Why isn’t the fact that 400,000 innocent people die in Japanese occupation in august 1945 on, used in the atomic bomb debate more?

[prester.john208]

It would have been terrifying had Operation Downfall gone ahead. The government (depends if it was the junta or the Emperor) told the Japanese citizens to fight to the death should the Americans land on the Home Islands. Even if it included using bamboo spears or medieval weapons.

Agreed, my father, uncle and best friends dad were scheduled to participate. My son has a game modeled on the invasion and its a blood bath. Transports sunk, fighting against dug in units with tunnels going everywhere.

Spoiler

More than 10,000 kamikaze aircraft were available.

Japan had about 100 Kōryū-class midget submarines, 300 smaller Kairyū-class midget submarines, 120 Kaiten manned torpedoes, and 2,412 Shin'yō suicide motorboats. The Navy trained a unit of frogmen to serve as suicide bombers, the Fukuryu. They were to be armed with contact-fused mines, and to dive under landing craft and blow them up. An inventory of mines was anchored to the sea bottom off each potential invasion beach for their use by the suicide divers, with up to 10,000 mines planned. Some 1,200 suicide divers had been trained before the Japanese surrender.

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey subsequently estimated that if the Japanese managed 5,000 kamikaze sorties, they could have sunk around 90 ships and damaged another 900, roughly triple the Navy's losses at Okinawa.

Through April, May, and June, Allied intelligence followed the buildup of Japanese ground forces, including five divisions added to Kyūshū, with great interest, but also some complacency, still projecting that in November the total for Kyūshū would be about 350,000 servicemen. That changed in July, with the discovery of four new divisions and indications of more to come. By August, the count was up to 600,000, and Magic cryptanalysis had identified nine divisions in southern Kyūshū—three times the expected number and still a serious underestimate of the actual Japanese strength. By the time of surrender, the Japanese had over 735,000 military personnel either in position or in various stages of deployment on Kyushu alone.

MacArthur's intelligence chief, Major General Charles A. Willoughby, was the first to note that the April estimate allowed for the Japanese capability to deploy six divisions on Kyushu, with the potential to deploy ten. "These [six] divisions have since made their appearance, as predicted," he observed, "and the end is not in sight." If not checked, this threatened "to grow to [the] point where we attack on a ratio of one (1) to one (1) which is not the recipe for victory."

A study done for Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that invading Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities.

A US Army officer who inspected the defenses after the Japanese surrender commented that it would have been the greatest battle the US army ever fought.

 

[classyjazzy55]

I thought this was a thread about minimalizing loss of life from WWII, not equivocating between Imperial Japanese atrocities and American atrocities.

The point is the net number of humans saved, a few hundred war criminals tried after they were already stopped means little.

Yes, and I don't think it was minimalizing loss of life in the end. They didn't drop the bombs out of fear of operation downfall, if the Japanese were this fanatic about continuing the war they would've never finished the war to begin with. And I think everyone is so far removed for what the atomic bombs did to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and how that effect shaped the mentality of many Japanese civilians. Obviously the Japanese government was abhorrent, but then again a lot of them were pardoned, which was the opposite of the "unconditional surrender" that the US had wanted.

Here's a good youutube video on the bombs that can argue against the case of the bombs more than I ever could, although it's really long.

 

[Gillan1220]

Agreed, my father, uncle and best friends dad were scheduled to participate. The Japanese planned to use all kinds of suicide units, Jet bombs, manned torpedoes, UDT scuba divers, kamikazes, etc. My son has a game modeled on the invasion and its a blood bath. Transports sunk, fighting against dug in units with tunnels going everywhere.

A US Army officer who inspected the defenses after the Japanese surrender commented that it would have been the greatest battle the US army ever fought.

I remember watching historical photos of millions of U.S. Army soldiers arriving in the Philippines in July 1945. Most of these came from Europe in preparation for Operation Downfall. Luzon would have been one of the staging grounds alongside Formosa, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. I read many accounts who had relatives stationed in Luzon or Okinawa who knew their luck would end once they landed in Kyushu or Honshu. Many of them had served in the Pacific Islands campaign, the liberation of the Philippines, and the bloodlust nightmares of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Even many I read were European war vets who survived all the way from D-Day to the Rhine only to find themselves redeployed to the Philippines in preparation for the final round.

Someone actually simulated Operation Downfall on the game called ARMA:

It looks completely accurate to what was predicted by the war planners. An orgy of bloodlust. If the Biblical Armaggedon became real, this would have been it.

