Russia/Ukraine conflict

[SmokyPeat]

That’s just an aspect of perspective. If I asked you the same question 80 years ago having seen your platoon or squadron get mowed down would you have the same answer?

Probably not. Likewise, if I was a young Japanese mother trying to comfort her suffering child as the burnt flesh fell away from their body, I would have yet another perspective.

 

[bkp_duke]

I think a much better case can be made for the first bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The second one was entirely unecessary, imo. I get that war is extremely messy, but I just can't help but find the indescrimanant targeting of major population centers exceedingly distasteful.

This is not true. After the war, the Japanese leaders said they were not considering surrender after the first bomb, because they assumed the US only had one. When it was made clear that the US had more than one, only then did they consider surrender. This is universally accepted by historians on both sides.

 

[SmokyPeat]

This is not true. After the war, the Japanese leaders said they were not considering surrender after the first bomb, because they assumed the US only had one. When it was made clear that the US had more than one, only then did they consider surrender. This is universally accepted by historians on both sides.

No, that is definitely not universally accepted. The Japanese had captured a P51 pilot and under torture he told them that the US had nearly 100 atomic bombs. Many in the upper eschelons of the Japanese military believed that, though it was obviously a brilliant fabrication. The Japanese were planning their surrender as the second bomb was dropped.

 

[bkp_duke]

No, that is definitely not universally accepted. The Japanese had captured a P51 pilot and under torture he told them that the US had nearly 100 atomic bombs. Many in the upper eschelons of the Japanese military believed that, though it was obviously a brilliant fabrication. The Japanese were planning their surrender as the second bomb was dropped.

The Japanese debated it internally, and decided against surrender:

Why didn't Japan surrender after the first atomic bomb?

Answer (1 of 103): Well, in the very beginning, they didn’t even know what had happened! Abruptly, at 8:15 in the morning, all communication with Hiroshima stopped. This didn’t surprise anyone very much since American bombings left many cities without communication. However, there had been no rep...

www.quora.com

Why Did the Japanese Delay Surrendering?

A producer for the Korean Broadcasting System, which is doing a special program commemorating August 15, 1945, recently asked me why Japan's ruling elites rejected the Potsdam Declaration."What issue most impeded their decision to surrender?" he inquired."Shouldn't they have cared more for the...

historynewsnetwork.org

AGAIN - it took the second bomb to convince them that further fighting was a fool's errand.

 

[petit_bateau]

It seems there was a locomotive pulling the fuel train on the Kerch bridge. Rather sensibly the crew uncoupled everything that was on fire and got out of there !

Thread by @ChrisO_wiki on Thread Reader App

@ChrisO_wiki: 1/ Did these railway workers save the Kerch railway bridge to Crimea? An interesting account published by the Russian-controlled Crimea Railway company suggests that the damage to the bridge from the a...…

threadreaderapp.com

 

[SmokyPeat]

The Japanese debated it internally, and decided against surrender:

Why didn't Japan surrender after the first atomic bomb?

Answer (1 of 103): Well, in the very beginning, they didn’t even know what had happened! Abruptly, at 8:15 in the morning, all communication with Hiroshima stopped. This didn’t surprise anyone very much since American bombings left many cities without communication. However, there had been no rep...

www.quora.com

Why Did the Japanese Delay Surrendering?

A producer for the Korean Broadcasting System, which is doing a special program commemorating August 15, 1945, recently asked me why Japan's ruling elites rejected the Potsdam Declaration."What issue most impeded their decision to surrender?" he inquired."Shouldn't they have cared more for the...

historynewsnetwork.org

AGAIN - it took the second bomb to convince them that further fighting was a fool's errand.

You're entitled to that opinion. The Japanese military were not of one mind on surrender. Some would have preferred to see the entire population annihilated. The emperor was advocating surrender before the second bomb was dropped. Ultimately, the emperor was seen as a divine ruler, and his word would have prevailed.

 

[Fred42]

The Russians could take a few outlying islands that were not heavily defended, which they did, but they lacked the ability to make an invasion of any of the main Japanese islands. By 1945 the US possessed the best amphibious navy the world had ever seen. The British had their own forces too, but the US was the only navy capable of supporting an amphibious invasion out of range of land based air. The D-Day landing in France were limited to two locations because of the limited range of the Spitfire.

