Scan barcode
gimpyknee's review against another edition
2.0
When all is said and done this is just another long piece of revisionist history. While it is fair to say that there will be those who will always question the justification for the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Ham makes some ludicrous claims to support his contention that the use of these weapons did nothing to contribute to Japan's surrender. Ham states that by early 1945 Japan was a defeated nation, that it had lost the air war, the sea war, that Japanese ground forces throughout the Pacific were defeated, that the American naval blockade had choked Japan's capacity to make war, that Japan was defeated economically. All of this is undeniably true, and yet Japan refused to surrender. Ham gives a long and detailed account of Lemay's "terror" bombings of Japanese cities, describing the death and destruction and displacement of millions of Japanese and yet agrees that these "terror" bombings had failed to force Japan to surrender. By April 1945 the Japanese Suzuki government embraced a war policy called Ketsugo whereby the home islands would be defended to the last man, woman, and child. While repeatedly stressing the misery visited on the civilian population, Mr. Ham does not assess Japan's lingering military capabilities. Richard Frank ("Downfall") and D.M. Giangreco ("Hell to Pay) have demonstrated that these capabilities were formidable. Ham claims that the fears of 500,000 to one million casualties were not made until after the war, and were made simply to justify the atomic bombings. This is utter nonsense. Based on the massive American casualties incurred in the capture of Okinawa, American military leaders expected severe casualties with the invasion of Japan's home islands. Staff working for Adm Nimitz calculated that the first 30 days of Olympic alone would cost 49,000 men. MacArthur's staff concluded that America would suffer 125,000 casualties after 120 days. Admiral Leahy estimated that the invasion would cost 268,000 casualties. Personnel at the Navy Department estimated that the total losses to America would be between 1.7 and 4 million with 400,000 to 800,000 deaths. The same department estimated that there would be up to 10 million Japanese casualties. Few would argue that the combined shock of events - the dropping of atomic bombs and the entry of the Soviet Union (in Ham's mind, far more important than the bombs) into the war against Japan forced Japan to surrender. To say that this book is the "real" story of the atomic bombings is a stretch - a big one at that.
tracithomas's review against another edition
4.0
So smart and thorough. Ham is a great storyteller in the midst of a ton of history. He really brought the decision to use atomic weapons on Japan into perspective for me.
sfletcher26's review against another edition
4.0
Not an easy book to read in that it's a little difficult to get into, well that's how I found it at least. It is however a fantastic read and a broad critique of the view that the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki made the slightest difference.
Definately worth investing the time to read it.
Definately worth investing the time to read it.
andrew_russell's review against another edition
3.0
A topic which is perhaps relatively neglected in WW2 literature, the dropping of the atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was a story about which I didn't know a great deal before reading this. So Paul Ham managed to educate me in this regard, with lots of things that I knew nothing of.
The diplomatic aspect of the story forms the backbone, or spine, of this text and is intriguing and at times gripping. At other times though, it doesn't read particularly well and I found that I was itching to get onto the next part of the story. More focus on the effects of the two bombs, as well as the after effects of radiation poisoning, would have kept my interest alive but the actual dropping of the two bombs is covered in quick order by Ham, before he moves back to the politics.
Ham adopts a 'revisionist' viewpoint, providing a strong argument that there was no military purpose behind the dropping of Little Boy and Fat Man, that their purpose was quasi experimental, testing the bombs capabilities, whilst demonstrating to the world at large that America was a force to be reckoned with. They were the logical progression following the theories supporting strategic bombing as a valid means of warfare, namely that terrorising a civilian population through heavy bombing raids demoralises enemy forces and can fuel insurrection amongst the populace of major population centres. His arguments are compelling, cohesive and supported by fairly robust evidence.
I think this falls under the broad brush category of 'pretty good'. It never quite gets the blood running, the emotions going (in spite of the fact that there are great dollops of emotional potential within this subject matter) and at times is weighed down by the political and diplomatic discussions taking place, neglecting the effects and after-effects on the population. Sure there are reams of numbers (this many civilians died in this raid, this many in another raid) but the stories behind the numbers, whilst touched on, are not given enough attention for my liking.
The diplomatic aspect of the story forms the backbone, or spine, of this text and is intriguing and at times gripping. At other times though, it doesn't read particularly well and I found that I was itching to get onto the next part of the story. More focus on the effects of the two bombs, as well as the after effects of radiation poisoning, would have kept my interest alive but the actual dropping of the two bombs is covered in quick order by Ham, before he moves back to the politics.
Ham adopts a 'revisionist' viewpoint, providing a strong argument that there was no military purpose behind the dropping of Little Boy and Fat Man, that their purpose was quasi experimental, testing the bombs capabilities, whilst demonstrating to the world at large that America was a force to be reckoned with. They were the logical progression following the theories supporting strategic bombing as a valid means of warfare, namely that terrorising a civilian population through heavy bombing raids demoralises enemy forces and can fuel insurrection amongst the populace of major population centres. His arguments are compelling, cohesive and supported by fairly robust evidence.
I think this falls under the broad brush category of 'pretty good'. It never quite gets the blood running, the emotions going (in spite of the fact that there are great dollops of emotional potential within this subject matter) and at times is weighed down by the political and diplomatic discussions taking place, neglecting the effects and after-effects on the population. Sure there are reams of numbers (this many civilians died in this raid, this many in another raid) but the stories behind the numbers, whilst touched on, are not given enough attention for my liking.
gerbenletzer's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
reflective
sad
medium-paced
5.0
Thorough, compelling and very sobering. Excellent read.