War bond sales between VE Day and the proposed invasion of Japan suggest that Americans were still prepared to put their money behind their boys.
Seventh War Loan
Elaborate plans were made for the Seventh War Loan. Nationally planned special promotional events far surpassed those planned for any other bond drive, and the Office of War Information pledged 50% of all available radio time to advertisement of the Seventh Loan. An additional $19.1 million was contributed to advertising in support of the drive, and the combined estimate surpassed $42 million in free advertising. Beginning on May 14, 1945, just a few days after V-E Day, some officials feared the goal of $14 billion would not be reached if Americans believed the surrender of Germany made full subscription unnecessary. These fears proved unfounded, as the individual sales goal of $7 billion - the highest of any war bond drive - was surpassed by $1.6 billion. The final tally recorded sales of over $26 billion dollars during the six weeks of the Seventh War Loan drive.
My bold http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/adaccess/warbonds.html
My recollection is that, much as it may cause wailing and gnashing of teeth among home buyers in our fair land nowadays, the annual interest rate on War Bonds was around 2 to 3%.
We’d also need to balance Federal debt against projected income, not least the Lend Lease income which Britain was still paying into the 1980’s.
As an aside, do you remember those “This is a war bonds street” (or something like that) enamel tin signs that used to be on lamp posts in Oz? I don’t know if any exist, but they were still around a decade or two ago.
Thanks for that info RS. Still there was a very real possibility things were gonna crunch in 1946, remembering the increasing debt and the deterioating state of infrastructure. This is evidenced by the virtual collapse of the railroad industry from 1945 onwards.
No, I don’t ignore the American determination to defeat the Japanese at all. I am saying there were many factors to consider and invasion of Japan was going to be very costly indeed in terms of men, equipment and dollars.
There was the double edged sword to all this of course. If the bombings had failed, then the invasion was on with all it’s inherent dangers.
You’re a lot better informed than me. This wouldn’t be hard, because I know nothing about that.
I’d suggest, however, that the American economy did brilliantly out of the war and a lot of industry, and often new industry or industries that could survive in a new world, had a vested interest in keeping the war going rather than stopping it.
The railroad collapse might just reflect the emergence of air transport in a new era, accelerated by the use and development of planes during the war.
On that point, in one of David Day’s books (probably, but it’s a while since I read several of his books pretty much one after the other, The Politics of War - Australia at War, 1939-45: From Churchill to Macarthur) he discusses the shenagigans between America and Australia during the hot part of the war with Japan 1942-3 about America trying to control air routes in the Pacific and Australia trying to grab them. Men of money don’t stop seeking it when honourable and better men are fighting and dying for their benefit.
Relating this back to nuking Japan, I wouldn’t be in the least surprised to find that there were all sorts of economic and political considerations at electorate and industry levels which might have influenced the thinking of politicians, but I’d be astonished to find that the overall concern was anything but to use a great new weapon to end the war with the minimum loss to the Allies.
I’d say that the Japanese should be bloody grateful it never came to that.
Japan was on its knees with the USN wandering up and down the coast in a turkey shoot, and the US air forces pretty much unchallenged.
Japan bristled with defiance on land, but in the end it had to lose.
A land invasion would have been a terrible, terrible thing for the Japanese people, to no ultimate good purpose that wasn’t achieved by being nuked, but their land would have been laid waste and their people slaughtered to an extent that would have made Hiroshima and Nagasaki seem desirable.
Then they’d really have something to complain about.
Is there a number of allies soldier that were killed AFTER the japanese had surrendered?
All i know is that there were only very little “resistance” in germany after 11:01 pm on may 8. 1945
I ask because some say that the japanese were more fanatic
At surrender, the Japanese were still scattered over most of east Asia and the south west Pacific. Communications weren’t reliable. Some, perhaps many, Japanese soldiers didn’t want to accept that they’d been beaten. Some of them were still trying to carry out orders to hide their war crimes by killing the remaining prisoners as previously ordered.
Certainly there were incidents of fighting after the surrender.
In other cases, notably the NEI (now Indonesia), large numbers of Japanese went over to the local anti-colonial forces and continued to fight.
Three Australian officers were killed in April 1946, long after the surrender, by a group including a couple of Japanese who had gone over to the Indonesians. (Not that surprising, really, given the way some of the Indonesians went over to the Japanese a few years earlier, but that’s another story.)
From what I’ve seen of the plans for the invasion of Japan, the Allies were planning to drop one hell of a lot of chemical weapons in addition to up to 7 nuclear devices in support of the ground invasion. I suspect the invasion beaches would not have been a sunny holiday spot for quite a few years afterwards…
This rings a bell, that says that the Allies (primarily Americans) still didn’t understand the consequences of nuclear weapons and intended to put their troops in under a nuclear umbrella.
