US bombing of Japan in WW2

silverharp

As someone who has a passive interest in WW2, I’ve watched a lot of documentaries over the years but had a thought the other day that I know next to nothing about the US bombing campaign over Japan. Any thoughts on why there doesn’t seem to be any accounts of this? compare to the allied bombing of Germany where I must have seen dozens of accounts from all perspectives. Does it come down to some guilt over the A-bombs or that all other related events pale in comarisson.

TerrorFirmer

The bombing campaign against Japan wasn't remotely as effective as it was against Germany. The campaign started relatively late as well, since the Japanese mainland was out of generally effective reach of the US until 1944, and didn't start becoming 'useful' in the context of producing noticable results until 1945.

Not very knowledgable in general in the Pacific theatre myself so it's something I could do with brushing up on. Here's a fairly well synopsized view:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#United_States_strategic_bombing_of_Japan

Jfla

There are a few doumentarys on the bombing, One entitled 'The Enola Gay' I think. I personally think that they were right to bomb Japan. There was no sign of Japan surrendering, there world was tired of war and an invasion of Japan would have been more bloody for the americans than any battle that was seen in europe. Countless more Americans would have been killed. How would you feel after 6 years of war?

odonnell

Jfla wrote:

There are a few doumentarys on the bombing, One entitled 'The Enola Gay' I think. I personally think that they were right to bomb Japan. There was no sign of Japan surrendering, there world was tired of war and an invasion of Japan would have been more bloody for the americans than any battle that was seen in europe. Countless more Americans would have been killed. How would you feel after 6 years of war?

Whilst fairly rusty on my WWII pacific theatre history myself, i do know from forming this opinion years ago that i felt it was a wholly unrequired bombing in terms of ending the War. Japan were already on the verge of surrender and had very little resistance to offer - bombing their two major cities did little more than break the back of someone who is already crippled. There would have been no need to invade - Japan offered little or no threat outside its own waters at that time.

HOWEVER!!! - let me offer up this theory, as offered to me by older and wiser relatives, books and endless documentaries etc etc etc - i happen to be of the firm belief that the major concern at the end of WWII was not Japan or Germany - they were buckling, the tide had long since turned and they were on the backfoot. I believe attention was turning to Russia.... and by dropping those two bombs, the US and the rest of the allies i suppose to a certain degree, were infact demonstrating their power outwith the world war and sending a message. I dont think theres any coincidence that shortly after the war we have NATO and the beginning of the cold war...

Also remember the main focus of invading allied forces rummaging their way through Germany was to pick up as many scientists, technicians etc, and to confiscate as much military equipment and technology as they could! There are reports of groups of soldiers from US and Russian sides competing to get to specific scientists first for extraction!!!

Nah - the bombs couldnt have been to end the war - they were a statement in order to prevent the next one.

jmayo

Jfla wrote:

There are a few doumentarys on the bombing, One entitled 'The Enola Gay' I think. I personally think that they were right to bomb Japan. There was no sign of Japan surrendering, there world was tired of war and an invasion of Japan would have been more bloody for the americans than any battle that was seen in europe. Countless more Americans would have been killed. How would you feel after 6 years of war?

Actually the US was only at war since December 1941, unlike UK, Germany, France and USSR (yes they invaded Finland, Baltic states and Poland in 1939) who were at it since the start.

brianthebard

Odonnell with respect I don't believe Japan was anywhere near surrendering, kamikaze attacks show us how dedicated they were to the war. If anything the atom bombs served to increase the USSR's desire for nuclear weapons so that they could be on equal footing with the US again. I do think it was in some way at least a statement of the absolute power of the US at the same time though.

silverharp

HavoK wrote:

The bombing campaign against Japan wasn't remotely as effective as it was against Germany. The campaign started relatively late as well, since the Japanese mainland was out of generally effective reach of the US until 1944, and didn't start becoming 'useful' in the context of producing noticable results until 1945.

Not very knowledgable in general in the Pacific theatre myself so it's something I could do with brushing up on. Here's a fairly well synopsized view:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#United_States_strategic_bombing_of_Japan

Were their bombers able to avoid flac or fligh higher then the japs? I never came across stories about pilots having to bail out etc?