The Japanese civilians were issued anything that could kill: from substandard Arisaka rifles that were rushed into production, older IJA rifles that saw service in the first Sino-Japanese war in 1895, Pre-Meiji weapons like katanas, wakizashis, and traditional Japanese melee weapons, hand grenades (a typical Japanese surrender method and only pulling the pin once close to Allied troops), gardening tools, and the infamous bamboo spear.

Yes, and I don't think it was minimalizing loss of life in the end. They didn't drop the bombs out of fear of operation downfall, if the Japanese were this fanatic about continuing the war they would've never finished the war to begin with. And I think everyone is so far removed for what the atomic bombs did to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and how that effect shaped the mentality of many Japanese civilians. Obviously the Japanese government was abhorrent, but then again a lot of them were pardoned, which was the opposite of the "unconditional surrender" that the US had wanted.

Here's a good youutube video on the bombs that can argue against the case of the bombs more than I ever could, although it's really long.

Considering the Japanese hardliners were willing to prolong the war in the face of atomic bombings. The U.S. only had two bombs in August 1945 and the third one wasn't ready until November of that year.

@prester.john208 @classyjazzy55 if you have read Decisive Darkness, it's the best Operation Downfall story there is on this forum.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

For the Japanese navy units in the battle of Manilla? A lot of US field and general officers should have gone down for My Lai and the white washing of another nearby massacres.

For what it's worth - a brigade level (Henderson) and divisional level commander (Koster) were charged in relation to My Lai but Henderson was acquitted and the charges against Koster were eventually dropped although he was demoted and censured.

 

[Post]

which was the opposite of the "unconditional surrender" that the US had wanted.

You seem to be narrowing down unconditional surrender to only the trial of warcriminals. The Japanese also wanted the military government to stay in place, no occupation of Japan, keep some of their conquests and keep their military forces. These were very important and (IMO) the main objectives the allies had, because they dodn't want Japan going for another round in 10-20 years. You've been asked before: what offer from the Japanese should the allies have accepted and how would you get the Japanese to make that offer?

 

[classyjazzy55]

You seem to be narrowing down unconditional surrender to only the trial of warcriminals. The Japanese also wanted the military government to stay in place, no occupation of Japan, keep some of their conquests and keep their military forces. These were very important and (IMO) the main objectives the allies had, because they dodn't want Japan going for another round in 10-20 years. You've been asked before: what offer from the Japanese should the allies have accepted and how would you get the Japanese to make that offer?

I don't know, because these talks never happened. I can speculate sure, but it's hard to speculate based off of something that was openly refused.

 

[prester.john208]

I remember watching historical photos of millions of U.S. Army soldiers arriving in the Philippines in July 1945. Most of these came from Europe in preparation for Operation Downfall. Luzon would have been one of the staging grounds alongside Formosa, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. I read many accounts who had relatives stationed in Luzon or Okinawa who knew their luck would end once they landed in Kyushu or Honshu. Many of them had served in the Pacific Islands campaign, the liberation of the Philippines, and the bloodlust nightmares of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Even many I read were European war vets who survived all the way from D-Day to the Rhine only to find themselves redeployed to the Philippines in preparation for the final round.

The redeployment of units from Europe was a disaster. Units were gutted by the transfers out of veterans due to a point system. They were getting replaced by older men, new inductees and personnel transferred from rear area units in the states and from logistics units. Unit cohesion was destroyed, and experience lost. The US army replacement system was poor in the best of circumstances. The replacements were plugged in while the units were in transit to the Pacific.

The units were close to combat ineffective newbies who would learn by trial and error. The points system only applied to ETO units. Pacific units did not have a points system, Europe was the big show fighting a real enemy (Germans).

 

[Post]

I don't know, because these talks never happened. I can speculate sure, but it's hard to speculate based off of something that was openly refused.

I didn't ask you about talks that happened or not, I asked what you would have done. Or in other words: your opinion. What would have been an acceptable peace for you and if that was not what the Japanese had offered, what do you think would be necessary to get them to accept it? Just start with the first one: what would you accept as a peaceoffer from Japan?

 

[classyjazzy55]

I didn't ask you about talks that happened or not, I asked what you would have done. Or in other words: your opinion. What would have been an acceptable peace for you and if that was not what the Japanese had offered, what do you think would be necessary to get them to accept it? Just start with the first one: what would you accept as a peaceoffer from Japan?

I'm telling you I don't know, because I am not in that situation, I would've chosen anything that lead to the least amount of death of civilians and innocent people on both sides. It's such a weird argument to be like, "well what could you have done better" and it's like...

I'm not the fucking President during World War 2. I gave my case as to why I saw that the bombings, both the firebombings and the atomic bombings weren't justified.

