The A-Bomb and the Japanese Surrender in World War II
Fumio Kyuma, a Japanese defense minister, resigned under pressure for making comments that suggest that the atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were a necessary way to end World War II.
It is well documented (and explained in horrific detail in the book Flyboys) that the broiling and burning of Japanese by dropping incendiary bombs caused a tremendous amount more structural damage and loss of life than both atomic bombs combined.
So were the atomic bombs inevitably necessary to end World War II? Not really. The war would’ve ended eventually, either with total (or near total) Japanese destruction or a unconditional surrender. Did the atomic bombs speed the decision to the unconditional surrender? Some would argue yes. I would argue no, however.
As stated earlier, the fire bombs dropped on Tokyo and numerous other cities in Japan caused far greater damage than the atomic bombs. The atomic bombs were simply too expensive to produce and far riskier to drop than several hundred B-29s ready to pour liquid fire on the people (err, targets) below.
The fire bombing was the greater threat to the Japanese at the time, not the atomic bombs being dropped.
Join the Discussion (5 Comments)
I agree that the firebombs caused more devastation, although the two cities were rather decimated anyway by the atomic bomb, but the atomic bomb created a wave of panic. People had burns and injuries that they had never imagined before.
But the cost of life, if you measure it like that, of an atomic bomb was far less than the cost of life would have been for a land invasion. First of all, many thousands of American soldiers would have died just getting onto the beaches of Japan. Second, the civilian and Japanese casualties would have increased, and Japan was likely not going to surrender easily to an invasion on its own grounds.
The Japanese were close to a treaty, but I suppose the United States wanted to establish a very firm — and painful point — as well as take revenge for Pearl Harbor. Of course, the argument can be made that regular bombing runs would have been the only necessary force to push Japan to surrender, but America probably also wanted to make a point to Russia (thus beginning the Cold War), since Stalin was an ally, albeit a cautious one. The atomic bomb has set the standard of warfare — at least, threatened warfare — for the past 60, almost 70 years.
And to think, we were the ones who created it first.
Posted on July 3rd, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Biscuitrat,
That’s a good point that the atomic bombs were more of a political statement than a military statement. Nagasaki would probably have had a greater loss of life with incendiary bombs than with an atomic one since the bombs could have been dropped in more targeted locations. Nagasaki was an alternate target and very well could have easily been spared.
I definitely agree that the ending of the war spared millions of lives on both sides combined. It is tough to say whether it was the atomic bombs or fire bombing that resulted in the surrender, but by the time the atomic bombs were dropped, the Japanese were clearly beaten (from America’s point of view).
Posted on July 4th, 2007 at 12:21 am
As a preface: I acknowledge Ronalfy’s superior knowledge of WWII compared to mine, so feel free to enlighten any parts of my argument that aren’t historically accurate.
On with the show…
Two points have been made that Japan was close to surrendering before we nuked Japan. I thought that the Japanese were being coached that every man, woman, and child needs to be ready to fight off the invading force to protect their “god-emperor”? That doesn’t put the Japanese very close to surrendering in my book. There would definitely have been great loss of life on both sides if the US had launched a ground invasion of Japan.
I think one aspect of the atomic bomb has been slightly overlooked. Yes, the fire bombing caused more damage and killed more people, but it was a conventional weapon. After 200 mortar attacks, does one more mortar make a person give up the fight (well, some might…)? Fire isn’t all that unusual, even if it is destructive.
But take the atomic bomb. Can you imagine the impact of seeing that weapon for the first time? It skipped past burning and went straight to vaporizing for a large section of its blast radius. You can put a fire out eventually…how do you stop an atomic bomb? You can’t defend against such a weapon. I would guess that it removed a great deal of hope in the Japanese that they could win any war with the US (a ground invasion they could at least fight off).
Main point: I think the atomic bombs played a huge part in causing Japan to surrender. I think I’ll leave the whole “political statement with Russia” thing alone, since I know even less about that aspect than bombing Japan.
cetroyer
Posted on July 4th, 2007 at 4:47 am
cetroyer,
Yes the Japanese populace was prepared to fight. If the leadership hadn’t surrendered, the populace very well would have fought to the end. An example would be the battle of Saipan where civilians chose death rather than surrender.
As far as conventional, I really don’t think the Japanese knew what hit them when the atomic bombs were dropped. Fire bombs terrorized more effectively than atomic bombs, but at least a firebombing campaign could theoretically be outrun.
As far as putting out a fire… Napalm is extremely hard to extinguish. Couple that with thousands of incendiary bombs and the chance of putting out a fire is nil.
The atomic bombs played a part in President Truman’s declaration that Japan would be completely destroyed if a unconditional surrender wasn’t made by the Japanese. Hindsight is 20/20, but I think the surrender of the Japanese would have been made around the same time even if the atomic bombs hadn’t been dropped.
Posted on July 4th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Good point on the napalm. Also good point on the Japanese not knowing what hit them. That actually reinforces my point: what is more terrifying, knowing what you are being attacked with or not knowing?
I am curious why you think that the Japanese would have surrendered even if the bombs had been dropped? I just want the reasoning behind your position.
After visiting the WWI and WWII museum in Paris (the one next to Napoleon’s Tomb), I have to disagree with your statement that “Japanese were clearly beaten (from America’s point of view)”. Even up to the very end, the battles for the various islands were vicious, fight-to-the-last man battles. I doubt many Americans thought invading Japan would be any different. Now, if you meant that the Japanese were clearly beaten because their Navy was destroyed and they only had Japan left, but would still put up a fight there, then I agree with you.
cetroyer
Posted on July 7th, 2007 at 5:03 pm