I just thought it worthy to point out and remember the atomic attack upon Hiroshima, this date, 1945. More than 150,000 [CORRECTION - 230,000] civilians were killed. Many more died later from radiation contamination.

Poll Info:

Some proponents of dropping the bomb argue that an invasion would have cost the lives of several hundred thousand to a million combatants and millions of Japanese civilian lives, plus the anihilation of many Japanese cities. So they argue dropping the bomb was actually better for Japan.

I would also like to point out that we ended up having to drop a second bomb on Nagasaki, later, on August 9th.

I voted yes, but I may have done it differently. Such as drop it near a naval convoy or a rural area so that the leaders of Japan could see what we had. Then if they still refused to see our way.....

It was a new weapon in a war and we used it. There's no question in my mind what the decision would be for dropping the bomb - yes.

Like zorven, I would but at a military target (I don't know what the Japanesse had so I can't tell what such targets existed, but I'm sure there were). Even though, if they hadn't responded to the first bomb I might've chosen to drop the second bomb on a city, as it would have a much greater impact.
This ofcource depends on the estimates of how many people will such an invasion take - something which I've heard some contradicting opinions about.

i am undecided on the first one, the second one was totally unnesisary though.

An invasion would have taken a very large force, and casaulties would definetly have exceeded 150,000 total. The Japanese had more troops on the mainland islands than US intelligence believed, and fleets of Kamikaze planes and even kamikaze ships. Not to mention the number of Japanese that would have died from starvation.

The real question is, would Japan have surrendered without dropping the Atomic Bomb? I believe they would not have, and it was necessary, but in my mind this is the only debatable point.

The dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were entirely neccessary. Without them, an invasion of Japan would have been neccessary and would have taken tens of millions of lives, both American and Japanese.

Not to mention their "fight to the end" ways and that if we had waited, the Soviets would've invaded and then we would have a divided Japan like Korea.

It was clear before the bombs were dropped that Japan would surrender if they could keep their emperor. U.S. was so hell bent on getting unconditional surrender that we couldn't accept that, even though we ended up letting them keep the emperor anyway.

When we were building the bombs, we were intending to drop them on Germany, but they surrendered before we had the chance. Several Japanese cities, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki were left untouched by the round-the-clock bombing that had been going on before the atomic bombs...they were being saved to allow for a proper experiment with the atomic bombs. The first bomb was dropped, and before Japan even had a chance to react, the second was dropped as well. They were two different types of bombs (plutonium and uranium?)....which one's better?

The first bomb may have been justified, though I don't think so...the second one surely wasn't. I voted no.

hadn't they already sent the surrender when we dropped the 2nd one?

No, and actually, many military hardliners wanted to keep going after the second one.

@ Plexus, that would be Japanese military hardliners - Right?

There wasn't enough time between the bombs for communication...I can't remember if Japan had sent the surrender afeter the first one, and it hadn't reached the U.S. yet, or if they'd just found out about the first bomb when the second was dropped.

They knew about it, but they didn't think we had another one.

I voted yes.

There was THREE DAYS between the bombs. You drop a bomb on my house, I'm not going to sit around for three days looking at the wreckage.

And of course they were justified. Even if they were only dropped for shock purposes, they shaped the world as we know it. A world that has yet to see a World War III.

Originally posted by zorven
@ Plexus, that would be Japanese military hardliners - Right?

Yes. After the first two bombs, Japan nearly had a civil war, because the military hard-liners in the government staged an informal coup, nearly. Even after 2 bombs, they were reluctant to give up, and the representatives were at a tie as to surrender or not. It was the emperor, who usually doens't have a say in these matters, cautioned them all and voted to surrender, thus tippping the scales in that favor.

I wrote an essay on this a few years back. And from what i can remember, Hiroshima was the location of the Southern Army HQ, or something like that, and Nagasaki had a naval base. This is all IIRC, ofcourse. So it wasnt purely military targets, and it wasnt purely civilian targets. So by dropping the bombs there, they could demonstrate several things;
1. They had the bomb.
2. They were willing to use it.
3. By dropping the bombs in said cities, the US could show both the Japanese army and its population (wich still believed they were winning, IIRC) that resistance was futile.

I put yes. I'm on the fence on whether I would do it personally, but I support the President's decision. Some factor's in my decision that haven't been mentioned: it was total war (civilian losses in some European cities due to firestorms created by conventional bombs had similar daily death counts), complete Japanese losses on the ground (they wouldn't surrender to our forces to avoid certain death, virtually no POW's), they were really evil (using Chinese prisoner's for bayonnet practice and such, who needs living targets for that anyway?). IIRC, I think they (the Japanese) also used chemical and biological warfare against the Chinese.

