Wintry Weather Heading Our Way
News0 min ago
Operation Olympic and Downfall - the invasion of Japan
I have been doing some research on the proposed invasion plans for the invasion of Japan in 1945/6 ( negated by the use of the atomic bombs )
The scale of the plan is astounding , for instance the fleet would include 42 Aircraft Carriers! Allied forces would have faced fanatical resistance including kamikaze planes , subs. Casualty estimates range from 200,000 dead upwards on the Allied side.
My question is - is there a "what if" story out there , ie if for some reason the Us decided against the use of atomic weapons and went ahead.?
The scale of the plan is astounding , for instance the fleet would include 42 Aircraft Carriers! Allied forces would have faced fanatical resistance including kamikaze planes , subs. Casualty estimates range from 200,000 dead upwards on the Allied side.
My question is - is there a "what if" story out there , ie if for some reason the Us decided against the use of atomic weapons and went ahead.?
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by airbolt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Sorry, 'what if' what? You've answered your own question. Upwards of 200,000 allied troops dead - which was why the US decided to use the bomb.
And I know it was awful. I know the pictures and reports that came out of Japan were unspeakable and the suffering on a plain we just don't comprehend, but based on the premise that some good comes out of everything, I believe that what happened in the aftermath of those two bombs is largely what has kept the entire world from using the things again in the last 60+ years.
And I know it was awful. I know the pictures and reports that came out of Japan were unspeakable and the suffering on a plain we just don't comprehend, but based on the premise that some good comes out of everything, I believe that what happened in the aftermath of those two bombs is largely what has kept the entire world from using the things again in the last 60+ years.
There is another alternative.
The US might have decided that the costs would be too high and negotiated an Armistice as in the first world war.
At first that doesn't seem likely but then they had just lost 72,000 in the battle for Okinawa and we are viewing it through the lens of what actually happened
The other interesting question is was the second bomb on Nagasaki really necessary? I seem to recall there were 4 bombs, the Trinity site test one, the 'little-boy' Uranium bomb used ant Hiroshima and the "Fat man" Plutoninum bomb at Nagasaki.
It would be interesting to know whether they'd decided to use two bombs or what communications went on between the two
The US might have decided that the costs would be too high and negotiated an Armistice as in the first world war.
At first that doesn't seem likely but then they had just lost 72,000 in the battle for Okinawa and we are viewing it through the lens of what actually happened
The other interesting question is was the second bomb on Nagasaki really necessary? I seem to recall there were 4 bombs, the Trinity site test one, the 'little-boy' Uranium bomb used ant Hiroshima and the "Fat man" Plutoninum bomb at Nagasaki.
It would be interesting to know whether they'd decided to use two bombs or what communications went on between the two
Here is something I cut + pasted from another site:
The Target Committee at Los Alamos on May 10?11, 1945, recommended Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and the arsenal at Kokura as possible targets. The committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective because of the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area. The psychological effects on Japan were of great importance to the committee members. They also agreed that the initial use of the weapon should be sufficiently spectacular for its importance to be internationally recognized. The committee felt Kyoto, as an intellectual center of Japan, had a population "better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon." Hiroshima was chosen because of its large size, its being "an important army depot" and the potential that the bomb would cause greater destruction because the city was surrounded by hills which would have a "focusing effect".
Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson struck Kyoto from the list because of its cultural significance, over the objections of General Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project. According to Professor Edwin O. Reischauer, Stimson "had known and admired Kyoto ever since his honeymoon there several decades earlier." On July 25 General Carl Spaatz was ordered to bomb one of the targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata, or Nagasaki as soon after August 3 as weather permitted and the remaining cities as additional weapons became available.
it wou8ld appear that the decision was made on either 10th or 11th May 1945
The Target Committee at Los Alamos on May 10?11, 1945, recommended Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and the arsenal at Kokura as possible targets. The committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective because of the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area. The psychological effects on Japan were of great importance to the committee members. They also agreed that the initial use of the weapon should be sufficiently spectacular for its importance to be internationally recognized. The committee felt Kyoto, as an intellectual center of Japan, had a population "better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon." Hiroshima was chosen because of its large size, its being "an important army depot" and the potential that the bomb would cause greater destruction because the city was surrounded by hills which would have a "focusing effect".
Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson struck Kyoto from the list because of its cultural significance, over the objections of General Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project. According to Professor Edwin O. Reischauer, Stimson "had known and admired Kyoto ever since his honeymoon there several decades earlier." On July 25 General Carl Spaatz was ordered to bomb one of the targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata, or Nagasaki as soon after August 3 as weather permitted and the remaining cities as additional weapons became available.
it wou8ld appear that the decision was made on either 10th or 11th May 1945
Well the Hiroshima decision yes.
The point is this, for a war to be considered just it has to avoid unnecessary casulties.
If Japan were given the opportunity to surrender after Hiroshima but before Nagasaki then it would be interesting to know who rejected the idea.
If not who's decision was it not to seek the Japanese surrender.
One way or another someone has an awful lot of lives on their concience.
The point is this, for a war to be considered just it has to avoid unnecessary casulties.
If Japan were given the opportunity to surrender after Hiroshima but before Nagasaki then it would be interesting to know who rejected the idea.
If not who's decision was it not to seek the Japanese surrender.
One way or another someone has an awful lot of lives on their concience.
I know there are some " alternative histories " out there , such as " What if Germany won WW2 " were historians extrapolate known facts and project them into an " alternate " story.
Which is what i was getting at but probably put wrongly as it was late at night.!!
BTW Hugh Spencer , my father was in the RAF in the far east and would probably been part of Tiger Force as well.
Which is what i was getting at but probably put wrongly as it was late at night.!!
BTW Hugh Spencer , my father was in the RAF in the far east and would probably been part of Tiger Force as well.
Here are the merry men of the "Enola Gay" who dropped "Little Boy" on 6 August 1945. "Bockscar" dropped "Fat Man" on 9 August 1945.
I don't know when the decision to drop the second bomb was made, if I had to guess, I would say it would be at the same meeting that decided when to drop the first one. The decision would appear to be a political one as opposed to militarily strateigic. I'll cut + paste another quote from the same website which explains why in a moment, however, if you remember that 10-11th May 1945 was only just 2-3 days after the war in Europe had ended and the allies were once again facing each other in idealogical opposistion, or the start of the Cold War if you prefer. I do agree with you jake when you say that someone has a lot of deaths on their concience.
The link:
. Tensions were starting to build up in Europe between Soviet Union and its western allies. Since USSR had an overwhelming numerical superiority there, a show of force was needed to convince Stalin to "behave". Besides, the Russians were preparing for an invasion of Japan. I think these considerations were at least as valid back then as saving American lives.
The link:
. Tensions were starting to build up in Europe between Soviet Union and its western allies. Since USSR had an overwhelming numerical superiority there, a show of force was needed to convince Stalin to "behave". Besides, the Russians were preparing for an invasion of Japan. I think these considerations were at least as valid back then as saving American lives.
Having re-read my second answer, it would now appear that the decision to drop the second bomb was made on 25th July where he was ordered to bomb on of the targets on 3rd August or when weather permitted, and other cities as bombs became available:
. On July 25 General Carl Spaatz was ordered to bomb one of the targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata, or Nagasaki as soon after August 3 as weather permitted and the remaining cities as additional weapons became available.
. On July 25 General Carl Spaatz was ordered to bomb one of the targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata, or Nagasaki as soon after August 3 as weather permitted and the remaining cities as additional weapons became available.
I found a number of "alternate history " books on Amazon including this one.
http://www.amazon.ca/Rising-Sun-Victorious-Alt ernate-Japanese/dp/185367446X
http://www.amazon.ca/Rising-Sun-Victorious-Alt ernate-Japanese/dp/185367446X
1 to 12 of 12
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
News2 mins ago
Today I Heard My First . . . . .
ChatterBank2 mins ago
News3 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.