One of the arguments of critics of Truman’s use of the atomic bomb, is that a demonstration could have been made of it without blood being shed, over the ocean for example, the Japanese would have seen the power of the bomb and surrendered. Well, we know that is incorrect. We know that because the Japanese did not surrender after Hiroshima. We also know that the Japanese had no intention of surrendering after Hiroshima. Discussions within the Japanese cabinet were deadlocked until the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, with the dominant war faction claiming that the US probably had no more atomic bombs and that their strategy of holding out, inflicting a defeat on an American land invasion, and then negotiating from strength, was the best strategy for Japan. The deadlock continued on August 9, 1945 when the atomic bombing of Nagasaki caused the war and peace factions to agree to bring their differences to the Emperor.
Lord Privy Seal Kido Koichi, the man in the Japanese government most close to the Emperor Hirohito who finally commanded surrender on August 10, 1945 when advised that the war and peace factions were still deadlocked, later estimated that the August surrender spared Japan twenty million casualties. Mitsumasa Yonai, the Japanese naval minister, but a member of the peace faction, told the Emperor that the atomic bombings and the Soviet Declaration of War, which occurred on August 9, were divine gifts that allowed Japan to surrender without seeming to capitulate to popular discontent. Absent the atomic bombings, there is zero evidence that Japan would have surrendered in August 1945. Even after the Emperor made his decision there was an attempt by factions within the Army to stage a military coup and prevent the surrender, but that is the subject of a future post.
The Japanese culture was such that to be taken captive in battle was thought to be an incredible disgrace–they would often kill themselves in
order to keep from giving up or being captured.
The attempts to apply modern American cultural reasoning re: these issues to the thinking of the Japanese military in the 1940s is ridiculous. If the Japanese had been using American reasoning, the Japanese would have never bombed Pearl Harbor.
These folks, who rant & rave against the EXTREMLY limited use of nuclear weapons, usually never mention the unprovoked attack on our naval forced at Pearl Harbor that came w/o any warning.
These ranters and ravers are the same self-righteous bunch that rant and rave against any dissent from their tidy little cocoon of Progressive ideology. As that package is complete and without error, to oppose it is to demonstrate some sort of emotional and/or intellectual inferiority.
.
The kindest Progressives will simply condescend, with or without the charity of correction, in order that you may know and be content with your status an untermensch; the harshest will consign you to “the wrong side of history” and dismiss you with some sarcastic analysis of your lack of erudition, worldliness or genetic integrity.
.
In any event, they’re really fun to piss off. Progressive apoplexy is high comedy indeed.
I have thought a lot on this subject, but those first three sentences, put together like that, are compelling in a way I had not fully considered. A counterargument is that details from Hiroshima after the attack were sketchy, while a well staged demonstration (perhaps involving Japanese scientists and other leaders invited to the first test in New Mexico) could have stated the surrender rolling.
–
But that counterargument requires all of the invited personalities to have been, well, of the same frame of mind as today’s anti-nuclear critics. It is entirely possible that some invitees would have immediately thought of countermeasures to take so as to continue the fight even with the promised use of nuclear weapons.
–
Another, more minor point, is that a demonstration would have required the expenditure of another bomb. Remember, the success of the first test was not guaranteed, so the Japanese could not have been invited to that one.
In 1946 the U.S. Navy thought their ships at anchor around Bikini Atoll survived two atomic bombings rather well.
.
Until the geiger counters starting going off. And even then it took an expirement involving unexposed film and a freshly caught fish to convince the admirals that there was no way they could sail those ships home.
.
So I think it unlikely a demonstration in July ’45 would have convinced the Japanese of anything, simply because nobody as yet could fully comprehend the terrible power of the A-bomb.
.
That’s a long way of saying if losing a real city didn’t compel the Japanese to surrender, how was the obliteration of a mocked up American town in the middle of the New Mexico desert supposed to convince them?
Horrible weapon, that bomb. I suspect that the failure to surrender even then was precipitated not by fear of dying, regardless of the method, but by the fear of agreeing to losing–dishonor being far worse than death.
If I recall, the Emperor’s “surrender” speech sounded much like a modern liberal’s apology–you’d have thought they had won.
These ranters and ravers are the same self-righteous bunch that rant and rave against any dissent from their tidy little cocoon of Progressive ideology.
—
Again, Mr. McKenna is an alt-right denizen whose usual shticks would be neo-confederate historiography and making a case for capital punishment (without ever specifying the boundaries of that). The Shea votaries are a mess of crabs-in-the-bucket whose distinguishing feature is a loathing of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney.
Great point about the Bikini test Ernst. Although, we didn’t build mock towns at nuclear tests until 1949 or so.