Russian fighters, both home grown and those they got from lend-lease were incredibly short ranged. The US rejected the P-39 from the USAAF as soon as other fighters became available. because of it's poor high altitude performance and it's very short range but they stayed in production throughout the war because the Russians loved them. Some of the top Soviet fighter aces flew the P-39. For the Eastern Front where battles often took place within 50 miles of frontline air bases the P-39 was fine. Most air battled on the Eastern Front also took place below 10,000 feet. Neither side had many strategic bombers trying to attack from high altitude so there was little need to go high.

The USSR had done river assaults but had no experience with salt water amphibious operations.

Stalin wanted to invade Hokaido, but he needed a lot of help from the US, but the Americans refused. What the Russians asked for was probably way too little to do the job. This post details some of it
How much amphibious lift capability did the Soviet Union have in the Far East in 1945? To what extent could they have meaningfully partic...

Japan probably knew that the Russians were incapable of pulling off an opposed landing on any of the major islands. The Japanese had a large fleet of kamikaze boats squirreled away for the invasion. They would have been attacking the poorly prepared Soviet fleet in large numbers and probably would have sunk a number of troop and supply ships. Supplying an invasion after the troops get ashore is very tricky. The US almost failed at Guadalcanal because the initial invasion fleet was not loaded correctly and the invasion ships had to be pulled out early because of the USN losses in the Battle of Savo Island and incessant Japanese air raids. The Marines ended up with tons of things like building materials for an air base, but not enough ammunition, heavy weapons, fuel, or food. They captured a bunch of Japanese rations and that was all they had to eat for a week or two.

I have read stories that the Japanese were approaching US diplomats in Switzerland during the summer to try and negotiate a surrender. About their only condition was they get to keep the emperor. The US was contemplating putting the emperor on trial, but once MacArthur learned how the Japanese system worked, he kept the emperor.

What probably brought the Japanese to the point of pulling the plug was a combination of factors. The US had conducted carrier raids up and down the Japanese coast sinking most of the remaining navy. First submarines and then a mining campaign in 1945 had sunk virtually all the Japanese merchant fleet leaving Japan short of just about everything. They were still using small coal carriers to haul coal from Korea and Manchuria to Japan, but they knew that source was going away when the USSR declared war.

The article talks about the conventional B-29 raids and many of them did do more damage than the nuclear weapons. Tokyo was especially hit hard with a fire storm raid.

The attack on Hiroshima probably did contribute some to the calculus, but they were looking at their last supply lifeline being shut off by the Russians on the mainland; all other trade shut down by submarines, mines, and US air power in the south; US air raids destroying cities one after another; and then finally the new US ability to do severe damage to a city with a single plane may have been the straw that broke the camel's back.

We'll never know for sure what were the greatest factors, but all probably contributed.

See Japan's Longest Day (1967).

 

[madodel]

You're entitled to that opinion. The Japanese military were not of one mind on surrender. Some would have preferred to see the entire population annihilated. The emperor was advocating surrender before the second bomb was dropped. Ultimately, the emperor was seen as a divine ruler, and his word would have prevailed.

A faction of the Japanese army staged a coup attempt when they heard about the surrender to stop the Emporer's recording of the surrender announcement from being played on the radio. There was a chance that it would have succeeded and there was no 3rd Atomic bomb at that point. Luckily a few people loyal to the Emperor prevented it from being successful.

 

[BitJam]

I think a much better case can be made for the first bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The second one was entirely unnecessary, imo. I get that war is extremely messy, but I just can't help but find the indiscriminate targeting of major population centers exceedingly distasteful.

The Japanese government was still split on surrender after the 2nd bomb was dropped and after the USSR had started attacking across the entire Manchurian border. After all of this, War Minister Anami issued orders to "fight to the last". In an all-night imperial conference after the 2nd bomb was dropped the Japanese Supreme War Council was split 50/50. And only then did the prime minister ask the Emperor to chime in.

Clearly the first bomb alone was insufficient.

Most of the information above is from chapter 35 of James Hornfischer's excellent book the Fleet at Flood Tide: America at Total War in the Pacific 1944 - 1945. The context and details he provides for the surrender of Japan are excellent. IIRC he also questions (or provides context for questioning) the morality of mass fire bombing Japanese cities. The death and destruction caused by the atomic bombs pales in comparison to that of the fire bombings. In a gruesome calculation on the horrors of war, dropping both atomic bombs could be seen as the most merciful option available. One key feature of the atomic bombs is, unlike fire bombs, they could be dropped with very limited Allied causalities. Japan would run out of cities well before America ran out of planes, crews, and the will to use them.