 

[Salvare7097]

Another part of it would be, would be that it makes nuclear weapons, look not inherently evil and there might be an and there might be actually valid reasons to use then. That’s not convenient for anyone with an anti-atomic agenda.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

For the Japanese navy units in the battle of Manilla? A lot of US field and general officers should have gone down for My Lai and the white washing of another nearby massacres.

Something else perhaps worth adding is that not a single individual in the Viet Cong or NVA power structure was charged let alone convicted of any war crimes committed by their forces, of which there were many.

 

[Post]

I'm telling you I don't know, because I am not in that situation, I would've chosen anything that lead to the least amount of death of civilians and innocent people on both sides. It's such a weird argument to be like, "well what could you have done better" and it's like...

I'm not the fucking President during World War 2. I gave my case as to why I saw that the bombings, both the firebombings and the atomic bombings weren't justified.

I suggest you form an opinion on the matter, because discussion if the means justify the goal is quite useless if you don't know what the goal is.

And the matters are:
Should the Japanse military government stay in place?
Does Japan need to be occupied?
Does Japan get to keep some of their conquests?
Does Japan get to keep their military?

And honestly, it shouldn't be too hard to form on opinion on those.

 

[Gillan1220]

I suggest you form an opinion on the matter, because discussion if the means justify the goal is quite useless if you don't know what the goal is.

And the matters are:
Should the Japanse military government stay in place?
Does Japan need to be occupied?
Does Japan get to keep some of their conquests?
Does Japan get to keep their military?

And honestly, it shouldn't be too hard to form on opinion on those.

1. No Allied country will tolerate the Japanese military government to remain in place. That will cause instability in East Asia in the long run.
2. Japan should be occupied to make sure there is a smooth transition of power from the hardline military government to the civilian government, just as OTL showed. The Empire of Japan did last as an entity until 1947 when the post-war constitution was enacted where it just known as Japan.
3. Definitely not. No Allied country will allow that and those resistance movements will see that as a spit on their faces.
4. Probably like OTL. The U.S. occupation force will be there and then Japan will set up a National Police Force. A similar model was seen in Korea, although it was controversial since the U.S. allowed the former Korean police (composed of Japanese collaborators) to be the internal security for the peninsula. Either way I could see it once the Cold War sets in, either the Japanese reform the Imperial military or the JSDF will be established.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

I suggest you form an opinion on the matter, because discussion if the means justify the goal is quite useless if you don't know what the goal is.

And the matters are:
Should the Japanse military government stay in place?
Does Japan need to be occupied?
Does Japan get to keep some of their conquests?
Does Japan get to keep their military?

And honestly, it shouldn't be too hard to form on opinion on those.

If somebody's answer is yes to #1, #3 or #4, I guarantee you there will be immediate calls for his removal if he is on the Allied war council.

 

[Bored Young Man]

Yes, and I don't think it was minimalizing loss of life in the end. They didn't drop the bombs out of fear of operation downfall, if the Japanese were this fanatic about continuing the war they would've never finished the war to begin with. And I think everyone is so far removed for what the atomic bombs did to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and how that effect shaped the mentality of many Japanese civilians. Obviously the Japanese government was abhorrent, but then again a lot of them were pardoned, which was the opposite of the "unconditional surrender" that the US had wanted.

Here's a good youutube video on the bombs that can argue against the case of the bombs more than I ever could, although it's really long.

I really don't see how American conduct especially, post-war has much to do with saving lives lost to war, you seem to put the lives of the imperialists in Japan above the hundreds of millions of Asians in the Pacific theatre. The Imperial Japanese raped, murdered, and enslaved tens of millions, wished to continue doing so, and you think a few the thousands in Nagasaki and Hiroshima is equal in anyway? The only humane and responsible response would be total war until the genocidal aggressor was destroyed or gives up, anything else would be enabling them.

 

[Post]

And BTW, if you're saying this:

I'm telling you I don't know, because I am not in that situation, I would've chosen anything that lead to the least amount of death of civilians and innocent people on both sides.

and this:

I'm not the fucking President during World War 2.

Does that mean that if the US president honestly thought using the atomic bombs led to the least amount of civilian deaths on both sides, you support him? Because it's quite easy to say you wouldn't have done it, while you're also saying you don't know what you've would have done.

If somebody's answer is yes to #1, #3 or #4, I guarantee you there will be immediate calls for his removal if he is on the Allied war council.

Yes, and if it is the president saying it, he probably faces impeachment. Those terms were not up for discussion. I got to say that I was a bit surprised when I think it was @Athelstane quoted Churchill at Casablanca saying that he was surprised that Roosevelt asked for unconditional surrender, because I'm pretty sure he agreed with these four points, and for the military government of Japan those are pretty much equal unconditional surrender.

