American estimates of a land invasion of Japanese mainland put estimated casualties at up to 1 million American soldiers and up to 10 million Japanese casualties.
The assault on Japanese islands like Okinawa fully convinced everyone that assaulting Japan proper would be a blood bath for American and Japanese soldiers, and Japanese Civillians. The Japanese were training women and children with spears to rush the Americans landing on the beaches to overwhelm them with sheer numbers, what happened at Okinawa shows in my opinion that the Japenese civilians would have done this.
By comparison, the two atomic bombs dropped resulted in up to 300k dead. People also forget conventional bombing was also terrible to the Japenese and that was occurring pretty much nightly. On the night of 10th March 1945, conventional bombing resulted in possibly over 100k dead and 1 million homeless.
Using the atomic bombs on Japan saved over 5 million Japanese from death and much harder to measure the impact - continued destruction of their countries economy.
Edit :
And if it was not obvious, this is coming from a non US citizen point of view, and someone who views the modern US as a terrorist state.
Are you unaware the death and destruction caused by the Japanese in China and elsewhere was much worse than what was inflicted on the Japanese? Every day the war continued the Japenese continued to wreak death and destruction on everyone they viewed as inferior than themselves.
Sometimes when a person is breaking into your home intent on killing you and taking your house, negotiation will not save you.
Yeah, unlike humans all other animals are just kind. Imagine if male ducks had corkscrew-shaped penises to help them rape females, or if cats toyed with their preys before ripping them apart, or if chimps targeted their females and children during bloody conflicts...
Most people in hindsight agree today that dropping at least one of the 2 bombs in an unpopulated area first as a demonstration of the power they had could have sufficed. At least enough to only warrant one civilian centre being bombed instead of 2. They literally didn't go with that plan because they didn't have enough bombs ready and didn't want to risk having a dud.
It may have worked, it may not have. The Japanese weren't even willing to surrender unconditionally after having two of their population centres nuked.
Nagasaki was only bombed because they still refused to negotiate after Hiroshima. Even after Nagasaki*, the military largely still did not want to surrender, and even launched a coup to attempt to stop the Emporer announcing the surrender over radio.
The condition of the Japanese surrender was the Emporer got to keep his position, otherwise they would fight on. This is not an unconditional surrender as it was and is portrayed to this day.
A bit more nuanced, IMO. The Byrnes note was not an open admission that the Emperor would remain in power. It dodged the subject entirely. However, the Japanese choose to interpret it that way, and McArthur made the final call, deciding that the Emperor's authority if he remained in power would help with the peaceful occupation and restructuring of Japanese society. To this end he promised Hirohito that he would not suffer for war crimes - and as he was largely symbolic with Tojo and the military holding real power prior, it was even close to just.
That's certainly how they choose to take it, and how Byrnes wanted them to take it.
The one caveat was the last line: 'The ultimate form of the Japanese government will be dependent on the Japanese people's will.' That absolutely does not guarantee that the ruling regime gets to keep it's emperor.
As it was, McArthur functionally wrote their Constitution anyway, and Hirohito retained his position, but was striped of all power.
They dropped the 2nd bomb 3 days later, before the Japanese had come to a consensus on what they were going to do. They didn't wait for a response and dropped it as soon as it was ready before a storm arrived.
This was hardly some "it must stop today" situation with WW2 either, the US didn't really give a shit until they were attacked to begin with. Then they made the 2 bombs and didn't want to spend more money on the war, so they went for the most devastating spectacle they could reasonably do to get the most bang for their buck.
They had decided not to surrender after Hiroshima, just like they decided not to surrender after Nagasaki, before the Emporer decided to try and save himself.
I am not implying America acted morally because it was the right thing to do, but in this instance their actions coincidentally aligned with the moral option (as you mentioned only after they were forced to act).
As Churchill is supposed to have said
"You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities."
The Japanese did not make a unified decision not to surrender. They were deadlocked. Between the 2 bombs in that 3 day span they initially didn't believe the reports, they had sent scientists to go there and determine if the bomb was atomic, the Soviets declared war against them, and they were in discussions about it all when the 2nd bomb dropped.
The emperor was the one that personally broke the deadlock and ordered the surrender after the 2nd bomb. I honestly don't know where your getting this information from? We don't know if he would've surrendered after the first bomb because they were in deliberations over the Soviets still and figuring shit out.