There’s something good on the net about it, somewhere.
And also this prove the point that the allies commans were ready to use the chemical wearpon against the tightly populated Japane islands.
This fact clearly proves the point- if allies knew about radiation’s consequences - they drop it any way in Hiroshima -coz they were ready to use the chemical wearpon( this is the mass destruction wearpon !!!).
Besides as we know the aim of bombing of Hiroshima - was to impress enough the Japanes population (simply saying to kill as much as it was possible).
In fact the Trumen admited the figure of killed - 200 000 of peuples ( Damn … this was very close to the true).
So EVEN if they knew about danger of radiation - this is obvious - they drop this bomb to “impress” the Japanes in any way.
Coz this absolutly approached for their aims - to demonstrate the terribl power of new US wearpon as much as they could;)
Quite simply Truman decided the dropping of two atomic bombs and killing from 20,000 to 200,000 Japanese was preferable to the slaughter of millions of Japanese and hundreds and thousands of Americans if the invasion went ahead.
At least Truman was certain the dropping of the bombs would end the war with a lot less loss of life. The Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the American invasion of Japan would have killed millions and possibly risked a war between the two superpowers.
Purely on this score Truman was right and everything else is pure revisionism.
Sorry mate but the Trumen was not sure that it was ENOUGH the ONLY bombs to get Japane’s surrender.
That’s why he demands to confirm in the Potsdam conferece - would the USSR join to the war in Asia.
The Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the American invasion of Japan would have killed millions and possibly risked a war between the two superpowers.
Why the soviet invasion to the Manchuria would provoke the New war betwenn the USSR and allies?
Do not forget the Allies themself let the Stalin to liberate the Mongolia and China.
Even the possible invasion to the Islands of Soviet and Allies - would not provoke the war -as it was not in Europe.
More realible scenario- japane would be divaded on the spheres of influences like the Europe was, nothing more.
I think the war could provoke ONLY the soviet movenment FAR to the asia - as we know the Allies still needs to it’s asian colonies- but soviets supported the pro-communists Independence movenments in there.
So you right - if the soviets have decided to move far - this could provoke the war. And THEREFOR the A- bomb was IMPORTAINT political factor to make the Stalin sign to Stop;)
Purely on this score Truman was right and everything else is pure revisionism.
Oh this is too boldly mate- to claims the any critical Truman’s point as revisionists;)
However i can understand you. ( and RS)
If the Allies were going to use chemical weapons, it wasn’t contingent on using nuclear weapons. There was nothing to stop them using chemical weapons any time they liked, with or without nuclear weapons.
This fact clearly proves the point- if allies knew about radiation’s consequences - they drop it any way in Hiroshima -coz they were ready to use the chemical wearpon( this is the mass destruction wearpon !!!).
The point that has been made in previous posts, notably by pdf 27, is that the Americans didn’t know about radiation’s consequences and the science to that point didn’t enable them to predict it with confidence. I’m taking all that at face value as I don’t have the scientific knowledge to evaluate it (I don’t even understand how a luminous watch dial works. :D)
Besides as we know the aim of bombing of Hiroshima - was to impress enough the Japanes population (simply saying to kill as much as it was possible).
In fact the Trumen admited the figure of killed - 200 000 of peuples ( Damn … this was very close to the true).
So EVEN if they knew about danger of radiation - this is obvious - they drop this bomb to “impress” the Japanes in any way.
Coz this absolutly approached for their aims - to demonstrate the terribl power of new US wearpon as much as they could;)
Exactly.
And it worked perfectly, saving millions of Japanese lives and hundreds of thousands of Allied lives.
The Japanese should be grateful they got nuked in a couple of cities instead of suffering an invasion that ground across their land for six to twenty four months like a giant meat grinder chewing up soldiers and civilians and destroying their primary and secondary industries, and ability to recover from the war.
The connection is simple.
You think that if the allies knew about radiation sequences - they never nuked the Japane coz they were TOO human to use it , right.
But if they planned to used the chemical wearpon for its purposes during the
possible invasion - this is ALL right.
So this means they absolutly did not worry about the death-rate among the Japane population if they want to use the Chemical wearpon.
BTW Even the Germans Wermac did not planned to use the chemical wearpon during the war;)
The point that has been made in previous posts, notably by pdf 27, is that the Americans didn’t know about radiation’s consequences and the science to that point didn’t enable them to predict it with confidence. I’m taking all that at face value as I don’t have the scientific knowledge to evaluate it (I don’t even understand how a luminous watch dial works. :D)
Sorry but the knowleges about radiation’s consequences indeed has no influence to the decision to drop the bomb in this conditions when the aliies wants to use the chemical wearpons.
So EVEN if they knew about radiation sickness - this would not stop them to use it my friend.
