The Decision to Use the Bomb

There is a lot of discussion even to this day about whether or not it was right and/or necessary to use the atomic bomb on two Japanese cities in order to end World War II earlier than it would have ended.

Some facts are undeniable. The Americans had taken over almost everything that the Japanese had held in World War II including the island of Okinawa. The American forces were on the verge of actually invading the Japanese homeland itself.

The Japanese navy basically no longer existed. The Japanese air force was pretty much limited to the kamikazes pilots. What planes and pilots they did have were no match for American pilots and planes.

Much of the area around Japan was mined, cutting down severely the flow of materials into and out of Japan. The American program of firebombing Japanese cities worked so well the U.S. was actually running out of targets. Amounts destroyed in raids were sometimes given in square miles, the destruction was that vast and that total.

The ability of the Japanese to produce new weapons was severely cut back. Although there were still many Japanese soldiers in China they would be needed to try and counter a Soviet attack although they could have been shipped into Japan if necessary although many would have been killed by U.S. air attacks in the process.

The Japanese military did not want to give up. They were working on programs to try and get the civilian population to actively oppose any invasion by American forces. They knew just where we planned to land in case we actually did invade their homeland and they had already rushed troops to the area.

So the U.S. was faced with three choices:

Choice 1: Siege

Go ahead and try a siege method. Finish mining all the waters off Japan to cut the country off totally from getting supplies in or out. Continue firebombing what cities were not already destroyed. The possibility of using biological warfare against the Japanese food crops was considered, also. The approach was intended to starve the Japanese and force the country to capitulate.

The advantage would have been that this approach would have resulted in far fewer American casualties. We could bomb Japan almost at will and, other than the kamikazes, there was little that could have affected U.S. forces still at a distance from the coastline.

The disadvantages are twofold. First, this process would have taken time and there is a lot of question whether or not the American public would have supported a much longer war effort even if U.S. casualties were kept relatively low. Secondly, there is no assurance that the Japanese would ever have surrendered. Some of the more fanatical of the leaders were willing to fight to the last person, be that person military or civilian. Japan had never given up and they didn't want the country to ever give up. Indeed, the night before the Emperor's announcement of surrender there was a plot by some of the Japanese military to stage a coup, block the surrender announcement from being made and force the country to keep fighting.

Choice 2: Invade

This approach would have resulted in a direct invasion of the Japanese homeland, starting with the island of Kyushu. The idea was that we would invade and keep conquering territory until the Japanese government, or what was left of it, had no choice but to surrender.

Advantages: This might (and might not) have produced a quicker ending to the war than the seige method. There was no Japanese navy left to oppose the landings and the U.S. had control of the air and could have used our air power to provide cover to the attackers.

Disadvantages: One heck of a lot of people would have died this way. Estimates for the actual number of expected American casualties vary rather widely; at the high end being a million men killed or wounded, and at the low end maybe 250,000 or so. In either event, such a major loss of life would have caused considerable consternation back in the U.S. and the public support of the war might have faltered or even ended. None of this counts Japanese casualties, either. If the civilian population would have followed the orders of their government and the Japanese soldiers shown the same refusal to surrender that they had shown so far, then the total number of deaths would have been very, very high. This process also might have taken a very long time, depending on the Japanese leadership and how much of their country they were willing to see basically obliterated before finally realizing that they had no choice but to surrender.

In addition, with the Soviet Union having entered the war against Japan (as late as they could, though), there would have been some political problems arise as to what areas fell under whose control after the war would end.

Choice 3: Use the atomic bomb

The third alternative was, of course, the one that was ultimately chosen and that was to use the atomic bomb. Hiroshima was first, than Nagasaki. There are indications that Tokyo itself would have been the third choice, and Truman was even willing to use multiple nuclear weapons to clear a wide area of Japan through which American troops could land and spread out with (supposedly) little or no Japanese resistance left.

Advantages: Since we had virtually total control of the air we could basically drop atomic bombs at will. There would be little or no loss of U.S. life at all in the process. The destruction would be very significant, and demoralization of the population was something to be expected. We could stay out of range of the kamikazes and just keep bombing city after city into oblivion under the Japanese government would have finally surrendered. This also would have done away with the need for an actual physical invasion and would have eliminated all those expected casualties.

