GENERAL CURTIS LEMAYS B-29S OVER JAPAN

I think everyone had made some very good points here. Although as far as the Japanese surrender due entirely to the continuous fire bombing and nuclear bombs is just not the case. When the first nuclear bomb was dropped the emporer and most of the government didn't even hear about for many hours afterwards. Due to all the methods of communication that were destroyed, and when they did they weren't able to fully grasp the destruction and aftermath. To them the casualties were just the same as many of the fire bombing raids and in some cases less. But the Japanese didn't even come to the negotiating table until the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. I just feel that this needs to be stated because it usually is undermined by the first nuclear bombs ever dropped. And I feel this played just as much if not more into the surrender of the Japanese in 1945.

 

Its a combination, the Japanese convinced themselves that they could use the Soviets to negotiate a surrender, but once the Soviets attacked it became clear that there would be no negotiation.

 

LWD,

The leaflets/pamphlets, in and of themselves, can hardly be construed as a "key piece of evidence" with regards to What the Americans were targeting. For instance, it was not until the end of July - July 27th specifically, that the leaflets were first used - almost 5 months after the beginning of the incendiary campaign against Japanese cities(by which all of the larger Japanese cities and most of their smaller ones had already been fire bombed). Also, by that time, Lemay was supremely confident that the Japanese military would be unable to reasonably defend against any such American B-29 raids. Further, whatever "humanitarian" effect the leaflets had, was of far less importance to the Americans than their morale & psychological effect on the Japanese people - which was to show the Japanese citizenry how impotent that their military had become, and that the Japanese people should pressure their leaders to end the war.

 

It is also worth noteing that if the Japanese civilians abandoned the cities then there would also be considerable impact on the industries located there. However if the prupose really was to kill the civilians then the pamphlets were counter productive. Again there are some of the discussion with respect to the use of the atomic bombs that indicate that the senior US leadership wanted to minimize the Japanese civilian casualties and that the cvilian deaths (in particular the suicides) on Okinawa had considerable impact on them.

 

The impact of the Soviet attack is far from clear. Some say it was critical but from my reading while it may have been a factor it looks to me like the second bomb was the breaking point.

 

Am also under the impression that both Germany and Japan made arrangements in order to avoid the Soviets. Thought Japan would wait out US bombing, but the threat of having to deal with a Soviet invasion brought them to the table? (Because USSR would have no qualms about sending in, and losing a lot of men?)...Don't know, just asking.

 

The Soviets were in Berlin when the war ended. Kind of hard to avoid them that being the case wasn't it?
I'm not sure that the Japanese feared the Soviets anymore than the Americans at that point. Indeed the Soviet attack was clearly opertunistic (Japan hadn't done anything much to the Soviets) where it was very clear that the US was upset with them.

 

In July 1945 US planes started to blanket the few remaining Japanese cities that had been spared firebombing with an “Appeal to the People.” It read, “America which stands for humanity, does not wish to injure the innocent people, so you had better evacuate these cities.” Half the leafleted cities were firebombed within days of the warning. It should also be stated that on March 9-10th of 1945 the most devastating fire bombing raid took place. Which was over Tokyo with an estimated 80,000 to over 100,000 deaths of men women and children. Which is clearly well before the US began dropping said leaflets.
Overall, by one calculation, the US firebombing campaign destroyed 180 square miles of 67 cities, killed more than 300,000 people and injured an additional 400,000, figures that exclude the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The whole idea behind the firebombs/napalm was to set ablaze Japanese cities. I think it's pretty ridiculous to say there target was just military targets. There goal was to destroy the Japanese's will to fight and resist the oncoming invasion. Of course that would include taking out military targets but with a weapon such as napalm when dropped on cities with predominately wooden buildings it's kind of hard to be precise with your bombs and avoid massive collateral damage.
Between January and July 1945, the US firebombed and destroyed all but five Japanese cities, deliberately sparing Kyoto, the ancient imperial capital, and four others. The extent of the destruction ranged from 50 to 60% of the urban area destroyed in cities including Kobe, Yokohama and Tokyo, to 60 to 88% in seventeen cities, to 98% in the case of Toyama.
So with all that taken into account I really don't think the Japanese government fully grasped the full effects of the Atomic bombs, after the majority of there cities had already been obliterated starting in 1945. Or that the Atomic bombs were the reason for there surrender, because of the destruction they caused. At the time the long term affects were unknown to even the Americans. The Soviet invasion of Manchuria occurred a day after the second bomb was dropped which I feel makes it go relatively unnoticed. Therefore IMO the A-bombs were not the primary reason for the Japanese surrender which myself and many others have been led to believe. Although since myself and no one here was in the room when the Japanese decided to capitulate the exact reason is up for debate. But with all the information at hand my opinion is that the Soviet invasion was the final straw for the Japanese government. Even though many key members of their military council wanted to fight on and resist the inevitable American invasion. When the Soviet military and industrial machine was throw into the mix they had to finally give up.