Some of ye went off topic fairly quickly, I hope ye are better at answering the questions asked in exams ;-)

Jfla

jmayo wrote:

Actually the US was only at war since December 1941, unlike UK, Germany, France and USSR (yes they invaded Finland, Baltic states and Poland in 1939) who were at it since the start.

Obviously!

I thought that was taken for granted

Jfla

odonnell wrote:

Whilst fairly rusty on my WWII pacific theatre history myself, i do know from forming this opinion years ago that i felt it was a wholly unrequired bombing in terms of ending the War. Japan were already on the verge of surrender and had very little resistance to offer - bombing their two major cities did little more than break the back of someone who is already crippled. There would have been no need to invade - Japan offered little or no threat outside its own waters at that time.

HOWEVER!!! - let me offer up this theory, as offered to me by older and wiser relatives, books and endless documentaries etc etc etc - i happen to be of the firm belief that the major concern at the end of WWII was not Japan or Germany - they were buckling, the tide had long since turned and they were on the backfoot. I believe attention was turning to Russia.... and by dropping those two bombs, the US and the rest of the allies i suppose to a certain degree, were infact demonstrating their power outwith the world war and sending a message. I dont think theres any coincidence that shortly after the war we have NATO and the beginning of the cold war...

Also remember the main focus of invading allied forces rummaging their way through Germany was to pick up as many scientists, technicians etc, and to confiscate as much military equipment and technology as they could! There are reports of groups of soldiers from US and Russian sides competing to get to specific scientists first for extraction!!!

Nah - the bombs couldnt have been to end the war - they were a statement in order to prevent the next one.

I believe you have a point about the use of the A-bomb to make a point, but the Japonese were not going to surrender. There would have been a terrible man to man battle when the american's invaded. Iwojima on a grander scale!

odonnell

Jfla wrote:

I believe you have a point about the use of the A-bomb to make a point, but the Japonese were not going to surrender. There would have been a terrible man to man battle when the american's invaded. Iwojima on a grander scale!

Whilst i can understand the view that the Japanese werent on the verge of surrender - I cant help but to question whether there would really have been a real requirement for the invasion Japan? Im not being smart here im just asking the question - is there really a need to invade a country pinned back to its native territory?

jmayo

From March 1945 through to the end of the war, many Japanese cities were subjected to area bombing with incendiaries. A lot of Japanese cities were made up of low woooden structures which burnt easily.
Tokyo, Osaka, and many other cities were burned out by firestorms.
These bombings may have killed as many as 500,000 people.

Remember the Americans had the B-29 Superfortress at this stage.
Once Saipan fell the B29 was within range of Tokoyo.
Then once Iwo Jima and Okinawa fell they could easily operate over Japan.

Okinawa was a foretaste of what was to come, it and Iwo Jima were the first real Japanesse islands encountered.

On Okinawa, American losses are put at 72,000 casualties with over 12,000 dead.
Japanese losses were put at 66,000 killed and only 7,000 captured.
This not count the number of native civilians killed (over 100,000).

The losses involved in trying to take the mainland islands would have been huge on both sides.

So yes dropping the atom bomb was seen as a way of demostrating to Emperor and government that they could not win.
I know the Emperor was figurehead but the government still needed him to convince people to fight to the death.

The question is why dfid they drop the second, was it to prove the first was not just a one off capability?

humanji

It always seemed to me that the second bomb was partly revenge and partly posturing by the US. Granted, I wasn't there at the time, but that's just the way it seems.

As for the original question, I think that there's little about the bombings of Japan, because all focus is on the the A-bombs that were dropped. It's the same with many of the operations that happened during the war. They were just out shone by more impressive events that stick out more clearly.

brianthebard

odonnell wrote:

Whilst i can understand the view that the Japanese werent on the verge of surrender - I cant help but to question whether there would really have been a real requirement for the invasion Japan? Im not being smart here im just asking the question - is there really a need to invade a country pinned back to its native territory?