Yes. The bomb killed thousands, but twice that much would have been killed if the war continued.

Really, this discussion is an exercise in hypocritical arrogance. How can any of us imagine what it would have been like at that time? After five years of war? We get upset when 50 soldiers die today over the course of two months, can you imagine reading about thousands dying every day for several years?

When you get embroiled in a brutal war that you never asked to be in, I think you have all the rights in the world to end it how you see fit.

i fell may be overall it was right but if my knoladge is right of my History GCSE America only had two Atomic bombs the time but they made out to the Japanese that they had a whole Arsenal of them.
Also more soliders would have been killed and in a way it helped keep the cold war from heating by the deteriants of the Bombs

if 200,000 people die i don't really think it matters if 1 bomb or 6 months of bombing and combat do it--its a waste

A waste of human life? It's just part of World War II.

Originally posted by bioartist
It was clear before the bombs were dropped that Japan would surrender if they could keep their emperor. U.S. was so hell bent on getting unconditional surrender that we couldn't accept that, even though we ended up letting them keep the emperor anyway.

I've wondered about that too. I think we had other motives for dropping the bombs--the main one was probably to warn Stalin of what we had in our arsenal, should he get too frisky. But we could have done that VERY differently.

Japan was "out of gas" (quite literally!) offensively--we had sunk almost all of their fleet, and even what was left the last part of the war was pretty much ineffective (remember "the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot"? The carrier pilots left over weren't of nearly the same caliber as the ones who started off in the war and died). Even the kamikazes were ineffective. We had, by the time of Hiroshima, successfully contained the Japanese. We could have blockaded them, and let them starve (as they were already starting to do) unless they accepted surrender. Would they have? Who knows.

Or we could have accepted the surrender they offered on condition they keep their emperor (I've heard of this too, bioartist, but do you have a source documenting this, so we can know for sure?), since we let them do that anyway. That would also have solved the problem of Stalin declaring war on Japan in the 11th hour and taking, perhaps, Hokkaido.

It's a hard question, surely. But I don't think it's so cut-and-dry as to say "it saved lives". I think that is something we like to tell ourselves, and have faith in, though. Interestingly enough, Eisenhower (who wasn't in that theatre, granted, but nonetheless was a quite knowledgeable military mind) has been quoted as saying he didn't feel the action was necessary.

I've been to the museum in Hiroshima, and the memorials in both cities. Both were quite moving, and made this question a bit harder to dismiss, than it may have been for me before.

allan2 brings up a good aspect to the situation: US and Soviet relations at the time could have played a part in the decision. We were basically in the beginning of the Cold War at that point.

Or we could have accepted the surrender they offered on condition they keep their emperor (I've heard of this too, bioartist, but do you have a source documenting this, so we can know for sure?), since we let them do that anyway. That would also have solved the problem of Stalin declaring war on Japan in the 11th hour and taking, perhaps, Hokkaido.


I learned of this through my history class and there was even a Document Based Question on it....I know there was a document that stated this, but I con't remember what it was and I don't think I kept it. There was also a video we saw that showed evidence of this as well.

No, they certainly did, like I said, not only did we want to show our muscle to the USSR, but also, we didn't want a divided Japan, like Korea.

EDIT: response to Zorven.

Originally posted by Johann MacLeod
i am undecided on the first one, the second one was totally unnesisary though.

I have argued this endlessly on this forum; the proof of the fact that it was the second bomb and not the first that was decisive in curbing the militarist's authority in cabinet is documented clearly by Japanese sources. It is because of this fact and others that I support the decision to drop both and "understand it." I'm not sure I would drop it myself, but given the circumstances of the time, I wholly understand the reasoning for doing it that they had when they did.

Frankly, it is an offensive disgrace to the lives of Pacific servicement, prisoners and civilians that people don't bother to check the facts on this before making sweeping judgements.

Bioartist, your class is full of **** propaganda. The part they always leave out is the OTHER documents then in Allied hands that confirmed that the peace feelers in question didn't simply want to keep the emporer, but also wanted to bargain for conquered territory.

Odd how no one has posted a thread mourning the millions of victims of Japanese aggression starving, rotting or dying in the hands of still active Japanese armies at the time the bombs were dropped. But then, most of them were asian, so no one seems to care as much about them as they do about occupied Europeans.