 

The Japanese were hoping that the Soviets would help negotiate a peace that would allow them to keep some of their conquests. The Soviet attack was as important as the bomb in convincing the emperor to surrender.

 

The main target was from all I've read military. Now that includes industrial and logistical instalations that support the military. One mechanism (indeed the primary one) used against such targets in Japan were fire bombs. The idea was that if a fire bomb missed but started a fire near by it might still take out the target. It's also likely that there was some carry over from the British "de housing" campaign as well which was aimed at industrial targets but one of the means of affecting them was to affect the workers by destroying the housing and infrastructure on which they depended. Note also that the way Japanese industry was spread out, at least pre war, this was about the only way to attack it with any significant chance of makeing a serious impact. Were they deliberately trying to kill civilians? I don't think that was ever the official plan but it was obviously going to happen.

 

I simply don't see the logic in that. Indeed from what I've read just the opposite is true. The Japanese said as much when they surrendered.

The amount of destruction compared to the effort required on the part of the US (i.e. a single plane could do it). Certainly it wasn't the long term effects but there have been arguments that the very process had signifiant moral implications. The completeness of the destruction and the ability to defend against it were also factors. I've also read that the Japanese had a pretty good handle on the abiity of the US to enrich Uranium. After the first bomb was dropped Japanese sceintist suggested that it would be quite a while before the US could drop another. When the second one went off a short while later it struck a vary serious moral blow. The long term effects were hardly a factor and indeed had the Japanese not surrendered the long term effects of famine would likely have been much worse.

I'm not sure that your first sentence is all that accurate, especially on a board such as this. Your second is almost comletely lacking in logic.

From what I've read the Japanese high council had been split 50:50 for several months on whether to surrender or not. Since it was a tie the status quo prevailed. The dropping of the atomic bombs created a situation where the peace party was able to ask the emporer for his positon and he chose surrender. I am pretty well convinced that the bombs were the key factor. The Soviet invasion on the other hand may have seriously impacted support for those who wished to continue the war in any case. The speed with which they took Manchuria must also have been overwhelming.

 

I understand that a lot of what I said might not be logical or make sense. After seeing my comments quoted I can see how they came out wrong. I understand that the intention of the USAAF while attacking Japan through the air was to eliminate military targets. I also understand that if there were no Atomic bombs dropped the war against Japan would not have come to such a swift end. I was merely speaking from my own ignorance stating that the Soviet invasion was somewhat of an unknown factor. I never learned about this growing up all I ever learned until studying the subject was that America won the war. And the A-bombs was the reason why. I guess I really put myself on the wrong side of things with my comments. I just don't think everything on this subject is as black and white as everyone makes it out to be. I'm obviously not an expert and I don't claim to be I just know that I have read some people say that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria is what brought the Japanese to the surrender table. I thought it was worth debating to see others opinions on that. Since like i said earlier my only understanding of the Japanese surrender was that the US and the A-bombs we dropped was reason why the Pacific war ended. I chose to run with the Soviet theory and state some opposing ideas to people's opinions. I wasn't stating facts just theories. There is SO much subject material out there on the Second World War with all types of opinions, theories, and thoughts from all points of view. Just wanted to state some different ones and view the responses. I'm sorry if I offended anyone with my extreme ignorance on the subject.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grhf7d-29Ps

Air display at Offutt AFB, Omaha, NE and talk by General Curtis E. LeMay, CINCSAC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze4_8VLvtuk

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTlbhcksugk

 

I'm not certain I heard about it while growing up either. Certainly if I did it was only mentioned in passing. I've learned a lot on these boards over time. That's one of the two main reasons I follow them. That said there's a huge difference in the amount of knowledge, especially WWII related knowledge, here as opposed to the community in general or your average high school student. So depending on which group you are talking about some things may be well known or almost unknonw.