I had a friend who was a young sailor in the (civilian) Merchant Marines at the battle of Okinawa. Almost to a man, Americans involved in the fighting were overjoyed at the dropping of the atomic bombs and were certain they caused Japan's surrender. This sparked my interest in the war in the Pacific. Prior to doing research, my opinion was similar to yours; I thought the use of the first bomb was questionable and the second bomb was unnecessary. After getting facts from a variety of sources (not just Hornfischer) I changed my mind.

 

[SmokyPeat]

The Japanese government was still split on surrender after the 2nd bomb was dropped and after the USSR had started attacking across the entire Manchurian border. After all of this, War Minister Anami issued orders to "fight to the last". In an all-night imperial conference after the 2nd bomb was dropped the Japanese Supreme War Council was split 50/50. And only then did the prime minister ask the Emperor to chime in.

Clearly the first bomb alone was insufficient.

Most of the information above is from chapter 35 of James Hornfischer's excellent book the Fleet at Flood Tide: America at Total War in the Pacific 1944 - 1945. The context and details he provides for the surrender of Japan are excellent. IIRC he also questions (or provides context for questioning) the morality of mass fire bombing Japanese cities. The death and destruction caused by the atomic bombs pales in comparison to that of the fire bombings. In a gruesome calculation on the horrors of war, dropping both atomic bombs could be seen as the most merciful option available. One key feature of the atomic bombs is, unlike fire bombs, they could be dropped with very limited Allied causalities. Japan would run out of cities well before America ran out of planes, crews, and the will to use them.

I had a friend who was a young sailor in the (civilian) Merchant Marines at the battle of Okinawa. Almost to a man, Americans involved in the fighting were overjoyed at the dropping of the atomic bombs and were certain they caused Japan's surrender. This sparked my interest in the war in the Pacific. Prior to doing research, my opinion was similar to yours; I thought the use of the first bomb was questionable and the second bomb was unnecessary. After getting facts from a variety of sources (not just Hornfischer) I changed my mind.

History is written by the victors. As the fog of war and Western guilt continue to clear, a more complete picture of events emerges. My grandfather worked closely with Curtis LeMay at Wright Patterson AFB in Dayton Ohio. LeMay is on record saying that the bombs had nothing to do with the end of the war. I'm not sure that's entirely true, but he was certainly very close to the events. Here's a modern take on the history:

Hiroshima, Then Nagasaki: Why the US Deployed the Second A-Bomb | HISTORY

www-history-com.cdn.ampproject.org

The War Was Won Before Hiroshima—And the Generals Who Dropped the Bomb Knew It

Seventy years after the bombing, will Americans face the brutal truth?

www.thenation.com

Perhaps the greatest mind in human history, Albert Einstein, also thought the use of the atomic bombs against Japan was a terrible mistake:

Einstein's pacifist dilemma revealed | Science | The Guardian

<p>Previously unpublished letters from Albert Einstein to a Japanese pen pal show the physicist to be defensive over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which became possible through his genius.</p>

amp.theguardian.com

 

[BitJam]

History is written by the victors. As the fog of war and Western guilt continue to clear, a more complete picture of events emerges. My grandfather worked closely with Curtis LeMay at Wright Patterson AFB in Dayton Ohio. LeMay is on record saying that the bombs had nothing to do with the end of the war. I'm not sure that's entirely true, but he was certainly very close to the events.

I agree. And I would take the relatively recent scholarship of Hornfischer, Toll, and others over a 2015 article from the Nation and an undated fluff piece from the History Channel, any day of the week.

As for Curtis LeMay, he was the driving force behind the horrific fire bombing of Japan. I am not surprised one iota that he would denigrated the use of nuclear bombs which overshadowed his pet project of mass destruction. Likewise, I would not consider the other generals and admirals, who had their chances of massive fame and glory smashed by the atomic bombs, as reliable sources. Such sources are often myopic. If they are the main/only sources for a particular article or point of view then that article or point of view is suspect.

As for Albert Einstein, I was heavily influenced by him (and by Richard Feynman). They were two of the reasons why I chose to become an (anti-nuke) nuclear physicist. My advisor in grad school quipped I had gone from stopping nuclear power to "Nuclear Stopping Power" which was the name of the first paper we published together.

But Einstein's opinion on the use of the bombs was relatively uninformed compared to modern scholars, primarily because of the release of translated Japanese war archives. I had the same opinion you have now, based on sources like those you cite. Again, I encourage you to investigate the more modern scholarship on this subject. Hornfischer's book gives a dispassionate and detailed account of the horrors Curtis LeMay unleashed on the Japanese civilian population.

