Was dropping the Bomb on Japan racist?

[Cypress]

I have an MA in military history, have published articles on military history, and am currently writing a book on advanced military technology between 1935 and 1955. I recited all that from personal knowledge.

The Soviets shot down a U2 in 1960. In 1946 nobody had a operational surface to air missile in inventory. The US and Soviets were working to build one. The US programs were US Army- Nike missile, US Navy Project Bumblebee that became Talos. There were several studies going on too like the USAAF's Wizard and Thumper. In the Soviet Union they were trying to develop one from the shit German Wasserfall missile of late WW 2. In the end, they dumped that and developed the S-25 Berkut missile (the radar used with it is quite unique and innovative by the way).

If you look deeper into Soviet aircraft in 1946, the typical performance limit is around 15,000 feet. Above that the performance starts to drop off dramatically. Most have a single stage supercharger and were optimized for lower altitude operations. The Yak 3 and 9 are both that way. Even the later Yak 11 doesn't have the stuff to really intercept B-29's. The Lavochikin series is the same way. You can see this from these piston engine fighter's use in Korea. That's a big reason the MiG 15 was brought in.
The Soviet planes are much like the WW 2 US fighters with un-turbocharged Allison engines. These, like the P-39 and 40 also were good to 15,000 feet even as their service ceilings were listed as 25,000+ feet. You have to look at the engine performance curves for these planes to spot that.
But there's another part to successful intercepts and that's having a control system in place that can make it happen. In 1946 the Soviet system was still very rudimentary and lacked the refinements the British, US, or Germans had in their air defense systems. It's not so much a criticism of ability but rather a realistic appreciation of what was possible.

In 1946, this is where the US was at with an air-to-air missile:

It would be 1950 before the Soviets got their first one in testing. Not their fault particularly, because they started from scratch in 1946 -47 were as the US had already been developing theirs since 1944.

The Soviets made up for this lack by retaining a huge ground army in Europe. The threat was that a nuclear attack would bring a ground war that Western Europe and the US couldn't win.

At the time (1946) the most the US could have realistically done is nuke about half a dozen to a dozen cities in the Soviet Union, but even then much of Soviet industry was out of range of a B-29 strike from say, England. The US knew that too and wanted to avoid a war as much as the Soviets did.

The advanced Yaks were purported to be better than any German prop fighters, and possibly even superior to the P51 mustang.

The wierd thing is I have heard lots of garden variety American Republicans fantasizing about a nuclear first strike on Russia, but of the thousands of Russian civilians I know and have met, not a single one expressed fantasies about a nuclear first strike on America.

 

[anonymoose]

They got the fucking job done. That's all that matters.

And Japan is better off .

 

[anonymoose]

Germany, Italy and Japan could have avoided all that costly damage and horrific casualties; just don't start a global conflict and engage in criminal murder.

My German uncle once opined about Dresden calling it a war crime; I told him starting a global war and murdering millions of Jews is the actual war crime. He was such a fucking Nazi. I can't say his death bothered me the least.

My ex landlord is an 80 yr old German and he's adamant the Nazi invasion of Poland was defensive. And he's the walking caricature of the greedy " dirty Jew ".

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Why does this thread keep reminding me of historical facts?

Because history is fucking awesome.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I am not even sure nuking Moscow would have been possible in 1946. Japan's air defenses were non-existent in 1945. This was the era before ICBMs - getting a B-29 through one thousand miles of heavily defended Soviet air space - and back - seems unrealistic.

Japan had no counterstrike capability in 1945 -
an attempted American first strike nuclear attack on Moscow would have made us a rogue nation in the framework of international law and norms, and world have immediately invited a counterstrike on western Europe by the Red Army, which at that time was the world's largest and most battle tested army.

Summing up, a USA first strike in 1946 would have been foolish , unrealistic, disastrous

Nonetheless, I think it worked out for the best considering the circumstances. There will always be coulda, shoulda, wouldas but as the soon to be ex-President once said "It is what it is."

