Go here to read the thread. One of the best efforts I have seen describing what Operation Downfall would have been like. Welcome to Harry Truman’s world. If I had lost a son at Iwo Jima or Okinawa my question at the time would have been: If you knew you had this in the pipeline why conduct those invasions? Of course my mind would have been telling me that nothing was certain about this untried weapon, but that is what my heart would have been saying in the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. American plans for Operation Downfall planned to use nukes to clear the landing beaches. One way or another, atomic bombs were going to be used to end the war started by the Empire of Japan.
The subject of the bombings being all the rage on Twitter X due to Tucker’s idiotic ranting on Rogan’s podcast and Daily Wire’s pushback. Predictably, some of the usual suspects in Pseudo orthodox Catholic Inc are repeating the same intellectually dishonest ignorant tripe they’ve been spouting for years. They need to be shamed into knocking that crap off!
The nuclear bombings has been a topic for my homeschooled H.S. children, I believe their junior year. One thing I have emphasized with them is the decisions of early August, 1945 have to be considered in light of the Battle of Okinawa (Mar-Jun 1945). You cannot look only at Operation Downfall without considering the cost of Operation Iceberg (+12k dead, 80k casualties).
I read that Typhoon Louise hit Okinawa in October 1945 and that it caused a lot of damage. I’ve read that it was a good thing that the war had ended before Louise hit.
*
D. M. Giangreco released the book “Truman and the Bomb” on August 2023.
Hiroshima was home to a Japanese army base but the military comprised less than 10% of the population. Nagasaki was home to the largest Christian community in Japan but was not the original target. Kyoto, a manufacturing area of sorts, had been selected but was clouded over. The plane was then diverted to the secondary target. Even after both bombs, there was still a militant faction that wanted to continue the war and attempted a coup. Finally, the Emperor made an affirmative decision that was transmitted to the allies that amounted to unconditional surrender. It was worded in such a way that the present form of government would be retained for the present. Truman deemed that as an acceptance of the conditions he had earlier laid out. Ever since, the moral aspects of the decision to use the bombs have been debated. Some have applied the doctrine of proportionality and have been countered with reasoned objectivity of means and ends. Almost everyone agrees that the one thing that was accomplished of value is that worldwide there is a reluctance to consider nuclear weapons in anything but ultimate national survival. It will be interesting to see just how long this restraint remains.
[…] at UCLA – Christopher F. RufoHow Wikipedia became Wokepedia – Andrew Orlowski at SpikedHiroshima Survivor – Donald R. McClarey, Esq., at The American CatholicThe Ivy League’s Anti-Israel Protest […]
@Donald Link, Kokura, not Kyoto, was the primary intended target that day. But, as you noted, it was clouded over, so they went to the secondary target, Nagasaki.
Greg: Quite correct. My knowledge of Japanese geography is a bit jumbled at times.
The super battleship the Yamato was built in the Hiroshima shipyards. Its sister ship the Musashi was built in the Nagasaki shipyards. Nagasaki was active in the production of war materiel.The war factories were an integral part of the military supply lines of WWII. In Japan war production was done in a cottage industry of civilian home based production as well as in big factories.
As Greg and Donald mentioned, Kyoto was on “the list,” personally revised and approved by Secretary of War Stimson. Kyoto was not just the center of Christianity in Japan, it was the center of the Catholic Church there. The cathedral was practically ground zero. Kyoto, being something of the cultural capital of the islands, was personally eliminated as a target by Stimson. (He had visited there on some occasion, too, I seem to recall.)
I understand very well the desire to end the war without an invasion–and I whole-heartedly sympathize with those Marines and others who openly wept when the surrender was announced.
At the same time, I have little doubt that Truman (and military leadership) wanted to use the bomb, regardless, if for no other reason than to overawe the Soviets. There was so much propaganda at the time and later regarding the use of the bombs vs an invasion (blockade, et al.). For instance, the projected number of casualties evidently grew over the years, from tens of thousands to one million (reportedly).
It’s not that there wasn’t any other way of ending the war; the problem was that there was no quicker way to end it, to forestall Soviet participation and subsequent demands during the treaty negotiations. Well, who got in bed with the Soviets in the first place? And why did a Catholic population hub have to be incinerated as a result of that alliance?
I’ll never be convinced that using the bombs was morally justified, even though I concede that someone could legitimately hold the contrary.
if for no other reason than to overawe the Soviets.
No. We had asked the Soviets to launch their offensive into Manchuria. The Soviets were a non-issue on the decision to use the bombs.
In the video “D.M. Giangreco on the Invasion of Japan, Lend Lease & much more” on the YouTube channel Military History Visualized,
*
*
Giangreco says that internal Japanese estimates were for 20 million Japanese casualties. This is at about the 50 minute mark in the video. The entire video has timestamps for the subjects covered. The Japanese military had a strategy of maximum bloodletting. He points out how little many people know about the astounding casualty counts in the Pacific theater.