Truer words were never spoken. I may come across as knowing more than I do if so I apologize. One of my learning strategies is to present my position as strongly as I can (while acknowldgeing the weaknesses that do exist). I expect / hope for the other side to do the same. If they can prove me wrong then I have won in the long run as they have corrected a fallacy that I believed in, much more valuable than being proved right IMO. However I will make then work for it.

Certainly people have said so and it is indeed worth debating it. I believe that it was not that important to the surrender but it's possible I'm wrong and a debate such as this one of the ways that I can see myself being convinced otherwise. Another value is that I hadn't considered the impact of the Soviet invasion on those Japanese who might have supported the coup against the surrender until my response to you yesterday. I think this may be worth thinking about and discussing and might never have thought of it but for your posting.

Ignorance is not offensive. The refusal to learn may be so but I haven't seen that in your postings.

 

Ill try to restate it, the invasion by the Soviets convinced the Japanese that a negotiated surrender was not going to happen, There were still about a million troops in China that could still try to sneak back home, this was no longer possible with the invasion. The Japanese were convinced that the Soviets would help negotiate a peace with US that would allow them to keep some of their conquests.
Its absurd to say that one had all the effect, both were stunning blows to the Japanese that helped tip the Emperor to intercede on behalf of surrender

 

Reptition has no effect on validity. There was ample evidence that a negotiated surrender wasn't going to happen before the Soviet invasion. Furthermore from what I've read it didn't change the position of the key players (i.e. the supreme council and the emporer).

But at what cost? One of the things the Japanse hoped to keep was China. If they pulled out then there's no way they were going to get it back. Nor would anywhere near all of them have made it back given the Japanese shipping situation at the time. Furthermore as they pulled back it would get even worse with the various naval routes falling in range of even more land based air.

Were they? Certainly they hoped they might do so at one point but those hopes had been pretty well dashed before the Soviets declared war. I've seen nothing to indicate that the Japanese were at all convinced of this especially by August of 45.

Is it? I certainly don't think so. Given what I've read had the Soviets not declared war and invaded I suspect the Emperor would still have interceded and called for peace. Now there might have been more resistance to it but that's an open question. On the otherhand I don't see the Japanese surrendering, at least in August, if the bombs had not been dropped but the Soviets invaded on scedule. Retention of conquests was not the most important point to the Japanese from what I can tell. Indeed that point was dropped before some of the others was it not?

 

The emperor could only get involved in case of a tie in the council which did not happen until after. Even during the summer of 45 the Japanese were still trying to maintain peace with the Soviets by offering concessions like the return of Sahkalin island. The reason I say the bombs alone did not tip the balance is that there were leaders who were willing to see Japan destroyed rather then surrender. even after the bombs there were army men who tried to prevent the surrender. One of the last Japanese responses to the US before the bomb stated they expected to keep Manchuria, Korea and parts of China. Yes it would be difficult to move troops to Japan but march them to s Korea and its a quick hop to Japan and every one moved is one more soldier.

 

I don't think it was a matter that the Japanese were "convinced" of a negotiated surrender by using the Soviet Union. But, that they had "deluded" themselves into believing that this was possible, and that they maintained that delusion even in the face of mounting evidence that the Soviet Union was preparing a large invasion force and would shortly be declaring war on them. For instance, the Japanese Army Intelligence had been reporting ever increasing rail traffic carrying tanks, troops, and artillery, moving along the Trans-Siberian Railway. However, the Japanese generals discounted all of these intelligence reports that were coming in.

A very useful site is here: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/
There are many .pdf files available for download, the most interesting are the Magic Diplomatic Summaries of late July through early August.

 

That's certainly not my understanding. For one thing I've read that there was a tie between the "peace" and "war" factions as early as the Spring of 45. Furthermore the tradition was the the Emperor didn't get publicly involved at all.

Of course they were but how is this relevant? When you are loosing a war you hardly want another major power to take the other side.

That simply doesn't make any sense to me. There were Japanese leaders that had that attitude after both the bombs and the Soviet invasion. So what?

And the US made it clear that that wasn't going to happen. One of the things about the bombs (especially since the Japanese didn't know how many we had or at what rate we could produce them) was that they combined with the attacks on the log structure and the isolation of Japan from required food sources meant that the US wouldn't have to invade. A defeat in battle was something that at least some of the Japanese could accept. The destruction of Japan by famine, plague, and nuclear fire was not.