–
Don L, you are also correct. It would seem that much of the Japanese resistance to surrender was also projection on their part. Their expectations of military occupation appear to have been based entirely on how they had treated others when they were the occupiers. This probably also explains why they fell all over themselves opening up official brothels before the Allies arrived at the end of August.
The Japanese culture demanded that death before disgrace was the policy. Death was the only choice the Japanese people and military had. Perhaps if the atomic bomb in the ocean would have caused an earthquake and tsunami and death would have come to Japan this way, it might have worked.
The Japanese culture demanded that death before disgrace was the policy.
And their idea of disgrace was nuts.
You know how in bad kung-fu movies, one of the things that’s mocked is that a whole group of guys is dancing around, and they kindly attack Our Hero one at a time?
…
Their military actually did that. In sea and on land. One group of Marines was sure they’d die, because they were outnumbered hugely, and then the Japanese only attacked in groups that slightly outnumbered them.
Good tactics meant that you respected the enemy, and we’re not Japanese, so saying you thought those (insert insult here) over there were AS GOOD AS US was dishonorable.
This thread is long on ad hominem and ends-justifies-the-means un Catholic reasoning, short on demonstrating how the bombings in any way comport with the clear teaching of the Church, which, like the messenger or not, is abundantly clear about the immorality of direct killing of civilians in wartime in such an indiscriminate manner.
Ad hominems are the last resort of one without a rational argument.
And of course, if the Japs *really were* going to fight to the last man, woman and child, and believed in death before surrender and dishonor… then why did they surrender at the loss of two cities? If it’s true that they were, to a man, woman, and child, committed to death before surrender, why did they surrender? Because they saw the futility of continuing? They would have seen the same futility if we had conventionally attacked them after a long and crippling blockade.
But we didn’t even try a less destructive method, likely because Truman was worried about the Soviets grabbing territory if the war was prolonged any further. So Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s civilians had to die in order to terrorize the Japanese government into quick surrender.
“And of course, if the Japs *really were* going to fight to the last man, woman and child, and believed in death before surrender and dishonor… then why did they surrender at the loss of two cities?”
Because the Emperor told them to. If he had told them not to surrender, they would have fought on to the last, which is what they did in almost every Pacific battle they fought. The Emperor surrendered because he realized, finally, with the atomic bomb the jig was up. Even then the Imperial Army attempted a coup to carry on the fight.
This is a few years old but Whittle does a masterful job of explaining the use of atomic bombs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i6iwnJ6KLo
Shouldn’t USA have bombed north Korea and north Vietnam to end those wars?
We did, but not nearly enough till December of 1972.
As usual the objectors to the use of nuclear weapons to stop WW II (thereby actually saving millions of lives) show up. To the objectors, have you ever even been around nuclear weapons? Do you know how they work? My old submarine was armed with subrocs. Each one carried a 250 kiloton thermonuclear warhead. None of us sailors ever wanted to launch one of those things. But if the President had given the order, then bombs away; the Russians were going to the bottom.
Japan surrendered because of both bombings – Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Remember your Old Testament when God told Joshua to wipe out all the Canaanites. Remember that even God Himself nuked everyone – men, women, and children – in Sodom and Gomorrah. Sometimes retribution is devastating however regrettable that may be. God takes no pleasure in such carnage. Sadly, however, sometimes it’s required. I hope that given present world conditions, it’s not required again.
Tom,
I explain how the atomic bombings are in line with the teaching of the Church here
https://the-american-catholic.com/2015/08/13/father-barron-and-the-bomb/
In light of the fact that the Japanese didn’t surrender after we nuked Hiroshima and almost didn’t after Nagasaki was nuked three days later, anyone who tells you the Japanese would’ve surrendered without the atomic bombs is either willing to buy oceanfront property in Kansas or is trying to sell you oceanfront property in Kansas.
Greg,
Regarding your comment on the militarization of the civilian population, I read a story by a 12 year-old girl of her survival after the Hiroshima bomb. At the time of the bombing, she was working in a Japanese Army communication center. Under the rules of war, I believe that would make her a legitimate target. Unfortunate, but it was the choice the Japanese government made – to turn civilians into military personnel.
There is, I hate to say it, a lot of muddled reasoning on this page, at least in terms of Catholic moral principles. My advice: set aside (as much as possible) all the associations that come with “pro- or anti-nuke,” bromides (“war is terrible”), and speculation (“millions would have died”).
None of these things contribute to a strictly theological reasoning: viz. the moral principle and its application to the present case. That really is all that is needed.
We might say: the Japanese were fanatical in their defense of the homeland; there would have been many, many combat deaths and casualties if there were an Allied invasion. At the same time, only 12 Americans (POW’s) were killed by the bomb blast in Hiroshima (https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2024/01/2420a057e77d-us-records-confirm-12-us-soldiers-died-from-hiroshima-a-bomb.html).
