I am majoring in Secondary Social Studies Education at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. I am writing a paper where I must argue the point that the dropping of the Atomic bombs in world war 2 actually save hundreds of thousands of lives.

I am arguing that an all out invasion would have lead to several more losses for both the United States as well as Japan.

Please share your opinions on the subject.

Also, i am having a hard time finding legitimate references for my topic. If anyone knows of any books and / or websites that i may use as sources please post them here.

anyone on here familier with "operation olympic"?

Thank you! i look forward to future discussions on these forums as a new member

There are some who use the expression; "if it saves one life, it's worth it". Well, it saved mine, and a couple of hundred thousand young men we were training to go back and finish the job in '45, maybe for as long as '46 or '47 was the thinking at the time.

For those of you who were not around back then, the fighting and the losses were getting worse toward the end, not better. The numbers were in the thousands each week it went on. The invasion force was going to dwarf D-Day of '44, the japs had plenty set aside to counter attack with, and were ready to keep fighting.

The invasion force preparations were not a last minute idea if the bombs didn't work, we were involved in training amphibious assault troops stateside for the invasion, and that was in the late spring of '45. When I use the term "we" at times, I do not mean the country in general, I was assigned a company to oversee the task along with a number of men I knew overseas, watching all the eager teenage faces drilling and learning to fight, and those kids had no idea what they were getting into. I'm glad none of them ever had to find out.

If there is any shame in the Atomic bombings, I say to Japan look what you made us do.

__________________
All the Best
Jack

There are two clear arguments that prove that dropping the nuclear bombs on Japan saved lives:

1. Had they not been dropped, or even existed, the cities that received them would have suffered damage equal to or heavier with equal or heavier casualties to those caused by the nuclear weapons in conventional bombing attacks. Both cities were only spared up to the time of their bombing so the USAAF could better assess the damage of a nuclear strike.
If nuclear weapons were not available, there was no reason to spare either city. Given that the destruction and casualties in a single night's raid on Toyko caused about 40% more casualties and destroyed about twice the area of either nuclear strike using conventional weapons there is no doubt that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have suffered equally or worse.

2. They precluded the need for an invasion. This too saved lives.

But, in any case arguing that the primary rational for dropping or not dropping nuclear weapons is the casualty rate is simply insane. One uses nuclear weapons, or any other weapon of war, for one reason alone: To achieve victory. Only some Liberal / Leftist touchy feely moron with absolutely no conception of history or the strategy of conflict would think otherwise.

If you want to discuss this question in any meaningful way, it's absolutely essential that you obtain a copy of Richard B. Frank's book titled "Downfall: The End of The Imperial Japanese Empire". Frank has simply done the best job of historical research I have ever run across on exactly the issue you are concerned with. Frank has collected a huge body of statistical data and collated it with logic and understanding to prove beyond any shadow of rational doubt that the atomic bombs saved not hundreds of thousands of lives, but very probably millions.

"Downfall" was the overall code name for the invasion of the Japanese Home Islands; Operation Olympic (the invasion of Kyushu) and Operation Coronet (the invasion of Honshu) were the two operations comprising "Downfall". Franks book is heavily footnoted and contains an extensive bibliography of both secondary and primary sources. In my opinion it's the finest example of outstanding historical research in the last 30 years. "Downfall" was published in 1999 by Penguin Books.

Some of the sources Frank used are available on line, the links below will lead you to a few of them.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/research/evolving

Documents Relating to the Development of the Atomic Bomb and Its use on Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Transcript of "OPERATION DOWNFALL [US invasion of Japan]:* US PLANS AND JAPANESE COUNTER-MEASURES" by D. M. Giangreco, US Army Command and General Staff College

PS, On a personal level, I'm certainly grateful that the atomic bomb was used. My father was a carrier pilot in the Pacific war serving from before Pearl Harbor until the very end. I think it's quite possible that he might have been killed had the fighting gone on another year.

Not wishing to be a spoilsport, but we have discussed this matter at length here:

Atomic bomb

Please feel free to read this older thread and extend it before creating a new one.

__________________

Don't forget that google is a great invention, just type what you want in and wohla it is all there

__________________
They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them. Lest We Forget

In this case the forum's Search feature at top

And welcome aboard Futballman !

World War II Forums - Search Forums

__________________

I just wanted to add that had they not used the Bombs I probably would not be here. My Grandfather was scheduled to fight there. He had already lived through 2 years of fighting, another one may not have been in the cards.

__________________
The Muslim Brotherhood “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands..." — Mohamed Akram. http://jihadwatch.org/

The axis history forum has had several exaustive threads on it as well. One advantage of them is you get to see the counter arguments as well. They also tend to list a fair number of resources in their discussions as the moderators will often insist on it.

I'll add to that and state that my kids probably wouldn't be here because my father in law was a PTO vet.

Futballman.....You have a nice source with your first responder because he is a vet.

Good luck and welcome

__________________
Coir a glaive

Nemo me impune lacessit

This past winter I spent about a half hour talking with Theodore "Dutch" Vankirk, the last living member of the Enola Gay crew. While speaking with him a reporter asked how he felt about dropping the bomb. He replied very quickly that he knew very well, if they did not carry out their mission, thousands upon thousands of foot soldiers could die.

