Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Nakajima Kikka aka "Orange Blossom" and Nakajima Ki-201 "Karyu" were the ME262 variants. The Kikka had actually undergone a test flight before the war ended and the Karyu never made it off the drawing board. The Kikka would have taken about 6-9 months to put into production and the Karyu was over a year away. Both were outfitted with engines that were inferior to the ME 262's.
The Shinden was an impressive little plane, but never received the jet engine that it was planned to house. As it was production on that plane would not have started in earnest until April 1946.
Much like the German "super weapons" the ones the Japanese possessed were simply too little too late. Even though they may have been game changers in large numbers, they would never have been able to be produced in enough capacity to overcome the Allied air forces.
One of the interesting exhibits at the Udvar-Hazy exhibit (Smithsonian Air and Space Museum at Dulles near Washington DC) is a jet engine that Japan built for those two Japanese jets you mention. It was made be Kawasaki.
Lots of good points made and interesting information presented in this thread. It struck me that the one thing on which we may all agree is that none of the non surrender options was going to be good for Japan. The Allied options were A) Atomic attacks B) Full scale invasion with the conventional air bombardment continuing, or C) Starve them into surrender by sustaining the blockade while sustaining the conventional air assault.
Of the three, it strikes me that the nuclear option actually was the least costly for both sides. A full scale invasion plus ongoing conventional bombing...does anyone think that would have cost fewer than a million lives, thousands of them Allied lives? Option C, would also have yielded a prime magnitude disaster for Japan. They were already facing shortages in nearly everything with no means to replace any of it. Starving people living in the rubble of bombed and burned out cities is an inescapable formula for breeding and spreading diseases. Medicines would be rapidly exhausted, water supplies would be horribly contaminated, public services would cease to exist, the dead would begin to stack up unburied, further boosting the spread of diseases...several million might have died if it had gone on long enough.
There are those who argue that none of the options was actually needed and that surrender would have taken place before too long even without A, B or C. Perhaps, but of course that isn't what happened. The Japanese remained intractable and were preparing for a bloodbath when the invasion came. The Emperor had not been motivated to intervene and call for an end to the war, not yet. It was after the nuclear attacks that he became so motivated, stating so in his address to the Japanese population when he announced the surrender.
Of the three options, the atomic bombing was quite probably the one which cost the fewest lives...and no Allied lives. It was the right choice, as bad as it was, the others would have been worse.
There is another general benefit to humanity from the sacrifice of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Once nuclear weapons became a reality, sooner or later someone was going to use one. And that first use established an understanding of the horrors which followed, which has greatly contributed to no nation having been willing to use one in any other conflict since. A demonstration was always going to be necessary, and it is far better that this happened with the very first bombs built, ones which were dwarfed in destructive power by those which have followed. And it is way,way better that the first use of the bomb came in the age before atomic retaliation was possible.
I would not argue that the more humane and beneficial result flowing from the use of the bombs to end the war, was ever the product of humanitarian planning. I think that what they had in mind back then was winning the war and sparing Allied lives, not doing what was least damaging to Japan in the long run.
There is another school of thought believed that Japan was already defeated and that an invasion would have been unnecessary and considering the final terms of the "unconditional" surrender, I tend to agree.
Secretary of War Henry Stimson
During his [Stimson's] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of "face."
Admiral Leahy, Chief of Staff to presidents Roosevelt and Truman,
It is my opinion that the use of the barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan ... The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
Admiral Ernest King, US Chief of Naval Operations,
"the effective naval blockade would, in the course of time, have starved the Japanese into submission through lack of oil, rice, medicines, and other essential materials."
US Strategic Bombing Survey Conclusion:
The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the enemy leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender. The Emperor, the Lord Privy Seal, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the Navy Minister had decided as early as May of 1945 that the war should be ended even if it meant acceptance of defeat on allied terms ...
The mission of the Suzuki government, appointed 7 April 1945, was to make peace. An appearance of negotiating for terms less onerous than unconditional surrender was maintained in order to contain the military and bureaucratic elements still determined on a final Bushido defense, and perhaps even more importantly to obtain freedom to create peace with a minimum of personal danger and internal obstruction. It seems clear, however, that in extremis the peacemakers would have peace, and peace on any terms. This was the gist of advice given to Hirohito by the Jushin in February, the declared conclusion of Kido in April, the underlying reason for Koiso's fall in April, the specific injunction of the Emperor to Suzuki on becoming premier which was known to all members of his cabinet ...
Negotiations for Russia to intercede began the forepart of May 1945 in both Tokyo and Moscow. Konoye, the intended emissary to the Soviets, stated to the Survey that while ostensibly he was to negotiate, he received direct and secret instructions from the Emperor to secure peace at any price, notwithstanding its severity ...
It seems clear ... that air supremacy and its later exploitation over Japan proper was the major factor which determined the timing of Japan's surrender and obviated any need for invasion.
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945 [the date of the planned American invasion], Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
Most interesting. Given that we did not have a clue about the true nature of what happened when an atomic bomb went off, and how it changed a place for years and effected anyone who was exposed (even your own), what would have happened if we had not? Would we have make threats to the Soviets and they back? Both without really knowing what they were playing with. One of the reasons the cold war did not end up with an overroasted world is the enormity of the end result was so well written on everyones mind, even the leaders with the keys to the launch. If you didn't have that horror, then what?
Perhaps the people who died in the two cities in the end did save billions of lives since their horrifying experience was burned into our awareness.