The truth, or partial truth as may be, of any of those assertions do not directly matter to the theological judgment on indiscriminate use of a weapons like the A-bomb.
And may I just add–as a side note–that it is male sonans to say that “God takes no pleasure” in the death of innocents (as though He were some politician deploring a necessary evil). He is always and at every moment, i.e. eternally, happy and blessed. The deaths of innocents, consequent to His will, permissive or direct, do not detract or add to His happiness (beatitude), as indeed no created thing does or can.
And there is consolation in that thought. As Holy Job says, with greater wisdom than any of us possesses, “Even if He should slay me, yet will I praise Him.”
The first post war bomb tests were done during Operation Crossroads. Its purpose was to test the effects of the a bomb on naval ships. The first test Able was an air drop of a Nagasaki type plutonium bomb. The press was invited. The drop fell wide of the aiming point blunting the effectiveness of the weapon. The press had mixed reviews. You could consider this a demonstration use of the bomb.
*
The second test Baker was an underwater explosion. This resulted in a lot of radioactive contamination. Plutonium is toxic, there was plutonium contamination of the test ships. A person working on the tests placed a fish on film and the radiation from the fish produced an image. When this was known it resulted in the halting of decontamination efforts. Most of the test ships had to be sunk.
Not to nitpick (I usually steer clear of this topic), but I don’t think “indiscriminate” would be an accurate adjective to describe this. I have to imagine Truman, and all those involved, took their action quite seriously.
Fr. J:
*
Sorry for the long post, but there are things that need to be said.
*
The conventional explosive bombs dropped during WWII were dumb bombs with no guidance system. After the drop they were governed by Newton’s laws. The Norden bombsight worked great on test runs, but the realities of air combat degraded its performance. The Navy was an early backer of the Norden bombsight. The Navy had to abandon the use of high altitude bombing and the Norden bombsight and go with dive bombing and skip bombing. The first early versions of Allied smart bombs were in their infancy during WWII, and were not a factor in the war. True precision bombing didn’t arrive until well after the end of the war.
*
To understand the use of the a-bombs you need to know about the end of the war in the Pacific theater. One author who has covered this subject is D.M. Giangreco. He has a book out called “Hell to Pay” covering the planned invasion of Japan. He has also written the book “Truman and the Bomb.” A great, if long, video, based on the “Hell to Pay” subject, is on the Military History Visualized YouTube Channel, “D.M. Giangreco on the Invasion of Japan, Lend Lease & much more” It has timestamps for those who want to jump around between topics.
*
At around the 11 minute mark he said that after the war that the UN estimated that about 400,000 Asians were dying per month for every year the war went on. He said that the Pacific deaths were astounding in magnitude. From documentaries that I’ve seen the Japanese military had both the will and the armaments to have made a land invasion costly. The Japanese military wanted a land invasion bloodbath. At around the 50 minute mark he says that the internal Japanese estimates were for 20 million Japanese casualties. That entire video is a real eyeopener.
*
Most history of WWII is Eurocentric. The Japanese leadership didn’t think like you or I would. They were the ones who needed convincing. A little over half of the military in Okinawa were civilian conscripts. Even after Hirohito made the surrender decision he had to send personal envoys to make it clear to the military that they were to accept the surrender decree. Most Americans wanted to execute Hirohito, but he proved to be very useful during the American occupation of Japan.
*
If you want to see the results of a conventional land invasion look at the conventional land invasion of Berlin. Hitler was just as fanatical as the Japanese leadership. He ordered a fight to the death. Old men and Hitler Youth made up part of the Volkssturm, a militia. The Germans had a recoilless weapon called the Panzerfaust used as a anti-tank weapon. There are pictures of civilians being trained it its use. There were roving bands of extremists who could execute those Germans suspected of desertion, usually public hanging. When it was all said and done the casualty count was up there with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Berlin invasion was savage and brutal, a lot of the city was left a bombed out wreck. It didn’t fit into neat categories. When it was all said and done the casualty count was up there with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just about every horror story predicted for the Japan invasion happened in Berlin.
Fr J
If you read the post I linked to, I demonstrated how the A-Bomb drops were in fact justifiable viz Catholic moral theology.
Jayne:
*
There were proposals to use the a-bomb in Korea. There are articles online covering this subject. One is by the Smithsonian Magazine, but given the stink that the Enola Gay Hiroshima bomber exhibit caused I don’t know if there is any historical revisionism in the article.
Please note that ‘Tom D’ is not the older but very infrequent ‘TomD’ (i.e., me).