 

[Dutch Uncle]

who ordered the internment? FDR (DEMOCRAT/SOCIALIST) and who approved it? DEMOCRAT CONGRESS. and yes, they've been the same ever since, just better at hiding their two faces

Things have changed a bit since then. Remember when it was the Republicans seeking racial equality and the Democrats were the fucking racists? LOL

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The advanced Yaks were purported to be better than any German prop fighters, and possibly even superior to the P51 mustang.

The wierd thing is I have heard lots of garden variety American Republicans fantasizing about a nuclear first strike on Russia, but of the thousands of Russian civilians I know and have met, not a single one expressed fantasies about a nuclear first strike on America.

Ummmm....I'd like to see data on that one. The Soviet Union wouldn't have survived the Nazis without US supplies, but it also wouldn't have survived without the courage and sacrifice of Soviet soldiers.

People say all kinds of stupid shit....especially on JPP.

Try out Trinnity's (note the spelling) Stormfront-light "the politics forums". Pure, 100% synthesize Right Wing Nut Job. Only the second website I've been permabanned in over 30 years.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The advanced Yaks were purported to be better than any German prop fighters, and possibly even superior to the P51 mustang.

The wierd thing is I have heard lots of garden variety American Republicans fantasizing about a nuclear first strike on Russia, but of the thousands of Russian civilians I know and have met, not a single one expressed fantasies about a nuclear first strike on America.

Well, Yaks proved very unequal to US P-38, and 51 fighters in the several accidental dogfights they got into over Germany in 1945

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=8792

The same goes in Korea. Neither the La 9 or 11, nor the Yak 11 proved very good in Korea against UN piston engine fighters on the rare occasions they met.

I don't "fantasize" a nuclear war in 1946 or whenever with Russia, but have had numerous discussions with those who do. For the USSR striking back with nukes on the US, the first realistic means might have been getting one of these destroyers within about 60 miles of the US coast:

Using a KKShch (КСЩ) missile

The Tu-95 (Bear) bomber would by the early 50's be the next possibility.

The Soviets weren't stupid. They were just handicapped by first the debilitating war with Germany and then by Stalin's dictatorship that often made poor decisions on resources and where to put them.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I have an MA in military history, have published articles on military history, and am currently writing a book on advanced military technology between 1935 and 1955. I recited all that from personal knowledge.

The Soviets shot down a U2 in 1960. In 1946 nobody had a operational surface to air missile in inventory. The US and Soviets were working to build one. The US programs were US Army- Nike missile, US Navy Project Bumblebee that became Talos. There were several studies going on too like the USAAF's Wizard and Thumper. In the Soviet Union they were trying to develop one from the shit German Wasserfall missile of late WW 2. In the end, they dumped that and developed the S-25 Berkut missile (the radar used with it is quite unique and innovative by the way).

If you look deeper into Soviet aircraft in 1946, the typical performance limit is around 15,000 feet. Above that the performance starts to drop off dramatically. Most have a single stage supercharger and were optimized for lower altitude operations. The Yak 3 and 9 are both that way. Even the later Yak 11 doesn't have the stuff to really intercept B-29's. The Lavochikin series is the same way. You can see this from these piston engine fighter's use in Korea. That's a big reason the MiG 15 was brought in.
The Soviet planes are much like the WW 2 US fighters with un-turbocharged Allison engines. These, like the P-39 and 40 also were good to 15,000 feet even as their service ceilings were listed as 25,000+ feet. You have to look at the engine performance curves for these planes to spot that.
But there's another part to successful intercepts and that's having a control system in place that can make it happen. In 1946 the Soviet system was still very rudimentary and lacked the refinements the British, US, or Germans had in their air defense systems. It's not so much a criticism of ability but rather a realistic appreciation of what was possible.

In 1946, this is where the US was at with an air-to-air missile:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a6/4c/28/a64c28eb0d174e11b6ae7c06744bba27.jpg

It would be 1950 before the Soviets got their first one in testing. Not their fault particularly, because they started from scratch in 1946 -47 were as the US had already been developing theirs since 1944.

The Soviets made up for this lack by retaining a huge ground army in Europe. The threat was that a nuclear attack would bring a ground war that Western Europe and the US couldn't win.

At the time (1946) the most the US could have realistically done is nuke about half a dozen to a dozen cities in the Soviet Union, but even then much of Soviet industry was out of range of a B-29 strike from say, England. The US knew that too and wanted to avoid a war as much as the Soviets did.