In WWII yes, they had let Germany surrender in WWI and in a sense that was as much a cause of WWII as any. Many, maybe most Germans believed they had never lost the war. November criminals etc. The level of involvement of the German people by 1918 was staggering, the concept of Total War, well Total. WWII was about crushing the opposition or facing the consequences yet again. A very do or die sort of environment. So the A bombs allowed the USA to crush Japan, yet without having to invade.

Domster

The question is why dfid they drop the second, was it to prove the first was not just a one off capability?

Hiroshima was bombed on August 6th. Two days later, on August 8th the Soviets began attacking the Japanese in Manchuria (Obviously wanting a piece of the pie). The day after, August 9th, Nagasaki was bombed.

Personally, I thought the second bomb was dropped to let the Russians know they weren't gonna be getting a piece of the pie.

The invasion of Japan was planned for November. I remember reading somewhere that a study was done after the war (take this with a pinch of salt, lol), that without the A-bombs and without the need for invasion, just plain 'ole Aerial bombardment, the Japanese would have had to surrender by November anyway. How true that is, I dunno, it's just a matter of opinion I s'pose. I'm sure all sorts of studies were done after the war that came out with all kinds of theories and conclusions.

Did they need to drop the A-bombs? As horrific as they were, I believe that there was a need for it, if only to stop the Soviets in their tracks. They were still a few years away from making one themselves but had already infiltrated the Manhattan Project since 1942 so were well on their way.

liamdubh

silverharp wrote:

As someone who has a passive interest in WW2, I’ve watched a lot of documentaries over the years but had a thought the other day that I know next to nothing about the US bombing campaign over Japan. Any thoughts on why there doesn’t seem to be any accounts of this? compare to the allied bombing of Germany where I must have seen dozens of accounts from all perspectives. Does it come down to some guilt over the A-bombs or that all other related events pale in comarisson.

The Americans were eager to launch the atomic bombs before Japan had a chance to surrender so it's not surprising that those attacks and other war crimes aren't discussed all that much. Japan realised the war was over at the time they were dropped, the only real question for them was how to bring the war to an end.

In my opinion America and her Allies had no choice. The deffo did the right thing.... Its a pitty they didnt drop one on Moscow.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

it's an interesting mindsight that views the incineration of thousands of innocent people as 'the right thing'

neccesary is debateable, unavoidable is debatable but the right thing.. that's just frightening.

Shutuplaura

God, i swore i wouldn't get invlved in another one of these discussions. However...
It was probably necessary to drop one of the bombs. The second was a demonstration to the Soviets to show them that they had more than one of these weapons available to use against them if required. If fairness to the yanks the decision wasn't taken lightly and they considered the cost to Japanese civilians as well as their own army. the battle for defense of Okinawa was very stubborn and was a taste of things to come on the mainland. It was costly for Japanese civilians and the Japanese army besides the americans. A massive invasion of Japan surely would have caused horrible numbers of deaths amung the japanese poputation as a whole besides turning Japan into a bigger mess.

Blockading Japan and letting it wither on the line was probably possible but would also have caused horrendus suffering to Japan. They were a net importer of food for one thing. So all in all the most humane way to deal with an enemy determined (seemingly - i don't know if the Japanese government was close to surrender - i doubt it was tbh, but the americans definately didn't know it either) to resist to the end was a quick end to the war.

Finally, as someone pointed out, a japan that hadn't been occuopied and made fully aware of how badly they lost the war would have been dangerous to world peace. As it is Japanese people look on the war very differently to say German people do. Its not seen as a national disgrace by the majority of people by any means, even after events like the rape of Nanking. China is constantly pissed off by Japans refusal to acknowledge their warcrimes. If Japan hadn't been occupied god knows what far eastern international relations would be like now.

The superfortresses were the only heavy bomber of the war to remain in operation for a significant time after 1945. They were the business, miles ahead of lancasters or flyiong fortresses which were becoming dated in 1945. They were pressurized , had sinchronized mechanized turrets, a nice jacks, bunks and the works. The Japanese air defenses were not to much of a problem - they were supposed to repressurise over japan in case the hull was damaged and sudden depressurisation occured but they never bothered because they know that probably wouldn't occur. Enola Gay went over on its own at daylight because they knew it would probably be okay.

liamdubh

Deleted User wrote:

In my opinion America and her Allies had no choice. The deffo did the right thing.... Its a pitty they didnt drop one on Moscow.

