This 110%. According to Giancreco by the summer of 1945 every month the pacific war dragged on 400,000 Civilians were dying every month from Japanese occupation. On top of that the Japanese had 100,000 allied prisoners who were starving to death that wouldn’t be released until the war was over. You could honestly justify the atomic bombs, without even bringing up American troops dying.
What happens to Truman if he didn’t use the atomic bomb?
- Thread starter Bellacinos
- Start date
This 110%. According to Giancreco by the summer of 1945 every month the pacific war dragged on 400,000 Civilians were dying every month from Japanese occupation. On top of that the Japanese had 100,000 allied prisoners who were starving to death that wouldn’t be released until the war was over. You could honestly justify the atomic bombs, without even bringing up American troops dying.
I will keep that in mind.
I've had this conversation a few times with my family
Let's also keep in mind the simple timeline of events:
First Bomb Dropped - Cabinet votes 4-2 to continue the war.
Soviets Declare War and then the Second Bomb is Dropped - Cabinet deadlocks at 3-3 to continue the war.
The Emperor then steps in and decides to end the war and one results of that is an attempted palace coup.
So even after two atomic bombs are dropped and the Russians join the war, the Cabinet still couldn't figure out that it was time to make peace and when the Emperor decided for them, so army officers decided to try and overthrow the man who they had been taught since birth was literally a god.
To be clear, speaking for myself, I don't approve of using nuclear weapons (or for that matter, other indiscriminate bombing capabilities) on civilian population centers. And we should be clear that embraces LaMay's incendiary bombings, too. Because that can't pass the same moral smell test, either.
Which is to say, when you look back at what the RAF and USAAF had been doing to German and Japanese cities over the previous three years, you understand why Hiroshima had become acceptable where not long before, it wouldn't have. In a moral climate where you're prepared to immolate 100,000+ Japanese civilians with incendiaries on the single night - and then repeat the performance on varying scales on 60 other Japanese cities - it becomes amenable to nuke cities, too. Which is why I cited Andrew Bacevich's observation today that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were overdetermined acts. That does not make them morally acceptable. You just understand why they were possible, even virtually inevitable, at the time.
I *do* think it would be licit to have used the a-bombs against clear military targets, however. Naval bases. Navy task forces. Troop concentrations on southern Kyushu before X-Day. I think hitting two military targets on August 6 and 9 would have achieved the same objective as Hiroshima and Nagasaki did.
There were such proposals for a staged public test by scientists in the Project. But no one thought they were realistic - that the Japanese government would actually agree to such an observation, or that even if they did, that they would believe it wasn't in some way faked. To say nothing of the risk that the bomb might not detonate!
Last edited:
I've never understood the whole issue of how a test detonation would have impressed the Japanese into doing anything given that after two actual cities were hit, the Cabinet deadlocked at 3-3 on whether or not the continue to the war. The whole test detonation thing gets brought up all of the time even though it fails that very basic logic test.
If I recall correctly, one of the hardliners in the War Cabinet - I believe it was Anami - in the August 9 meeting was arguing that the Americans couldn't possibly have more than one bomb. As he was talking, the news came in that the second bomb had been detonated at Nagasaki. The meeting broke up in confusion.
But yes, disapproving as I think almost all of us do of the nuking of these two cities, the actions of the War Cabinet that week underline that they simply were not willing to surrender on anything remotely like the Potsdam terms up until the very last day. That fact, at least, has to be confronted in offering up valid alternatives that we think should have been pursued by the U.S.. There was not a moment up through August 9 where there was any kind of consensus to offer a surrender on sole condition that the emperor be kept in place.
I also find the fact that there was an attempted palace coup to be very telling. That is something that if it hadn't happened, it would be considered ASB if somebody on this forum suggested the possibility for an ATL. Overthrowing the god king whose family has ruled the country for centuries is an extreme act to say the least.
Sorry to hear that but frankly you're more wrong than right and your reasoning isn't taking into account the facts on the ground in either the US or Japan at the time
If the invasion went forward that was considered a 'low-ball' estimate of American casualites and about two to three times that for the Japanese. The Japanese put their casualties much higher and a bit lower than that for the Americans and were assuming that would be enough to get the Americans to the negotiating table. They had continually made this mistake several times including basing most of their pre-war planning on this being a 'fact' about Americans and causalities.
The idea of "Peace Talks" essentially has a proviso that both sides are both willing and able to come to some basic terms. There was zero indication that the Japanese were going to come with any reasonable, (to the Allies) expectations and this was reinforced over and over again even after the bombings.