Thanks for all the background, Chief. Your expertise in this area far exceeds mine. As for your conclusion, wouldn't the Soviet Army wither on the vine if the US overflew the USSR's defenses and nuked Moscow and one or two key supply cities?

Again, I don't know the detailed history. Just a general knowledge of strategy and logistics.

 

[cancel2 2022]

It was bad enough dropping the bomb on Hiroshima but to hit Nagasaki also was reprehensible.

It is rarely ever mentioned that the US was planning to drop 12 bombs in total. Operation Downfall would only have been implemented after that!

LONDON — American military archives reveal that if the Japanese had not surrendered on August 15, 1945, they would have been hit by a third and potentially more powerful atomic bomb just a few days later and then, eventually, an additional barrage of up to 12 further nuclear attacks.

Documents highlighted during commemorations to mark the 70th anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima on August 6, and Nagasaki on August 9, which forced the end of World War II, show the determination of the United States to make Japan surrender unconditionally.

In the spring of 1945, the U.S. Army set up a special target committee to debate key Japanese cities to attack as officials believed their regime had already made it perfectly clear they were not willing to surrender at any price.

Confidential reports added that “even after two atom bombs, they preferred to fight on till they are all dead. Death or glory.”

It was a belief shared by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who attended talks with Allied leaders Harry S. Truman, the new American president, and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin at Potsdam in July 1945, where he gave consent to using atomic weapons following the successful “Trinity” test.

“There was unanimous, automatic, unquestioned agreement around our table,” Truman later admitted in his memoirs. “Never did I hear the slightest suggestion that we do otherwise.”

There was no reference though to the number of bombs under consideration, although Churchill casually initialed a minute telling U.K. officials to go along with what the Americans decided.

Presidential scientific adviser James B. Conant reported: “A number of military experts tended to see the bomb as nothing more than just a bigger bang, and it seems Churchill and Stalin were similarly ignorant.”

Target committee members believed an atom bomb could destroy the infrastructure of Japan without the need for an invasion, so the cities of Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, Kokura, Niigata, and even Tokyo were identified as potential areas for destruction.

The main criteria included cities not previously bombed by conventional means so that experts could fully assess the effects of a nuclear strike.

Although Tokyo still remained a possibility, it had already suffered extensive damage from a firebombing campaign that incinerated 16 square miles and as many as 100,000 people. In addition, officials believed Emporer Hirohito might still be needed to help negotiate any surrender.

Targets in the south were given priority to boost possible invasion plans but the ancient city of Kyoto was withdrawn because the U.S. Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, who had honeymooned there, said it was an important cultural center and “must not be bombed.”

Kyoto had been favored for the very first attack but the committee opted to blitz Hiroshima, which was an important army depot and embarkation port within an urban environment.

In August 6, a B-29 bomber, the Enola Gay, dropped an estimated 12 kilotons of TNT in a uranium bomb termed “Little Boy” on Hiroshima.

Just three days another B-29, Bockscar, took off for Kokura carrying a second and more deadly plutonium bomb called “Fat Man,” estimated to be between as powerful as 20 kilotons of TNT. It seems inclement weather forced the aircrew to abandon their original plans to attack Kokura and go to Nagasaki instead. Weather was so bad there that the crew had even considered violating their orders to drop the bomb via radar before finding a small gap in the clouds to deliver their deadly cargo. Archivists now suggest the attack on Nagasaki was a shock to Truman, as Kokura was meant to be the primary target, with Nagasaki a secondary option.

Both attacks combined killed more than 200,000.

Archival records show a third bomb was under assembly at Tinian in the Mariana Islands where the Enola Gay and Bockscar had flown from, with the main plutonium core about to be shipped from the U.S.

Although some aircrew saw “Tokyo Joe” chalked on the bomb’s casing, it was said to be destined for Kokura, the original target for the second bomb, and named “Fat Boy.”

A transcript of a top-level call between two military experts on August 13 reveals details of this “third shot.” It also confirmed that a vast production line of about 12 other atomic bombs was being readied for additional continuous strikes against other key targets.