Disadvantages: There was always the possibility that the bomb wouldn't work for some reason or another but it had already been test-exploded and was expected to do its job. The long-term threat of radiation was there but was not well understood at the time. The weapon did not discriminate between military and civilian; it killed everyone, period. Otherwise, this was the most efficient weapon yet devised during the war.

There was also the question of which Japanese cities would be targeted. Tokyo was actually ruled out (for the first bomb) since it had already had so much destruction due to the firebombing. Kyoto was considered. Bombing a military target first, then threatening to bomb a civilian city was considered. When the bombs were used, 130,000 died instantly in Hiroshima, 70,000 in Nagasaki, and these numbers do not include those who died later from shock, burns and radiation poisoning.

Things influencing the decision to use the bomb

Casualties

One fact is that, as the U.S. got nearer and nearer to Japan, U.S. casualties rose. The Japanese resistance was fierce with few Japanese surrendering. From the book Before the Bomb: How American Approached the End of the Pacific War, 1997: "U.S. political and military leaders shared a growing concern about the public's endurance for a prolonged war and also feared citizens' tolerance for victory achieved at the cost of casualty rates such as those on Okinawa."

An early estimate for the number of casualties in an invasion of the Japanese island of Kyushu was around 50,800 casualties in the first thirty days alone and about 27,000 for each thirty days thereafter. The American press showed numbers of almost a million U.S. casualties before the Japanese would have surrendered. It's considered, though, that even half a million is an inflated number, but in any case the casualties would have been very, very high.

At the same time, Japan did not do itself any favors by announcing that they had a "volunteer corp numbering more than forty-six million people (who) stood ready to repel invaders." Another Radio Tokyo announcement said that Japanese children had been trained in how to use hand grenades to help repel an enemy invasion. Think along the lines of what the terrorists are doing in the present day in their suicide bombings and then multiply that many times over to get an idea of what American forces could have faced.

It was known that the Japanese were training the civilians to resist American invaders, and it was also known that there were some underground fortifications that would have made things even more difficult. The prospect of encountering either was not looked upon favorably.

Of course, no one actually knows if the civilians would really have done the suicide bombings and resistance in large numbers or not. They might have, and again then they might have become some totally demoralized and starved that they would have offered only minimal resistance.

Although the number of 1,000,000 American casualties is often cited (as either being right or exaggerated, by the way,), a July 2, 1945 article in Newsweek pegged the number as being even higher.

"Carried to mathematical extremes and disregarding probably compensating factors, the record on Okinawa could foreshadow an awesome toll of American casualties in the invasion of the Jap home islands. On Okinawa American casualties in dead, wounded and missing were about one-half the Japanese total. The army the enemy can mass to defend the home islands may exceed 3,000,000 men. Should they fight as the Japs did on Okinawa, and if the ratio of casualties remains the same, they would add up to 1,500,000 American dead, wounded or missing."

This does not include deaths due to civilian suicide attackers, though. There is no way to know exactly how many civilians would have followed their governments urging to become kamikaze attackers themselves, but if any substantial number did than there's a chance that American casualties would have increased beyond the number estimated.

Things are going too slow

When the war in Europe was being fought progress could be measured rather easily. So many miles taken, known cities bombed, known rivers crossed. North Africa retaken; Italy fallen, so on and so on. It was all familiar and things were proceeding with occasional setbacks but still with obvious progress toward the set goal of taking Berlin and killing Hitler.

The war in the Pacific, though, could not be fought in the same manner at all. Numerous islands had to be taken, places the average person in the U.S. had never heard of, and rarely could set areas be taken in a set time. Indeed, island-hopping was used from time to time.

There was concern that the war would drag on into 1946 or even 1947. One of the other things that was hard for the non-soldier to understand was why the U.S., with its now far superior numbers of weapons and higher weapon technology could not just run right over the Japanese like they did at times to the Germans. Surely with no navy to speak of and almost no air force the Japanese should have been easy to defeat, was the way many people thought. They did not understand the tenacity of the Japanese forces nor the fact that this was a geographically different type of fighting entirely.