R.III

Originally posted by bioartist


I learned of this through my history class and there was even a Document Based Question on it....I know there was a document that stated this, but I con't remember what it was and I don't think I kept it. There was also a video we saw that showed evidence of this as well.

I had the same DBQ, and the conclusion we came to was that the bombs were a political measure against the USSR and a military one. It was necessary to use the bomb, and as I stated already is saved many more than it killed.

I don't know if Richard III read any of my previous posts, but he mentioned the cabinet and the militarists. That was the same point I was bringing about in my earlier post. Even after 2 bombs, they were nearly ready to continue the fight.

Originally posted by allan2
Japan was "out of gas" (quite literally!) offensively--we had sunk almost all of their fleet, and even what was left the last part of the war was pretty much ineffective (remember "the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot"? The carrier pilots left over weren't of nearly the same caliber as the ones who started off in the war and died). Even the kamikazes were ineffective. We had, by the time of Hiroshima, successfully contained the Japanese. We could have blockaded them, and let them starve (as they were already starting to do) unless they accepted surrender. Would they have? Who knows.


Allan: this is a reasonable argument, if it were true. Remember:

1. The Japanese still occupied the Dutch East Indies, Malaysia, Indochina, roughly half of China and all of Manchuria at the time of the bombing, and other bypassed islands. Letting the Japanese starve also meant letting the civilians, internees and POWs in these occupied territories starve as well. Everyone seems to have this delusion that the Japanese war was entirely fought over pretty islands without civilians in the way.

2. The Kamakazes were not decisive, but they weren't ineffective either. The US navy had serious concerns about widespread psychological breakdown on its ships, given the constant stress that the attacks created, and the attacks themselves actually did considerable damage. Close inshore to Japan, it would have been far worse, in part because the Japanese had correctly guessed where the invasion beaches were, and doctrines had changed to target vulnerable smaller ships and troopships instead of the better-defended carriers and BBs.

3. Documented: (happy to give a source, but it's at home) Japanese arms production in several key sectors was holding its own in the summer of 1945, since the Japanese had innovated forms of "distributed production." This is, in fact, why the Americans started bombing cities with incendiaries: because they were targeting specific and known concentrations of "cottage factories" for aircraft, heavy weapons, key chemicals and so on that had been distributed into various neighborhoods.

4. All allied evidence available suggested that the Japanese would not simply fold up and surrender anywhere. Only in Burma were "large numbers" (e.g. 5%+) of prisoners taken when Japanese formations cracked; everywhere else, they fought to the death. Given that MAGIC intercepts showed the military was willing to fight to the end - some even proposed taking custody of the emporer if need be to do so - and given Okinawa was the best predictor of combat behavior in an all-or-nothing situation, one can't help but have some sympthy for those predicting a bloodbath.

Why is everything America does or did in the past such a source of contention? We were fighting a war and shaping the future. We have no idea what the men who made these decisions went through. We should be thankful of how things turned out, and leave it at that.

True it was a political measure against the USSR, but it seems there could've been a better way to keep them at bay.

The statistic that "it saved more lives than it killed" is completely made up though.

Originally posted by bioartist
True it was a political measure against the USSR, but it seems there could've been a better way to keep them at bay.

The statistic that "it saved more lives than it killed" is completely made up though.

Since you're so confident of both, I'd be interested to hear why.

You'll have to work hard on the "political measure against the USSR" part. It's easy in hindsight to see cold war conspiracies, but keep in mind that shortly after the foundation of the UN, the United States offered to turn control of all atomic weapons, research and so on over to a UN agency if all other member states agreed to do the same. Hardly a sign that Truman was obsessed with demonstrating a decisive advantage.

R.III

I would have done it. As President, I cannot just let an estimated 1 million American soldiers die when I can try to force an end to the war by other means. It actually wound up saving lives...both American and Japanese. The Japanese were going to sacrifice millions, upwards of 20 million and more, to fight us off. They had schoolgirls and boys ages 5, 6, 7 with sharpened bamboo sticks ready to fight. It would have been a bloodbath!

Besides, we killed more people when we were firebombing Tokyo.



An interesting editorial...written by Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times

Blood on Our Hands?
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF


omorrow will mark the anniversary of one of the most morally contentious events of the 20th century, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. And after 58 years, there's an emerging consensus: we Americans have blood on our hands.

There has been a chorus here and abroad that the U.S. has little moral standing on the issue of weapons of mass destruction because we were the first to use the atomic bomb. As Nelson Mandela said of Americans in a speech on Jan. 31, "Because they decided to kill innocent people in Japan, who are still suffering from that, who are they now to pretend that they are the policeman of the world?"

