A-bomb falls on Kyoto

In 1945, a bomb was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. However, the first proposed target for the A-bomb was the city of Kyoto.

What would have been the result if Kyoto had been selected and nuked?
 
In 1945, a bomb was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. However, the first proposed target for the A-bomb was the city of Kyoto.

What would have been the result if Kyoto had been selected and nuked?
More citizens of Hiroshima are alive today and more are killed in Kyoto. Other than that? Not much. The nuclear bomb capability would have been proven and as such the war would have ended as in otl.
 

mowque

Banned
More citizens of Hiroshima are alive today and more are killed in Kyoto. Other than that? Not much. The nuclear bomb capability would have been proven and as such the war would have ended as in otl.

Could very well be some butterflies or who dies and who lives. Aside from that? I'm with Fletcher.
 
In 1945, a bomb was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. However, the first proposed target for the A-bomb was the city of Kyoto.

What would have been the result if Kyoto had been selected and nuked?
Probably same as OTL. Although were there any members of the Japanese royal family in Kyoto on August the 6th?
 
Generally I disagree with the rest of you. Kyoto has far more cultural importance to Japan than Hiroshima did and many important temples and other significant buildings are to be found there.

If it was nuked, I could see far greater resentment by the Japanese populace towards the American Occupation.
 
hmm. probably as above, although... <looks some stuff up> it seems Kyoto has a lot of historically and culturally significant stuff in and around it. this could mean that the Japanese refuse to surrender, or that they are more willing to surrender.
 
Generally I disagree with the rest of you. Kyoto has far more cultural importance to Japan than Hiroshima did and many important temples and other significant buildings are to be found there.

If it was nuked, I could see far greater resentment by the Japanese populace towards the American Occupation.

While I'm not sure, on the direct effect of wheterer or not that make the Japanese more resistant to american occupation, Kyoto being seen as mostly an attack as target of mostly Cultural importance is very credible

However I kinda wonder if the Americans of the time would have realise that either for or against nuking it
 
While I'm not sure, on the direct effect of wheterer or not that make the Japanese more resistant to american occupation, Kyoto being seen as mostly an attack as target of mostly Cultural importance is very credible

However I kinda wonder if the Americans of the time would have realise that either for or against nuking it

IIRC that was actually one of the main reasons that Kyoto was dropped from the targeting list. Somebody with the targeting group realized its cultural value, and decided that bombing it would not be justified.
 

stalkere

Banned
While I'm not sure, on the direct effect of wheterer or not that make the Japanese more resistant to american occupation, Kyoto being seen as mostly an attack as target of mostly Cultural importance is very credible

However I kinda wonder if the Americans of the time would have realise that either for or against nuking it

That is the reason given by - IIRC -Strike Command for switching away from Kyoto. Not a whole lot of military targets there anyway, and not representative of other Japanese cities were also reasons given.

A long time ago, when I was stationed at Wright Patterson, I spent some time in the Air Force Library there. There are some really interesting formerly classified documents on the subject there. For some reason, historians don't like to go onto the base to read those documents, generally preferring to quote each other and Japanese documents.

Me, I'm an amateur historian - I was a member of Strategic Air Command at the time - and my mother is a Hiroshima Survivor. Her thoughts on the subject are rather non-PC. She generally used to state amazement that it only took two nukes to wake up the idiots in Tokyo.

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were picked because they had a lot of the same terrain and construction features as many other Japanese cities.

Your crack about Americans not realizing cultural significance might be true of the general run of Americans, or even American bomber crews. Targeteers were always told to consider cultural significance when calculating bomb runs. If you ever have a chance to get to the AF museum, there was a classified magazine -IIRC - "On Target" - that was distributed to bombardiers - had a format not unlike "LIFE Magazine" - with all sorts of information and pictures pertinent to getting bombs on target. Just about every issue had discussions of identifying and avoiding cultural areas to avoid collateral damage - and I saw a couple of "letters to the editor" discussing RAF Bomber Command and their lack of regard for cultural sites. The only place I've ever seen a copy was in the stacks at the AF Library.

But - to get back to your original question - hitting Kyoto, probably would have made little real difference in the war or the post-war period, just different people dying and living. - that would be my opinion. I'd ask Mom about it, but she passed on about six years ago.
 
IIRC another reason was that Kyoto had already BEEN bombed, and the USAAF wanted to see what the nuke, and the nuke alone, could do to a city.

That said, if Kyoto did get it on the chin...it's not like I'll shed any tears.
 
Monte Cassino and Dresden to the Nth degree!

IIRC another reason was that Kyoto had already BEEN bombed, and the USAAF wanted to see what the nuke, and the nuke alone, could do to a city.

That said, if Kyoto did get it on the chin...it's not like I'll shed any tears.
General Leslie Groves put the city of Kyoto first. He argued with the Secretary of War Colonel Henry Stimson that hitting Kyoto would mean the Japanese people would "FEEL IT THE MOST!".:mad: This decision process has been declassified since at least the 1990's. Secretary Stimson replied to Groves: "The city of Kyoto is of tremendous historic, religious, and cultural significance to the people of Japan. It's the most beautiful city in Japan. It is to Asia what Rome is to Europe. An attack of such wantoness will make it impossible for us to ever reconcile with the Japanese. They'll turn instead to the Russians!" When Groves attempted to object, Stimson cut him off: "This time I will be the final deciding authority, General!". Shortly thereafter Stimson spoke to President Truman. When Truman was made aware of the special nature of Kyoto to Japan, he agreed to confirm Stimson's orders. No doubt invoking the Soviets would have put TWO thumbs on the scale.:D
 
Last edited:
Generally I disagree with the rest of you. Kyoto has far more cultural importance to Japan than Hiroshima did and many important temples and other significant buildings are to be found there.

If it was nuked, I could see far greater resentment by the Japanese populace towards the American Occupation.

Which was one of the reasons why Kyoto was ruled out as a potential target. Nuke Kyoto, and the result might be strengthend Japanese resolve.
 
Well Kyoto is not only the Historical Capital of Japan, but it's center of culture. If we had dropped the bomb there then the Japanese would have been even more pissed and (maybe) wouldn't have surrendered out of spite. Kind of like a "Remember The Alamo!" type deal.
 
I agree. Like I said, instead of having the intended effect of breaking Japanese morale, it might have strengthened their resolve instead. The result would have been that the Ameicans would have been forced to carry out Olympic and Coronet, which would have resulted in an unparalled bloodbath.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, the only city the Americans COULDN'T have nuked is Tokyo, and that only because they needed the Emperor to surrender. Anything else is fair game, as long as they use enough bombs...

Note: simply stating reality. I personally couldn't have cared less, but it's true that, with a historical two-bomb situation, putting one on Kyoto would have been counterproductive.
 
Hiroshima had always been the first target for Little Boy, as mentioned Kyoto was off-limits. So was the central part of Tokyo (becuase of the Imperial Palace) by the way.

Now Fat Man presents a what if; it was supposed to be dropped on Kokura, but the city was spared by persistent cloud cover and Nagasaki was hit as the alternative target.
 
Top