSR in casualties at the time and also destroyed hundreds of Soviet tanks in two weeks. Securing Manchuria alone would require several months and hundreds of thousands of casualties. Let us also ignore the shit show of Shumshu despite the Soviets using pretty much all their available landing craft there against a very under equipped Japanese foece.
Colton Murphy
>America does not drop nukes >people never experience how terrible a nuke really is >Cold War rolls around >hmm... how bad could it be? >world destroyed
Camden Collins
They did, specifically because they gave the Japanese an excuse to surrender while still saving face. That's why the Emperor put so much emphasis on them in his surrender message rather than simply noting that the Americans could starve the whole island chain at will, even though they still could. Strategically nothing had changed since a couple weeks ago, but the psychological impact was enornous.
Ryan Perry
The yoke Your head
Xavier Walker
the real reason was to showcase the power of the Bomb to the world (especially the USSR) Japan was secondary
Elijah Reed
The lesson of the entire island hopping campaign taught America that shelling an island with naval guns and bombing it for 2 weeks straight did nothing.
The jap defenses were still intact because of how underground they were.
The atomic bombs was a big hint that america now had a bomb that rendered all defense obsolete.
Wyatt Walker
>Dday forced used that many vessels because they wanted rapid, overwhelming forces to not give the Axis time to regroup and counter their initial landing forces
No, it didn't. Overlord required almost a month of buildup before they could breakout off the beach. There was no risk of "Axis getting time to regroup and counter their initial landing forces", that's what the Transport Plan was for. You needed that many ships because you need that much crap to mount an invasion. Beach assaults are hard. Moving further inland is harder still, since you're almost always advancing off of the lowest ground around where there's little cover and need overwhelming fire support to make any headway at all.
Just try to envision this for a second. If the Soviets are using Higgins Boats, or something of the equivalent, each one can carry about 36 people and their gear. And as you can see, they packed them pretty tight; this was a photo from transport in to Okinawa.
If you want to land an entire 45 Soviet division at once (a bit over 12,000 men, and we're just going to pretend that you won't need any extra to carry their artillery or any other heavy equipment, which is obviously ridiculous), you need over 330 of them. If you want to land the 7ish divisions to make the attack equally as powerful as Overlord (and who are we kidding, Soviet troops had about half the firepower, so it will be a significantly weaker push) you need almost 2350.
You cannot invade a hostile beach without a fucking huge fleet to carry your invasion force.
>The Japanese had kamikaze aircraft in southern Honshu and Kyushu which would have opposed Operations Olympic and Coronet. It is unknown to what extent they could have opposed Soviet landings in the far north of Japan. For comparative purposes, approximately 1,300 Western Allied ships deployed during the Battle of Okinawa (April–June 1945). In total, 368 ships — including 120 amphibious craft — were badly damaged while another 28 — including 15 landing ships and 12 destroyers — were sunk, mostly by kamikazes. The Soviets, however, had fewer than 400 ships (most of them not equipped for amphibious assault) by the time they declared war on Japan on 8 August 1945.[76]
400 ships is tiny for the purported operation. The Soviets couldn't come anywhere close to pulling off a Husky or Iceberg, much less a Normandy.
Nolan Miller
Factually incorrect and historically inaccurate.
Veeky Forums
Eli James
[Citation needed] for all of this shitpost
Inaccurate. It was a number of factors, including that one.
The Emperor was a puppet locked up in the palace while being worshipped as a god. Why do you think his politically motivated statements are accurate?
Jace Morgan
Has to be looked at from what was known by the Western Allies in 1945.
Japan had some pretty good armour and had been withdrawing forces from Manchuria to the home islands. There was plenty of evidence they intended to fight on. While the US and her allies were going to win eventually, it would have been costly for sure. But Japan isn't the nation that the US is looking at here - the USSR is.
The USSR joined the war against Japan in the twilight hours of the war. Every day that went past, the USSR was going to have a bigger say in what happened to South East Asia after the war. With hindsight we know that the USSR knew about the Nukes, but at the time we needed to
a) end the war in SEA ASAP before the USSR gets too heavily involved b) display American ability and willingness to utilise the nuclear bomb. c) retain the strength of the US in the face of possible conflict with the USSR.
The Japs had fought to the bitter end during the Pacific campaign. It took thousands of men and huge operations over weeks just to secure a rock a few miles wide. Casualty estimates of an invasion of the home islands were in the 1,000,000+ range.
The nuclear option sucked for Japan, but with what the American's knew at the time, bringing the war to an end with all speed would be the best for america AND Japan.
Even today, the Kuril islands are still under Russian control. If the US had invaded Japan from one direction, and the USSR from the other, they Japan could have faced a split like Germany or Korea.
Eli Howard
>Japan had some pretty good armour
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>If the US had invaded Japan from one direction, and the USSR from the other,
The USSR's invasion plans had as step 1
>Borrow ships from the Americans.
If the Americans are worried about Soviet influence in Japan, they don't need to drop the bomb. All they need to do is to suspend Project Hula, which is way cheaper and easier.
Zachary Roberts
>hey nerd, make me a uranium engine or you will be disposed of by the party I'm paraphrasing A LOT here, but I can understand harboring some resentment to the man/people who told you to make the weapon of tomorrow (even if it was an engine) and then not give you the manpower or funding to do so.
Adam Watson
>[Citation needed] for all of this shitpost
Glantz, David (2004). "Soviet Operational and Tactical Combat in Manchuria, 1945: 'August Storm'." Page 110-125. For the actions of those units and a description of the crucial Battle of Mutanchiang.
Also for numbers: Coox, Alvin. "Japan Against Russia". Page 1176. Gives figures of 21,389 Japanese dead + 20,000 wounded and 12,031 Soviet dead + 24,446 wounded for the brief 11 days of fighting that happened before the nation of Japan surrendered following the nukes. When the Japanese were utterly caught by surprise in the open by a Soviet armored blitz for the first week. This is based on both sides post war records. At worst the Japanese should be able to keep that ratio while fighting defensively in urban and mountain terrain. There were 713,000 IJA trooops in Manchuria and they're likely to fight near to the death.