__________________

Scott

There is a very interesting and relevant (to this topic) 'What if...' article in the June/July issue of World War II magazine. Entitlled 'What if... The Manhattan Project Had Failed?" by Mark Grimsley.

In it, he makes some very salient points to this discussion:

• According to the post-war US Strategic Bombing Survey, the Japanese economy was in ruins, and that, even without droopping the bombs, Japan would have surrendered by November 1, 1945. He does go on to point out that the main issue

'...was not one of destroying Japan's ability to make war, but one of convincing the Japanese government to make peace.'

• Many of the ruling Supreme Council were in favor of a negotiated peace.... but only after a military victory that would give the Japanese negotiating leverage. At this stage of the war, the chances for that seem increasingly remote. In my opinion, their only hope was a last stand on Japanese soil, combined with a concentrated kamikaze campaign.

• He goes on to point out

'...that what is often underestimated, however, is the impact of what happened between [his italics] the two nuclear attacks; namely, the massive Soviet offensive against the Japanese Kwantung Army in Manchuria that began on August 8, 1945......the Soviet's Operation August Storm ...[was an]...even greater shock than Hiroshima or Nagasaki, as historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa concluded in his 2005 study Racing the Enemy: Stalin. Truman and the Surrender of Japan.'

• He discusses the American strategic offensive against Japan's rail system, the economic blockade of Japan and then goes on to point out that ...

'By early August, American planners were already revisiting the wisdom of the invasion of Kyushu in light of new intelligence indicating the Japanese had twice the troop strength and four times the aircraft than previously estimated.'

• And finally, he points out a big 'What If'..... what if the Japanese 'hardliners' had taken over control of the government and '... continued to resist beyond the point where any centrally controlled surrender was obtainable.'

I found it to be a very interesting read, and an impetus for further personal research into the Soviet operation in Manchuria.

-whatever

-Lou

__________________
5 out of 4 people have difficulty with fractions.

Lou, for your Soviet operation see here:

http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/car...z3/glantz3.asp
http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/car...z4/glantz4.asp

__________________

This is an insightful comment. The Japanese economy was virtually wrecked by early 1945 by the US submarine offensive. The strategic bombing offensive had not really begun to affect what little was left of the economy until spring of 1945. But the important thing to note here is that absolutely none of Truman's advisers, even as late as June or July were willing to venture even a guess as to when the Japanese would be forced to lay down their arms because of economic failure. It was essentially irrelevant to the Japanese generals that civilians were starving and the arms industries were withering away.


According to the Emperor's own account in Showa Tenno Dokuhakuroku even he was in favor of prosecuting one final battle in order to obtain more favorable terms as late as June, 1945. Only after a negative report on the progress of the preparations was made to him did he realize the folly of such a course.


'Richard Frank in "Downfall" concluded just the opposite. Although the Japanese ambassador in Moscow was informed of the Soviet declaration of war on August 8, word did not reach Tokyo until about 4:00 AM on August 9, just hours before the Nagasaki bomb was dropped. Frank notes that although the generals had previously said the Soviets must be kept out of the war as a precondition to continue fighting, they now took the view that a Soviet invasion of Manchuria had been inevitable, and almost to a man vowed to continue with the war. The Soviet attack could not have come as much of a surprise to the generals as Japanese intelligence had been reporting a heavy buildup of Soviet forces along the Manchurian border for months. In any case, it was Hirohito who ultimately made the decision to surrender and the evidence indicates he had made that decision days before the Soviet invasion. Additionally, in Showa Tenno Dokuhakuroku, Hirohito mentions his reasons for making the decision to surrender as growing public unrest and the atomic attacks. He mentions the Soviet attack on Manchuria only obliquely. It would seem strange that the Japanese, who, in June and July, were apparently willing to barter Manchuria away if it would keep the Soviets out of the war and persuade them to become intermediaries, would suddenly decide to surrender because Manchuria was being attacked. Frank concludes that the immediate threat of another atomic bomb, perhaps exploded over Tokyo in the next few days, had a much greater impact that the Soviet offensive in Manchuria.



This is where so much confusion over the casualty estimates originated. The original estimates were based on the original intelligence estimates of what Japanese forces would be on hand to oppose Operation Olympic. As the months passed American intelligence continually increased their estimates of the numbers of troops and kamikazes the Japanese would be able to deploy in the defense of Kyushu. Obviously, the more opposing troops and kamikazes, the higher the potential number of casualties. So anyone who wants to make a case for or against the invasion (or use of the bomb) can enhance his argument by picking a casualty figure from early or late in the planning process. Nimitz and King, who had originally supported the invasion of Japan, finally withdrew that support as a result of the increased potential for high casualties.

Wow, Za - those are some in-depth papers - good for a little 'light'-reading!

Now, I need to decide just how smart I really want to get!

Great links!

-thanks

-Lou

__________________
5 out of 4 people have difficulty with fractions.

That's what we are all here for, Lou.

__________________

What you sayed makes no sense what so ever. Im nto gonna argue with you cause thier is no arguement. you Obeiuisly dont know the ways of war or history. Many more would of died if the bombs were not used. Everyone on this forum would agree with me. Not a good start for you my friend. call me mean or whatever but what your saying is something a 12 year old would say. the japs would fight to the last man.

__________________
When I feed the poor, they call me a saint,
but when I ask why the poor are hungry,
they call me a communist.