Those plans were highly tentative as it was known that any high ranking Japanese official would likely be neither believed nor allowed to speak of what he/they had seen. This was based on known issues with "bad" new within the Imperial Council and was pretty much proven out when said council refused to accept the news of the first attack and still questioned the second. Even when they accepted the attacks they did not consider it justification for surrender under the Allied terms. That's important.
A MINOR consideration by the way was it was understood that the Japanese WOULD defend an "explicitly-military" target if attacked which would put more lives in danger as MOST such targets were outside of Japan in still contested areas.
At that point in the war there WERE no 'civilian' or "explicitly-military" targets. Hiroshima and Nagasaki both were used for and has extensive military utility and production. Both were legitimate military targets and even the Japanese acknowledged this. Again you ignore that both sides considered this total war and any and all production and population centers were 'legitimate' targets.
This was already planned out before Stalin even agreed to enter the war on Japan. In fact it was assumed that he would actually hold to the non-aggression pact long than he did as like everyone else his majority focus was in Europe not Asia. He was already working on his own bomb project so nothing the US did by dropping one was going to effect that.
Which essentially points out how much you don't understand history or how nations interact. No one here has advocated for the use of the bombs but we have gone into detail as to the rationale and background that lead to their use. Using nuclear weapon on civilians is no more 'acceptable' than using poison gas or biological agents but those too were accepted into the arsenal to be used on Japan if the war continued. Japan planned on the same tactics and use and would have used nuclear weapons on America if they had had them and a means to deliver them. It was that kind of war.
Considering about half those possible threads are in fact a banning offense I highly doubt you actually read a majority of these forums. Utopia's DO tend to be less than stellar reading but the key there is to make how you got there interesting rather than the end result itself. And I would like to see you start a poll on the idea that "this" is the best time line ever
As i pointed out earlier your grasp of actual history is a bit lacking so therefore I can see how you might think that a lot of threads start with the premise of "what's the worst that could happen" but it's really a lot deeper than that. I suggest studying some real history and then coming back and reading.Randy
Last edited:
It wasn't brought up by anybody in the military or the government planning boards. It was IIRC an idea floated by the scientist as a possible means of not killing anyone with the bomb. It was also planned on showing just how 'terrible' the bomb was to observers from other nations, (it tends to get overlooked that the idea had almost EVERY nation having an observer at the test) so as to force some sort of disarmament movement in the post=war period. Considering how many people felt the "war-to-end-all-war" sentiment post-WWI had lead directly to WWII it's not really surprising the idea didn't get very far.
"Technically" the coup was based on the idea of how things were run during the Shogunate with the Emperor in power in name but being protected by the wiser and more able "Generals" of the military. Considering the Navy at the very least wasn't part of the plan I have doubts it would have lasted even if they had managed to stop the surrender.
Randy
Would the army have been willing to kill the Emperor? If he was truly intent on surrender.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both industrial cities manufacturing supplies and equipment for the Japanese military. Hiroshima was also the site of a military base.
At the time the bombs were dropped there was plenty of doubt among the western allied leaders about whether or not Stalin would enter the war.
If that were the case, they really would have just gone with the demo approach.
The American public absolutely was racist against Asians and Asian-Americans, but not to the point of seeing genocide against them as a plus. The reason America cut off oil exports to Japan was because of outrage over Japanese war crimes in China (the invasion of Indochina as part of an effort to starve the Chinese was just the last straw). Also just in case you bring up the "Why wasn't Germany nuked?" argument, Germany surrendered before the Manhattan Project produced a bomb.
One of the most popular timelines is HeX's "A more Perfect Union." Although it doesn't feature a USA that never had slavery, it has slavery getting abolished much earlier. It also averts the Trail of Tears (and post-independence genocide of native Americans in general), and it has the civil rights movement happen 100 years earlier than it did in OTL.
"I" would say not but it takes only one hot-head or misplaced shot... The thing was they'd been chipping away at his actual 'power' for decades prior to the war anyway so they could always blame it on an American attack or something to rally the people. In the end we have to look at the fact they probably DID have the opportunity and did not take it despite what that directly meant for many of them. Now if they had actually found the record or managed to actually suppress the announcement? But I think at this point the Emperor was committed enough that they would have HAD to kill him to keep him quite and that would have not gone over well once it got out. And i think it would have and they pretty much knew it.
Again the history shows they pretty much had the means, motive and opportunity but ended up not going to the "logical" conclusion and I think that's likely because they knew deep down that further resistance would mean the end of any hope for a future Japan.