 

[SmokyPeat]

Yes, targeting non combatant civilians is abhorrent, whatever the weaponry. Something the Russians have become all too familiar with in Ukraine.

Far from being universally accepted as necessary, the nuclear holocaust we inflicted upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been hotly debated since 1945. I suspect that debate will continue for decades, if not centuries to come.

Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[RobStark]

So is this the WWII thread?

 

[Surfer of Life]

Sorry if off topic, but I wonder if there’s anything new about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine anyone knows about?

 

[SmokyPeat]

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. -Santayana

 

[Boomer19]

I agree. And I would take the relatively recent scholarship of Hornfischer, Toll, and others over a 2015 article from the Nation and an undated fluff piece from the History Channel, any day of the week.

As for Curtis LeMay, he was the driving force behind the horrific fire bombing of Japan. I am not surprised one iota that he would denigrated the use of nuclear bombs which overshadowed his pet project of mass destruction. Likewise, I would not consider the other generals and admirals, who had their chances of massive fame and glory smashed by the atomic bombs, as reliable sources. Such sources are often myopic. If they are the main/only sources for a particular article or point of view then that article or point of view is suspect.

As for Albert Einstein, I was heavily influenced by him (and by Richard Feynman). They were two of the reasons why I chose to become an (anti-nuke) nuclear physicist. My advisor in grad school quipped I had gone from stopping nuclear power to "Nuclear Stopping Power" which was the name of the first paper we published together.

But Einstein's opinion on the use of the bombs was relatively uninformed compared to modern scholars, primarily because of the release of translated Japanese war archives. I had the same opinion you have now, based on sources like those you cite. Again, I encourage you to investigate the more modern scholarship on this subject. Hornfischer's book gives a dispassionate and detailed account of the horrors Curtis LeMay unleashed on the Japanese civilian population.

Japanese Cities

japanese cities destroyed by firebombing and US city comparison for perspective

 

[nativewolf]

Sorry if off topic, but I wonder if there’s anything new about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine anyone knows about?

Ukraine shelling into Luhansk has really increased north of Svatove and deep as well- 10 or more KM was not unusual; as for Svatove itself the city is just downhill now. Much of the downslope is forested but man, what a crappy place to defend. Russia has been shelling the heck out of the rear lines there but who knows if they hit anything.

Ukraine pressure exists along the entire line of conflict from the border with russia to Bakhmut (200km or more). They push and push, seems almost like a Sumo match. Some folks in Kiev anticipate good news tomorrow, we'll see.

There were huge explosions in some occupied cities last night. Otherwise pretty slow.

CNN has a nice piece on doctors fleeting Belarus with proof of how many soldiers they were treating.

 

[BitJam]

Sorry if off topic, but I wonder if there’s anything new about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine anyone knows about?

While Russia evacuated citizens from Kherson, they also added soldiers to the city. Bad news: it seems they want to engage Ukraine in bloody urban warfare there. Good news: they are probably not planning on mass destruction in that area.

 

[SmokyPeat]

While Russia evacuated citizens from Kherson, they also added soldiers to the city. Bad news: it seems they want to engage Ukraine in bloody urban warfare there. Good news: they are probably not planning on mass destruction in that area.

My understanding is that Russia moved out most of their more experienced and better equipped troops and brought in poorly equipped green troops into Kherson. Either they aren't planning to put up a very stiff defense, or they're going to use the green troops as cannon fodder.

 

[petit_bateau]

I had a friend who was a young sailor in the (civilian) Merchant Marines at the battle of Okinawa. Almost to a man, Americans involved in the fighting were overjoyed at the dropping of the atomic bombs and were certain they caused Japan's surrender. This sparked my interest in the war in the Pacific. Prior to doing research, my opinion was similar to yours; I thought the use of the first bomb was questionable and the second bomb was unnecessary. After getting facts from a variety of sources (not just Hornfischer) I changed my mind.

Some of my family were in the British Asia/Pacific theatre in WW2, and both told me they were highly relieved to learn of the two bombs and the subsequent Japanese surrender. They were in no doubt that it saved lives overall. My own reading over the years of the situation in all the protagonists at the time tends to the same conclusion.
==
Let us hope that some lessons have been learned.
==
I saw this on the Guardian feed for Ukraine "The US congressional Progressive Caucus withdrew a letter to the White House urging a negotiated settlement with Russia, its chair, Pramila Jayapal, confirmed." It seems that at least one group has learnt a lesson for the time being.