Instead of having large, attached countries with deciduous forests the Americans fighting in the Pacific had island after island, varying in size and structure, often with dense forests and mountainous terrain. This in itself caused a major difference in the style of fighting that could be used. If the enemy could hide in caves in mountains it was hard to bomb them out. If the forest was dense, it was easier for the enemy to hide and shoot from cover. It was a geographical situation that would have slowed the war down no matter how advanced the U.S. technology was.

Not everyone agreed that slow was necessarily bad. In the May 28, 1945 issue of Newsweek was the following article:

This person, then, definitely favored attrition over invasion.

In a June 11, 1945 article he offers specific reasons for not invading. He's the only reference I've found which is specific as to the type of terrain the Americans would be fighting on. There's the old saying "home field advantage" and the Japanese would definitely have had that.

Big Business

American Big Business wanted to get the war out of the way so it could make money selling appliances, cars, etc. to a public that had done without for a long time. From Before the Bomb: "The advertisements celebrated an idealized, predominantly Caucasian, male-dominated society where, despite their work-related war efforts, women would be relegated exclusively to domestic duties as mothers and homemakers."

From the Before the Bomb book: "While Americans were admonished to remain dedicated to the war effort the media abounded with visions of postwar affluence. Advertisers promised consumers improved versions of existing goods, tantalizing them with descriptions of myriad new products. Advertisements frequently depicted the war as a distant annoyance delaying a profusion of merchandise. As fighting men endured hellish combat in the Pacific, advertisers extolled a blissful postwar milieu in which women worked as housewives and homemakers, people enjoyed increased leisure time, and families prospered in isolated splendor amidst their possessions."

No wonder people were in a hurry for the war to end. Just around the corner, as far as they could see, was a world of wonderful gadgets and devices to fulfill their needs in life along with the promise of a wonderful home and family. The number of advertisements in 1945 that referred to the war was actually less than those that referred to this coming wonderful world of gadgets.

This ad, from the April 10, 1944 issue of Newsweek, is a perfect example of this. Notice the headline: "Women to demand improved products when war ends." Notice that this indicates both the impatience of people wanting the war to end so they can get back to their "normal" lives, and at the same time puts women "in their place" since it is women who are demanding the products. And what are the products? Things women will be using such as refrigerators, electric irons, toasters, etc.

These two ads, from the same company, are emphasizing the home after the war, complete with air-conditioning, better lighting, television, automatic kitchens, etc. Again, showing a great desire to get the war over and get back to life as normal.

One of the things to look forward to were new cars as this November 29, 1944 ad states. The idea is that as soon as the war is out of the way we can get back to the serious business of building, and selling, cars.

Just to make sure women understand, the objects of their post-war desires are nicely pictured in this ad showing a sofa, a wringer-washer, kitchen appliances and a bike for the kids (who will be coming after the war is over, of course).

The concern that people's attention to the war effort is lagging is show in this ad from May of 1944 relating to Victory Gardens and the need to keep up the effort to produce them.

There was even a sexist approach to the ads. As the above book notes: "In their depictions, advertisers characterized males a the molders of postwar society, the architects of forthcoming products, and placed men in a variety of occupations....Some illustrations showed women expectantly and compliantly awaiting the return of men eager for sex, although the allusions to sex often remained indirect....Advertisers frequently portrayed women as anxiously awaiting marriage proposals from returning servicemen."

These two ads emphasize the women waiting for their servicemen, the first showing a blonde woman and a soldier with the words "some things never change." It's also interesting that it's an ad for tires, yet the media today acts like using sex to sell things is something relatively new. Not new. Nope. Not at all. The second ad shows the woman waiting, saying there is "a kiss to come home to".