 

[Belisarius II]

I remember watching historical photos of millions of U.S. Army soldiers arriving in the Philippines in July 1945. Most of these came from Europe in preparation for Operation Downfall. Luzon would have been one of the staging grounds alongside Formosa, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. I read many accounts who had relatives stationed in Luzon or Okinawa who knew their luck would end once they landed in Kyushu or Honshu. Many of them had served in the Pacific Islands campaign, the liberation of the Philippines, and the bloodlust nightmares of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Even many I read were European war vets who survived all the way from D-Day to the Rhine only to find themselves redeployed to the Philippines in preparation for the final round.

Someone actually simulated Operation Downfall on the game called ARMA:

It looks completely accurate to what was predicted by the war planners. An orgy of bloodlust. If the Biblical Armaggedon became real, this would have been it.

The Japanese civilians were issued anything that could kill: from substandard Arisaka rifles that were rushed into production, older IJA rifles that saw service in the first Sino-Japanese war in 1895, Pre-Meiji weapons like katanas, wakizashis, and traditional Japanese melee weapons, hand grenades (a typical Japanese surrender method and only pulling the pin once close to Allied troops), gardening tools, and the infamous bamboo spear.

Considering the Japanese hardliners were willing to prolong the war in the face of atomic bombings. The U.S. only had two bombs in August 1945 and the third one wasn't ready until November of that year.

@prester.john208 @classyjazzy55 if you have read Decisive Darkness, it's the best Operation Downfall story there is on this forum.

There was a 3rd bomb ready in mid-August. A 4th bomb by the end of the month. 3 were to be used for Olympic, and 6 for Coronet. I don't think the invasion of Kyushu would ever have happened. The typhoon of October 1945 that hit Okinawa did so much damage to American shipping that the invasion would probably be set back a month. Already by August the JCS was starting to get cold feet about Olympic because of the Japanese buildup on Kyushu. The idea of landing against 1/1 odds is unsound strategy, especially in the teeth of a few thousand Kamikazes. After the trauma of Okinawa, the USN had no desire to go through an even more intense ordeal. Ether another objective would've been picked, or more intense mining, bombing, and blockade would be given more time to take effect.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

Yes, and I don't think it was minimalizing loss of life in the end. They didn't drop the bombs out of fear of operation downfall, if the Japanese were this fanatic about continuing the war they would've never finished the war to begin with.

You have presented zero evidence that Japan would have surrendered within a few weeks of the OTL date in the absence of the nuclear bombs being dropped. So the Utilitarian argument that they saved lives still holds. You can disagree with the morality of that argument (I’m uneasy with such thinking) but it’s almost certainly factually correct.

Imperial Japan went to war thinking that the US would accept a peace that gave it a free hand in China and control of South East Asia. Its ruling junta. was wrong. And then it kept thinking that IF the US suffered enough casualties it could avoid a humiliating surrender and kept some of its gains. The bombs disabused them of that notion.

And I think everyone is so far removed for what the atomic bombs did to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and how that effect shaped the mentality of many Japanese civilians. Obviously the Japanese government was abhorrent, but then again a lot of them were pardoned, which was the opposite of the "unconditional surrender" that the US had wanted.

Here's a good youutube video on the bombs that can argue against the case of the bombs more than I ever could, although it's really long.

Yes, the bombs were horrific. So we’re the firebombing raids on Germany and Japan. So was the Japneses treatment of POWs and civilians in its occupied territories. Which stopped (eventually in some cases) after Japan surrendered. Which saved more lives than the deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

War is basically immoral or at best amoral. And corrupts participants. Consider the changes in British aerial bombing practices from 1939 to 1944. From hitting only identified military targets (well, usually missing but .ETA that was what they were trying to do ) to raids intended to dehouse and kill civilians.

What methods would you have endorsed in 1945 to bring the Pacific War to an end.? Or would you have agreed to terms that left Imperial Japan unoccupied, zero war crimes trials (instead of an inadequate number) and Japan still able to fight a new war?

 

[Post]

War is basically immoral or at best amoral.

Yes, in most cases war boils down to one country wanting land or resources from the other country. If you or I did it to our neighbor, we'd be thrown in jail (at least if justice prevails). Now there are several wars where it can be hard to distinguish which party is most to blame. WW2 is not one of those. It's pretty clear the axis where to party who wanted to expand at the cost of others (although you can put an asterix at the USSR because of Poland, Finland and the baltics, but even there it's clear that Germany eventually invaded the USSR and so made them join the allies).

 

[Athelstane]

There was a 3rd bomb ready in mid-August. A 4th bomb by the end of the month. 3 were to be used for Olympic, and 6 for Coronet

They might have had even more than that to use.

[Giangreco, Hell to Pay, p. 201-03]