Most interesting. Given that we did not have a clue about the true nature of what happened when an atomic bomb went off, and how it changed a place for years and effected anyone who was exposed (even your own), what would have happened if we had not? Would we have make threats to the Soviets and they back? Both without really knowing what they were playing with. One of the reasons the cold war did not end up with an overroasted world is the enormity of the end result was so well written on everyones mind, even the leaders with the keys to the launch. If you didn't have that horror, then what?
Perhaps the people who died in the two cities in the end did save billions of lives since their horrifying experience was burned into our awareness.
Good explanation. I would add that even if the Japanese had been further along in the development of the jet aircraft, their fuel shortage at this point was so severe that operations would have been extremely limited. Among the reasons that the Japanese turned to suicide attacks from the air starting after the Leyte Gulf defeat, was that they were running out of oil. Kamikaze pilots required very little time in the air for training, and when sent out to attack, they did not need to carry enough gas for a round trip. They were efficient, fuel wise.
It was a situation which could only have become worse and worse. The US Navy's submarine arm had wiped the Japanese merchant marine from the seas, the Imperial Navy could no longer assemble a relevant fighting force, the blockade of Japan was air and water tight. No more oil was coming in until after the war.
Unless the Japanese had wood burning, steam powered jets, they would not have been able to get them aloft very often or keep them there very long.
Thank you for mentioning the fuel shortage, that was a major factor for Japan. Also, not only was it a lack of fuel, but a lack of quality fuel. I referred to the engines on the Japanese jets being inferior. However, I failed to mention that they weren't necessarily inferior by design, but they were inferior do to lack of quality fuel with which to run them. Subsequently the designers had to compromise on the engines so that they would run on the fuels available, which led to decreased performance.
Japan had several of the world's best atomic and nuclear physicists and one of the world's first laboratories devoted to nuclear and atomic physics called RIKEN. What Japan didn't have was uranium and the huge industrial base incliding electric power needed to mount a serious stomic weapons program. Japan could design a bomb or reactor but it stayed on paper and could not be acted on. After the war plans and calculations for an atomic bomb were found at RIKEN when the US army closed down nuclear physics at RIKEN. Japan was not allowed to have any nuclear program until the beginning of the "Atoms for Peace" program in the late 1950s.
Another very good point. The Axis (Germany and Japan) had the knowledge to build a nuclear weapon, but what they lacked primarily was quality raw material and the industrial base necessary to refine the ore. I told the anecdote in an earlier post about how Heisenberg and the other German scientists discussed amongst each other in great detail exactly how the Allies built the bomb when they heard of the bombings in Japan. Similarly the scientists at RIKEN, also knew exactly how the Allies did it. What both countries lacked was good raw materiel (the best Uranium in the world comes from the Belgian Congo, Canada and the United States) and the industrial capacity/knowledge to refine it to weapons grade.
If we did not drop the bombs the war would of continued well into 1947 or 48 the Russians would of gained more influence in the Far East,Japan still had large armies in the field that would of fought to their deaths and the American people were tired of war and its costs.Patton said it was best to get the whole affair over with quickly and decisively to save lives. I see the quotes of letting the enemy rot on the vine but in my view that is WW1 trench mentality.
We had pretty much run out of targets except for cities that were off limits. We could have continued to block all ships going into the country and let them starve to death. They would have most likely shot all the POW's or just let them starve to death.
Lots of good points made and interesting information presented in this thread. It struck me that the one thing on which we may all agree is that none of the non surrender options was going to be good for Japan. The Allied options were A) Atomic attacks B) Full scale invasion with the conventional air bombardment continuing, or C) Starve them into surrender by sustaining the blockade while sustaining the conventional air assault.
Of the three, it strikes me that the nuclear option actually was the least costly for both sides. A full scale invasion plus ongoing conventional bombing...does anyone think that would have cost fewer than a million lives, thousands of them Allied lives? Option C, would also have yielded a prime magnitude disaster for Japan. They were already facing shortages in nearly everything with no means to replace any of it. Starving people living in the rubble of bombed and burned out cities is an inescapable formula for breeding and spreading diseases. Medicines would be rapidly exhausted, water supplies would be horribly contaminated, public services would cease to exist, the dead would begin to stack up unburied, further boosting the spread of diseases...several million might have died if it had gone on long enough.
There are those who argue that none of the options was actually needed and that surrender would have taken place before too long even without A, B or C. Perhaps, but of course that isn't what happened. The Japanese remained intractable and were preparing for a bloodbath when the invasion came. The Emperor had not been motivated to intervene and call for an end to the war, not yet. It was after the nuclear attacks that he became so motivated, stating so in his address to the Japanese population when he announced the surrender.
Of the three options, the atomic bombing was quite probably the one which cost the fewest lives...and no Allied lives. It was the right choice, as bad as it was, the others would have been worse.
There is another general benefit to humanity from the sacrifice of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Once nuclear weapons became a reality, sooner or later someone was going to use one. And that first use established an understanding of the horrors which followed, which has greatly contributed to no nation having been willing to use one in any other conflict since. A demonstration was always going to be necessary, and it is far better that this happened with the very first bombs built, ones which were dwarfed in destructive power by those which have followed. And it is way,way better that the first use of the bomb came in the age before atomic retaliation was possible.
I would not argue that the more humane and beneficial result flowing from the use of the bombs to end the war, was ever the product of humanitarian planning. I think that what they had in mind back then was winning the war and sparing Allied lives, not doing what was least damaging to Japan in the long run.
However, that is how it worked out.
Great posts most people who rant about the nuclear bombs forget the loss of lives were less if we attacked like we did any other of Japan's defended islands.
High command figured 1 million Americans would have died in the intial invasion and add to that countless "no surrender" Japanese, it would have been horrible.
BTW but I can't find the article but the only man(he was Japanese) to survive 2 nuclear bomb attacks died around last summer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