Next comes a set of ads which surprised even me. They are all ads for McCall's magazine, a woman's magazine, yet they are incredibly sexist in nature. First, the ads:

In all five of these ads from 1944 there is a clear delineation between the work of the man and the work of the woman. In the first one the MAN develops the products (which requires, of course, a lot of intelligence!). The woman's job is to put the product in the home and train the family how to use it. It even goes on to blatantly say that "...the woman's role is different from man's and her reading interests are also different..." In other words, women aren't supposed to read complicated books? Finally, the ad goes on to say that the three primary interests of women were "her heart, her home, herself."

The second ad holds that it's men who do the work of the farm. It's women who preserve what's grown which, at least, is a little less sexist than the first ad. It also offers women the chance to join the Wacs and "under certain conditions" choose from a "long list of fascinating and essential Army jobs."

Notice the "under certain conditions" part.

The last three ads are in the same mold as it's the men who do the milling and the women the baking; the men who make and enforce the law and the women who instruct the children , and it's the men who build the homes and the women who make the homes. So, let's see. Women aren't smart enough to run a mill or build houses. They aren't smart enough to make or enforce laws, which means that there should be no women in government and no police women. Since women can't make the laws then I assume that it means that women shouldn't even vote, because it's by voting that Americans choose the people who ultimately do end up making the laws.

Thus, a whole set of ads in essence putting women "in their proper place," and they're all from a women's magazine.

Women appeared less and less in advertisements that were based on the war and more and more in ads that showed women and their wonderful kitchens, remaking their homes and raising families. In one of the more absurd approaches to ads women were not even trusted with measuring lengths with anything other than pieces of string! In effect, women were being "dumbed down" in the ads while, at the same time, men were being put into all the positions of authority and power.

The fact that women had assumed positions in industry was not ignored, just re-channeled. These women, the ads held, would channel their energies into remaking their homes and fulfilling the wants and needs of their husbands.

The War Ain't Here

One thing that caused the government to wonder how long people would support the war was the fact that the war was not on U.S. soil. Other than a few Japanese balloon bombs that were almost all failures and the internment of the Japanese-American citizens there was, by 1945, virtually no chance at all of the Japanese invading the U.S. Thus, to the average person the war was "over there" and not particularly threatening any longer. There was the inconvenience of rationing, but for those who were not soldiers (or had a husband/boyfriend that was a soldier or a wife/girlfriend that was in the Wacs)that was about as rough as it got.

Indeed, there were signs that things were "returning to normal" despite the war continuing, such as the resumption of horse and dog track racing and the production of some consumer goods.

Things not generally discussed

One thing which you don't hear a lot about was the idea of using poison gas and chemical and biological warfare against the Japanese. The use of such materials in World War I stood as the blackest mark against Germany, yet in the light of possibly extremely high casualties, especially during an actual invasion of the Japanese homeland, the use of such materials became very possible. Polls showed that 40% of the American public supported the use of poison gas if it was to help lower American casualties.

The idea was that the poison gas would have been first used in combat situations, then held as a threat over the heads of the Japanese civilians.

If the United States had gone ahead with Operation OLYMPIC, the invasion of the Japanese homelands (which was scheduled for November 1, 1945), there is a very good chance that poison gas and other chemicals would have been used, especially as U.S. casualties mounted.

The use of flamethrowers against Japanese in caves was supported by the public since it reduced American casualties.

A plan was devised in 1945 to attack Japanese with chemicals that would have destroyed them, hoping to bring about starvation. This was to be done not only on islands that had rice crops but on the Japanese homeland as well.

A variation on this idea is shown in a May 28, 1945 Newsweek article:

The issue of Emperor Hirohito. There was a lot of discussion about whether he should be captured and tried (and then probably executed), or whether he should be allowed to live but not be in control of Japan any more..

The Japanese had already tried to end the war peacefully, in July of 1945, when they tried to work through the Soviet government to get them to help negotiate an end to the war that would not involve unconditional surrender. The Soviets refused to become involved.

Radio broadcasts

August 6, 1945: Atomic bomb destroys Hiroshima.


Frank Philips reports on atomic bombing.


Truman talks about the bomb




Main Index
Japan main page
Japanese-American Internment Camps index page
Japan and World War II index page