It was agreed this next bomb would be available to be dropped on August 19, with a schedule of further bombs available throughout September and October.

One U.S. general explained: “If we had another one ready, today would be a good day to drop it. We don’t, but anyhow within the next ten days, the Japanese will make up their minds.”

On August 15, however, just as the plutonium was about to be sent to Tinian, news of the Japanese surrender came through and its loading was stopped.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https:...FjABegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw3F4PQUW9N38w30o5mtbPvI

 

[cancel2 2022]

It is rarely ever mentioned that the US was planning to drop at least another 12 bombs throughout September and October.

LONDON — American military archives reveal that if the Japanese had not surrendered on August 15, 1945, they would have been hit by a third and potentially more powerful atomic bomb just a few days later and then, eventually, an additional barrage of up to 12 further nuclear attacks.

Documents highlighted during commemorations to mark the 70th anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima on August 6, and Nagasaki on August 9, which forced the end of World War II, show the determination of the United States to make Japan surrender unconditionally.

In the spring of 1945, the U.S. Army set up a special target committee to debate key Japanese cities to attack as officials believed their regime had already made it perfectly clear they were not willing to surrender at any price.

Confidential reports added that “even after two atom bombs, they preferred to fight on till they are all dead. Death or glory.”

It was a belief shared by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who attended talks with Allied leaders Harry S. Truman, the new American president, and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin at Potsdam in July 1945, where he gave consent to using atomic weapons following the successful “Trinity” test.

“There was unanimous, automatic, unquestioned agreement around our table,” Truman later admitted in his memoirs. “Never did I hear the slightest suggestion that we do otherwise.”

There was no reference though to the number of bombs under consideration, although Churchill casually initialed a minute telling U.K. officials to go along with what the Americans decided.

Presidential scientific adviser James B. Conant reported: “A number of military experts tended to see the bomb as nothing more than just a bigger bang, and it seems Churchill and Stalin were similarly ignorant.”

Target committee members believed an atom bomb could destroy the infrastructure of Japan without the need for an invasion, so the cities of Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, Kokura, Niigata, and even Tokyo were identified as potential areas for destruction.

The main criteria included cities not previously bombed by conventional means so that experts could fully assess the effects of a nuclear strike.

Although Tokyo still remained a possibility, it had already suffered extensive damage from a firebombing campaign that incinerated 16 square miles and as many as 100,000 people. In addition, officials believed Emporer Hirohito might still be needed to help negotiate any surrender.

Targets in the south were given priority to boost possible invasion plans but the ancient city of Kyoto was withdrawn because the U.S. Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, who had honeymooned there, said it was an important cultural center and “must not be bombed.”

Kyoto had been favored for the very first attack but the committee opted to blitz Hiroshima, which was an important army depot and embarkation port within an urban environment.

In August 6, a B-29 bomber, the Enola Gay, dropped an estimated 12 kilotons of TNT in a uranium bomb termed “Little Boy” on Hiroshima.

Just three days another B-29, Bockscar, took off for Kokura carrying a second and more deadly plutonium bomb called “Fat Man,” estimated to be between as powerful as 20 kilotons of TNT. It seems inclement weather forced the aircrew to abandon their original plans to attack Kokura and go to Nagasaki instead. Weather was so bad there that the crew had even considered violating their orders to drop the bomb via radar before finding a small gap in the clouds to deliver their deadly cargo. Archivists now suggest the attack on Nagasaki was a shock to Truman, as Kokura was meant to be the primary target, with Nagasaki a secondary option.

Both attacks combined killed more than 200,000.

Archival records show a third bomb was under assembly at Tinian in the Mariana Islands where the Enola Gay and Bockscar had flown from, with the main plutonium core about to be shipped from the U.S.

Although some aircrew saw “Tokyo Joe” chalked on the bomb’s casing, it was said to be destined for Kokura, the original target for the second bomb, and named “Fat Boy.”

A transcript of a top-level call between two military experts on August 13 reveals details of this “third shot.” It also confirmed that a vast production line of about 12 other atomic bombs was being readied for additional continuous strikes against other key targets.

It was agreed this next bomb would be available to be dropped on August 19, with a schedule of further bombs available throughout September and October.