Soviet tanks would have been at the Atlantic by tea-time (a few weeks anyway).

liamdubh

Here's a question, why did Japan "have" to be occupied and made surrender unconditionally after the war? Why was that absolutely necessary? Answers on a postcard.

Japan was close to bringing the war to an end at the time the bombs were dropped. The Americans knew this and were actually worried about whether Japan would surrender before they dropped the bomb, not that they would incinerate civilians.

(This isn't "anti-American" by the way, the Soviets, Japanese, British, Germans would all have launched a nuclear bomb with glee if they had one, but the fact is it is the Americans who did drop it, completely unneccessarily)

odonnell

it was a joint effort though, and the development of the bomb and attack on japan werent solely carried out by americans - a lot of parties were involved in the lead-up. It was an allied mission, developed, planned and executed. (in the case of the US, the UK, Canada and their partners.... how much the soviets knew about it though - is another question)

just doing some further reading and i didnt realise this until now but there were several more bombs planned for throughout that august - 2 groups of 3 i believe. This being the case - it sort of negates the possibility of the Americans merely wishing to show they could do it more than once - because to drop two is just.... unnecessary - but 6 more!? Thats just brutality! What possible reason could there be for that!!!??

Shutuplaura

The Yanks had another bomb ready to drop in late august , three that could be ready for september and three for october as far as i know. If you are right then that would be horrific but I don't think its the case.

A section of the japanese government was for peace and sent out feelers through russia but there was another section around the emporer all for continuing to the bitter end. When the government finally responed to the allied call for immediate surrender in late july 1945 it was to say that they would never surrender but were ready to fight to the end. In response to this the A bomb was dropped days later. Surely the Japanese governments refusal to fact the facts could be blamed just as much as the americans desire to impress trhe world?

PHB

Here's a question, why did Japan "have" to be occupied and made surrender unconditionally after the war? Why was that absolutely necessary? Answers on a postcard.

For the same reason Germany had to. Their entire society had to be reformed, and it was. It's why Germany and Japan are now leading democracies in the world. It's because of their forced un-conditional surrender.

Ultimately, more were killed in most single bombing raids than were killed by the atomic bomb, and it was war. I wouldn't have asked them to stop their bombing campaigns anymore than I would have asked them not to use the nuke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

O'Leprosy

Deleted User wrote:

In my opinion America and her Allies had no choice. The deffo did the right thing.... Its a pitty they didnt drop one on Moscow.

I suppose this is just an assshole trolling, but this is a ridiculus statement. What purpose for humanity could dropping a nuclear bomb on millions of innocent Russians be for ? The dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan was a War Crime. I cannot understand how people could justify the murder of over 200.000 innocent civilians. The Americans could have dropped it on an offshore island to demonstrate to the Japanese they had it and the power of it. As fanatical as the Japanese government was, they would have capitulated to the US, and hence the terrible loss of 200,000 innocent lives could have been avoided. But I would agree with some of the comments regarding the US dropped the bomb to show the Soviets that they had it and would not hesitate to use it.

Shutuplaura

O'Leprosy wrote:

I suppose this is just an assshole trolling, but this is a ridiculus statement. What purpose for humanity could dropping a nuclear bomb on millions of innocent Russians be for ? The dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan was a War Crime. I cannot understand how people could justify the murder of over 200.000 innocent civilians. The Americans could have dropped it on an offshore island to demonstrate to the Japanese they had it and the power of it. As fanatical as the Japanese government was, they would have capitulated to the US, and hence the terrible loss of 200,000 innocent lives could have been avoided. But I would agree with some of the comments regarding the US dropped the bomb to show the Soviets that they had it and would not hesitate to use it.