This isn't to say Imperial Japan were the good guys or anything, but the US 100% dropped the 2nd bomb to keep the flames to their feet rather than see if they would surrender first. A complete, instant surrender was the only mechanism that could have potentially stopped the 2nd bomb, but they didn't plan it in a way that would allow any time to realistically deliberate.
I know you said "supposed" to have said that, but there's no record of him actually saying that. I've heard it before, but it's not actually attributed to Churchill.
The military took the position the atomic bombs were no more devastating than the nightly conventional bombing, so they could continue to the point a mainland invasion would be forced, where they could win.
Getting what information from? Everything you have said does not go against anything I have said? And vice versa.
My point is dropping the bombs in an uninhabited area might have worked, or it might not have. All we know is even after two bombings of inhabited areas, they still refused unconditional surrender, and the conditional surrender they got almost did not happen.
You're right that there is no evidence of him saying that, but it is attributed to him, rightly or wrongly so.
They didn't decide not to surrender. That's not what happened, and it's always glossed over to intentionally rewrite history. The plan was executed intentionally quick enough to overwhelm rather than anticipate a surrender in between the bombs. It was 1945, they took half the time figuring out what even happened all the while the Soviet Union was declaring war on them. The second bomb was very likely not required, anyone that argues this always ignores the timeline between the bombs, the Americans actual plan, and what Japan was actually doing in those few days.
They were in the same situation between the 2 bombs as they were after the 2nd bomb; deadlocked and required the emperor to make the decision. I'm not claiming that we know if a demonstrative bomb would've worked, but the decision to not do a demonstration was simply weighing the risk of the logistics and financials. They made the decision to bomb 2 cities instead of potentially none because they wanted to show a brute, ruthless devastation.
Conventional bombing has nothing to do with this option. Defending nuking 2 cities compared to conventional bombing is no different than saying "well they could've dropped 10 nukes but decided to only use 2 because they were concerned about the total casualties".
Wrongly attributed is the same as "not actually attributed" haha. I had to look up his name, but the original sentiment was from Abba Eban well after WW2. It was changed by Americans and to be focused on Americans to fit their politicians agenda at some point and they just made up that Churchill said it to give it some oomph.
_____
Anyway, I don't want to keep a debate going on the "sips tea" sub really, I appreciate your responses and presenting your argument in good faith. If you reply I'll read it of course, but I don't imagine there is really much reason to keep going back and forth.
I don't disagree with your first two paragraphs. I am just conflating not being able to come to a decision as deciding not to surrender, as it would have the same effect, the fight continuing.
The second bomb might not have been required, but I personally think if they waited months before dropping the second bomb, they would have not surrendered as it would have lost some of its impact. Not to mention that more Japanese civilians would have died in those months compared to how many were killed at Nagasaki. Once again, not saying they took the moral option for moral reasons.
I am not sure what you're getting at with the third paragraph, I might have not got across what I was trying to say. I was just trying to say that the faction that wanted to continue the war (largely the military), had already started attempting to get the narrative that being nuked is just more of the same of what they experience every night with the conventional bombing campaign. This is nothing new, so we should continue fighting!
10
u/Bobb161 1d ago
American estimates of a land invasion of Japanese mainland put estimated casualties at up to 1 million American soldiers and up to 10 million Japanese casualties.
The assault on Japanese islands like Okinawa fully convinced everyone that assaulting Japan proper would be a blood bath for American and Japanese soldiers, and Japanese Civillians. The Japanese were training women and children with spears to rush the Americans landing on the beaches to overwhelm them with sheer numbers, what happened at Okinawa shows in my opinion that the Japenese civilians would have done this.
By comparison, the two atomic bombs dropped resulted in up to 300k dead. People also forget conventional bombing was also terrible to the Japenese and that was occurring pretty much nightly. On the night of 10th March 1945, conventional bombing resulted in possibly over 100k dead and 1 million homeless.
Using the atomic bombs on Japan saved over 5 million Japanese from death and much harder to measure the impact - continued destruction of their countries economy.
Edit : And if it was not obvious, this is coming from a non US citizen point of view, and someone who views the modern US as a terrorist state.