As the mass death of the peoples in Hiroshima from the redaition consequences during the 1945-1950 did not stopped the MacArtur to dream to use the dozen of the a-bombs to “impress” the China in the 1950.
And it worked perfectly, saving millions of Japanese lives and hundreds of thousands of Allied lives.
Rising Sun this is the DEADLINE way of thinking.
If you personally want to believe in the "saving of millions’ you could.
But the Japanes NEVER accept this cynical ( for them) point ( as we have convinced ).
So if you really want to hear from the Japanes SORRY - you better forget about Millions Saved IMO.
Any commander given the choice of two actions would choose the action which would cost him less loss of his own forces. Consideration of the enemy’s losses barely comes into it. This was why Truman found the decision to drop the bombs easy. He was determined to save American lives and bring the war to an end.
That’s true Digger.
The consederation’s of anemy military loses is the latest tink that the commander hase to thinkabout.
However the mass loses of the Enemies civilc population - will nessesary to consider it.
If we not talk about the commander of Nazy-tipe;)
So indeed the Truman doubt - would the a-bombe the decisive factor to force Japane to capitulate or not.
As we know in the USA till the august were the same point where to use the a-bombs: on the unpopulated territory for instance to the Mountain, drop it to the naval base , or to drop it into the tighly populated city.
In any way the USA clearly demonstrated the power of a-bombs for the Japane.
The TRUMAN choised the last.
I’m not sure I’m following your argument, but if the end point is that the Allies didn’t care about how many Japanese they killed, then I’d disagree.
The Allies cared a lot about killing Japanese. They wanted to kill as many Japanese as quickly as possible with the least losses to the Allies as were necessary to bring the war to an end.
As the mass death of the peoples in Hiroshima from the redaition consequences during the 1945-1950 did not stopped the MacArtur to dream to use the dozen of the a-bombs to “impress” the China in the 1950.
Yeah, well, maybe it’s a pity he didn’t. More to impress North Korea than China and avoid the lunatic regime that’s been running North Korea since.
Rising Sun this is the DEADLINE way of thinking.
If you personally want to believe in the "saving of millions’ you could.
But the Japanes NEVER accept this cynical ( for them) point ( as we have convinced ).
So if you really want to hear from the Japanes SORRY - you better forget about Millions Saved IMO.
If I wanted to hear from the Japanese SORRY, they’d need to focus on what they did, which is beyond them, not the relatively little that was done to them, which seems to be a national industry of self-pitying victimhood.
For the Yanks it’s a damned if they did, damned if they didn’t, situation, isn’t it?
They nuked Japan and a lot of people inside and outside Japan think they were bastards for doing it. (I’m not one of them. I just thought I should make that clear in case my earlier posts seemed ambivalent. :D)
If they hadn’t nuked Japan and had ground it into dust in the next however long it took to emulate rolling up to the Fuhrerbunker in Berlin, with the Soviets grinding up the land and peoples on the other side of Berlin without any compunction, the Yanks would be reviled by the Japanese and various well-intentioned people and the usual rabid anti-American elements in the modern world for destroying Japan.
Odd how nobody accuses America of doing the same to Germany, when it actually did it.
Personally, so far as the attitude of some influential people in modern Japan is concerned, I think it’s a pity that Japan wasn’t ground into dust. Then they’d know they were really beaten on the battlefield and wouldn’t keep bleating about being nuked like it was some unfair tactic or weapon used against a nation that started its Pacific war by sneak attacks on Malaya and Pearl Harbor and had no regard for the laws of war, international law, or basic human decency from 1931 to 1945.
Still, I suppose the Japanese who think like that and the “The Yanks are always aggressive imperialist heartless war mongering bastards” cheer squad would now be whingeing about how cruel the Yanks were for grinding Japan into dust when the Yanks had the opportunity to end the war by nuking a couple of cities with a fraction of the Japanese casualties incurred by an invasion, and without destroying Japan’s capacity to recover from the war anywhere near as quickly as it did (helped greatly by large injections of generous aid from those cruel bastards in America, who after the war presumably were trying to kill with kindness the handful of Japanese who had survived Japan being almost obliterated by a couple of its cities being hit by primitive nuclear weapons :twisted:).
There’s also the minor point about saving a lot of American soldiers’ lives fighting a war America didn’t start, but nobody seems to give a stuff about them.
If it’s not already clear from my posts, I really couldn’t give the steam off my piss for what the Japanese think about being nuked if they’re too self-centred or too stupid or too arrogant or too ill-informed to realise that it was a direct consequence of starting and running an unjustified and vicious war where they gave out a lot worse than they got back. None of those things flow from anything the Allied did to them, any more than the reasons they got nuked are the fault of the Allies.