I'd just ignore that pleasant person who I like so much... [Edited by PHB]
Regarding the bomb though, as far as I know noone was aware of the possibility of nuclear fallout at the time? They just thought they had a really, really powerful bomb. The yanks were also concerned that if they gave the Japanese a demonstration of its effect and it didn't work then the Japanese would think they were bluffing. Also, Germany had been boasting about spectacular revenge weapons that didn't amount to much really so I guess they thought the Japanese wouldn't believe them. As to whether any deliberate targetting of civilians through economic blockade or terror bombing is a warcrime, I really don't think I'd like to say because not everything is black and white - unless you are an absolute pacifist, which I'm not.

liamdubh

Shutuplaura wrote:

The yanks were also concerned that if they gave the Japanese a demonstration of its effect and it didn't work then the Japanese would think they were bluffing

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The whole point of a demonstration would be to PROVE that they weren't bluffing and they did in fact possess this weapon. They had detonated a bomb before they dropped one on Hiroshima. They knew it worked.

odonnell

O'Leprosy wrote:

I suppose this is just an assshole trolling, but this is a ridiculus statement. What purpose for humanity could dropping a nuclear bomb on millions of innocent Russians be for ? The dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan was a War Crime. I cannot understand how people could justify the murder of over 200.000 innocent civilians. The Americans could have dropped it on an offshore island to demonstrate to the Japanese they had it and the power of it. As fanatical as the Japanese government was, they would have capitulated to the US, and hence the terrible loss of 200,000 innocent lives could have been avoided. But I would agree with some of the comments regarding the US dropped the bomb to show the Soviets that they had it and would not hesitate to use it.

The thing about warcrimes though mate is that they subject to ciscumstance... what i mean to say is - take iraq, if we go and bomb the living hell out of baghdad - well.... we'd be the worst kind of people for sure - as frankly, since when has Iraq or those insurgents ever been a real threat to us in our daily lives? Same goes for Vietnam (willy peters and agent orange id say were verging on weapons of war crimes (indiscriminate with lingering after effects) as opposed to strategic weapons) - but in WWII - the world at war... could it not be construed as a case of do unto others as they would do unto you? First to die loses sort of thing.... I dont condone the use of nukes - the fact that they exist frightens me, and i would like to sorta 'roll-back' weapons technology to WWII levels just to be safe. However, i wouldnt necessarily say it was a war crime under the circumstances.

But then - an interesting angle on this: in the 'wild west' in the days of Billy the Kid - a fight only lasted as long as it took for someone to pull a gun and shoot the opposition. It was considered fair to kill your opponent by whatever means possible because you couldnt take the chance of them not fighting fair! He who fights fair, gets killed! Maybe that mentality rules the military decisions of the USA these days too!

brianthebard

liamdubh wrote:

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The whole point of a demonstration would be to PROVE that they weren't bluffing and they did in fact possess this weapon. They had detonated a bomb before they dropped one on Hiroshima. They knew it worked.

Yes but they only had two more. And given the tenacity of the Japanese forces that far into the war there was a strong fear that Japan would not surrender after the first or even second bomb then America would have no answer, save a full on invasion.

O'Leprosy

Shutuplaura wrote:

The yanks were also concerned that if they gave the Japanese a demonstration of its effect and it didn't work then the Japanese would think they were bluffing.

I have no intelligent response to that statement, so therefore I will insult you [Edited by PHB ]

liamdubh wrote:

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The whole point of a demonstration would be to PROVE that they weren't bluffing and they did in fact possess this weapon. They had detonated a bomb before they dropped one on Hiroshima. They knew it worked.

Exactly.

Shutuplaura wrote:

As to whether any deliberate targetting of civilians through economic blockade or terror bombing is a warcrime, I really don't think I'd like to say because not everything is black and white - unless you are an absolute pacifist, which I'm not

Jayus, your a real blood n' guts Rambo aren't you. For a country like this that suffered so much from imperial thuggery and mass murder, I would have thought an Irish person would instinctively question the injustice of conquering armies and feel some sympathy for the victims.

brianthebard

O'Leprosy wrote:

Jayus, your a real blood n' guts Rambo aren't you. For a country like this that suffered so much from imperial thuggery and mass murder, I would have thought an Irish person would instinctively question the injustice of conquering armies and feel some sympathy for the victims.

You what? Japan attacked America. It took over half the pacific. They were the conquering army during WWII. Jesus how do you come up with this ****?