One U.S. general explained: “If we had another one ready, today would be a good day to drop it. We don’t, but anyhow within the next ten days, the Japanese will make up their minds.”

On August 15, however, just as the plutonium was about to be sent to Tinian, news of the Japanese surrender came through and its loading was stopped.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https:...FjABegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw3F4PQUW9N38w30o5mtbPvI

.

 

[CFM]

And Japan is better off .

Japan 2020

Detroit 2020

 

[Cypress]

Well, Yaks proved very unequal to US P-38, and 51 fighters in the several accidental dogfights they got into over Germany in 1945

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=8792

The same goes in Korea. Neither the La 9 or 11, nor the Yak 11 proved very good in Korea against UN piston engine fighters on the rare occasions they met.

I don't "fantasize" a nuclear war in 1946 or whenever with Russia, but have had numerous discussions with those who do. For the USSR striking back with nukes on the US, the first realistic means might have been getting one of these destroyers within about 60 miles of the US coast:

Using a KKShch (КСЩ) missile

The Tu-95 (Bear) bomber would by the early 50's be the next possibility.

The Soviets weren't stupid. They were just handicapped by first the debilitating war with Germany and then by Stalin's dictatorship that often made poor decisions on resources and where to put them.

According to Wikipedia, the highly degraded Japanese air defenses still shot down 74 B-29s.

"Overall, Japanese fighters shot down 74 B-29s, anti-aircraft guns accounted for a further 54, and 19 were downed by a combination of anti-aircraft guns and fighters." -- Wikipedia

Soviet air defenses in 1946 not only would have been superior to the shattered Japan of 1945, you are asking B29 crews to fly round trip missions over two thousand miles of hostile Soviet air space. Japan was a small island nation prone to sneak attack from the air

Fantasies about first strike nuclear attacks on Soviet citizens in 1946 may appeal to desktop warriors, but I believe it would need to surmount substantial logistical, political, and moral boundaries.

 

[Iolo/Penderyn]

I suppose that, mainly, it was meant to threaten the USSR. Would that be racism?

 

[CFM]

Things have changed a bit since then. Remember when it was the Republicans seeking racial equality and the Democrats were the fucking racists? LOL

It still is that way. Programs the Democrats support prove they believe blacks are inferior.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It still is that way. Programs the Democrats support prove they believe blacks are inferior.

While I agree Democrats have institutionalized racism in order to help**, that does not negate the fact Republicans continue to exhibit racism on a daily basis.

**The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[CFM]

While I agree Democrats have institutionalized racism in order to help**, that does not negate the fact Republicans continue to exhibit racism on a daily basis.

**The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

What daily racism?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

...A transcript of a top-level call between two military experts on August 13 reveals details of this “third shot.” It also confirmed that a vast production line of about 12 other atomic bombs was being readied for additional continuous strikes against other key targets.

It was agreed this next bomb would be available to be dropped on August 19, with a schedule of further bombs available throughout September and October....

https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-planned-to-drop-12-atomic-bombs-on-japan

That's an interesting revelation. It means the US had the nuclear capability of taking down the Soviet Union by October.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

What daily racism?

Republicans have their own institutionalized racism. A key example is Voter ID. I support ensuring our election system to be as secure as possible, but when it's used as a backdoor poll tax or in an effort to disenfranchise certain demographics, then it's anti-American to do so.

That said, two wrongs don't make a right. It's important to maximize our nation's potential which means maximizing the potential of its citizens. Doing so in a racist manner doesn't help in the long run.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-...d-its-been-lower-for-black-people-for-years-1

 

[CFM]

Republicans have their own institutionalized racism. A key example is Voter ID. I support ensuring our election system to be as secure as possible, but when it's used as a backdoor poll tax or in an effort to disenfranchise certain demographics, then it's anti-American to do so.

That said, two wrongs don't make a right. It's important to maximize our nation's potential which means maximizing the potential of its citizens. Doing so in a racist manner doesn't help in the long run.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-...d-its-been-lower-for-black-people-for-years-1

Voter ID isn't racist. Had those whining about being disenfranchised been required to do things above and beyond what whites had to do in order to get an ID, that claim could be made. Is that the claim you're making?