Contrary to what many think no one really saw the Cold War or the depth of the split between the Western Allies and the Soviets at that point in time. Yes there was going to be future issues between them and that was a given but the main point was to avoid another such devastating war because two in one generation was far to much. What was foremost in most leaders minds was the lesson that WWII brought forth was any future major conflict between nations was likely to be very much a war-to-the-knife, total war with only victory or death for the participants and frankly once you added on atomic weapons and all the other horrors that modern-scientific warfare had produced it wasn't very likely the 'winner' would be in very good shape either. Hence all the hope placed in the UN and other international bodies in the post war years.
The problem with "let that be a lesson to you" is that each succeeding generation thinks it doesn't apply to them
Randy
I think the idea would have been what was done in Decisive Darkness - take him into custody, no doubt with the usual euphemisms about protecting his divine majesty from "treasonous elements."
Last edited:
Geon
Donor
Just a few thoughts if I may:
First, are you factoring in the loss of the American POWs still alive in Japan and elsewhere? There was a standing order that if the allies invaded Japan all American POWs were to be immediately put to death. Even if Downfall never occurred and Japan were simply starved it is very likely those American POWs on the islands would be the first to die given the Japanese views at the time. Secondly, the figure of 500,000 Americans dead was the minimum projected in some of the war games run for Downfall. The number would likely have been higher. Thirdly, Truman is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces according to the Constitution. It might be pointed out by the irate number of mothers and other loved ones of those who died that Truman was guilty of incompetence and dereliction of duty. Those are two charges I could see being brought out of this.
Yes, it would be argued Truman ended the war with Downfall. But, at the price of thousands (at least) of U.S. soldiers, sailors, and airmen who didn't have to die.
Also, let's not limit this to Truman. I wonder if General MacArthur and Admiral Nimitz might be on the hot seat given they were responsible for executing the orders that caused the deaths of so many American servicemen.
First, are you factoring in the loss of the American POWs still alive in Japan and elsewhere? There was a standing order that if the allies invaded Japan all American POWs were to be immediately put to death. Even if Downfall never occurred and Japan were simply starved it is very likely those American POWs on the islands would be the first to die given the Japanese views at the time. Secondly, the figure of 500,000 Americans dead was the minimum projected in some of the war games run for Downfall. The number would likely have been higher. Thirdly, Truman is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces according to the Constitution. It might be pointed out by the irate number of mothers and other loved ones of those who died that Truman was guilty of incompetence and dereliction of duty. Those are two charges I could see being brought out of this.
Yes, it would be argued Truman ended the war with Downfall. But, at the price of thousands (at least) of U.S. soldiers, sailors, and airmen who didn't have to die.
Also, let's not limit this to Truman. I wonder if General MacArthur and Admiral Nimitz might be on the hot seat given they were responsible for executing the orders that caused the deaths of so many American servicemen.
Last edited:
Jesus christ, the more I hear about what would've happened had the Japanese not surrendered the more I'm convinced the atomic bombings were sound.
And I despise nukes.
And I despise nukes.
SOAWWIISoldier
Monthly Donor
I seem to remember reading somewhere that by August 1st the Allied command was mostly against an invasion. Was it McArthur that was in favor?
Oh, absolutely he was.
Marshall seems to have felt obliged to back him.
Mainly, it was Nimitz and King who were having second thoughts.
But the confrontation had not yet come on MAJESTIC. The Japanese surrender preempted it. It is a little harder to say how the fight would have played out, and on which side Truman would have fallen.
Just for clarification, when you say MacArthur wanted to invade, do you mean he felt that was the best strategy to get Japan to surrender, or he just really wanted to invade Japan? Knowing him either could be true lol.
BlackDragon98
Banned
Why even bother invading?
Why not just keep bombing?
OP Starvation had already hamstrung Japan's coastal waters, incendiary raids can continue on big cities, carrier airstrikes can continue as well.
Chinese can take back China, Soviet are already waltzing thru Manchuria and into Korea.
At some point the Japanese will have to yield or face complete and utter annihilation thru attrition.
Not using the bomb would have just delayed the inevitable for a couple months, 5-6 at most.
Why not just keep bombing?
OP Starvation had already hamstrung Japan's coastal waters, incendiary raids can continue on big cities, carrier airstrikes can continue as well.
Chinese can take back China, Soviet are already waltzing thru Manchuria and into Korea.
At some point the Japanese will have to yield or face complete and utter annihilation thru attrition.
Not using the bomb would have just delayed the inevitable for a couple months, 5-6 at most.