The traditional American position, that our intention in dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and then Nagasaki was to end the war early and save lives, has been poked full of holes. Revisionist historians like Gar Alperovitz argue persuasively that Washington believed the bombing militarily unnecessary (except to establish American primacy in the postwar order) because, as the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey put it in 1946, "in all probability" Japan would have surrendered even without the atomic bombs.

Yet this emerging consensus is, I think, profoundly mistaken.

While American scholarship has undercut the U.S. moral position, Japanese historical research has bolstered it. The Japanese scholarship, by historians like Sadao Asada of Doshisha University in Kyoto, notes that Japanese wartime leaders who favored surrender saw their salvation in the atomic bombing. The Japanese military was steadfastly refusing to give up, so the peace faction seized upon the bombing as a new argument to force surrender.

"We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war," Koichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest aides, said later.

Wartime records and memoirs show that the emperor and some of his aides wanted to end the war by summer 1945. But they were vacillating and couldn't prevail over a military that was determined to keep going even if that meant, as a navy official urged at one meeting, "sacrificing 20 million Japanese lives."

The atomic bombings broke this political stalemate and were thus described by Mitsumasa Yonai, the navy minister at the time, as a "gift from heaven."

Without the atomic bombings, Japan would have continued fighting by inertia. This would have meant more firebombing of Japanese cities and a ground invasion, planned for November 1945, of the main Japanese islands. The fighting over the small, sparsely populated islands of Okinawa had killed 14,000 Americans and 200,000 Japanese, and in the main islands the toll would have run into the millions.

"The atomic bomb was a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war," Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief cabinet secretary in 1945, said later.

Some argue that the U.S. could have demonstrated the bomb on an uninhabited island, or could have encouraged surrender by promising that Japan could keep its emperor. Yes, perhaps, and we should have tried. We could also have waited longer before dropping the second bomb, on Nagasaki.

But, sadly, the record suggests that restraint would not have worked. The Japanese military ferociously resisted surrender even after two atomic bombings on major cities, even after Soviet entry into the war, even when it expected another atomic bomb — on Tokyo.

One of the great tales of World War II concerns an American fighter pilot named Marcus McDilda who was shot down on Aug. 8 and brutally interrogated about the atomic bombs. He knew nothing, but under torture he "confessed" that the U.S. had 100 more nuclear weapons and planned to destroy Tokyo "in the next few days." The war minister informed the cabinet of this grim news — but still adamantly opposed surrender. In the aftermath of the atomic bombing, the emperor and peace faction finally insisted on surrender and were able to prevail.

It feels unseemly to defend the vaporizing of two cities, events that are regarded in some quarters as among the most monstrous acts of the 20th century. But we owe it to history to appreciate that the greatest tragedy of Hiroshima was not that so many people were incinerated in an instant, but that in a complex and brutal world, the alternatives were worse.

@bioartist - That i seriously doubt. The Japaneese would have fought well and hard for their islands, and a blockade would have starved millions. There was no easy solution, but nuking the two cities ended the war in the "easiest" possible way at the time.

Originally posted by bioartist
True it was a political measure against the USSR, but it seems there could've been a better way to keep them at bay.

The statistic that "it saved more lives than it killed" is completely made up though.

No, did you read what I wrote before? The Japs were infamous for fighting to the last man, or committing suicide instead of surrendering. Please note that 'jap/japs/ is an offensive demeaning term to the Japanese. Please take the effort to types the whole word out
An invasion of Japan and the subsequent occupation would have killed many many Americans lives, as well as Japanese civilians and soldiers. Think of the Battle of Berlin and the destruction that caused. Hitler had boys and the elderly with pistols and knives attacking well armed Soviets in the streets. They were killed because "the fuhrer" forced them into the army to defend him.

The enire country of Japan would have been like this, not just one city. Everyone would've been armed to the teeth, and many civilians would've been killed (either by accident, or because they were 'civilians gone soldiers for a week').

If Russia had been given the time to invade, then Japan would be split like Korea. Korea had a war 6 years after WWII, which involved the deaths of millions. Who's to say a divided Japan wouldn't see the same consequences? In fact, it seems very likely that that same event could occur there as well.

EDIT:
Another thing: Why don't people point out the fact that the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo both killed more people than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Those were conventional means, but they were even more destructive.

Originally posted by bioartist
The statistic that "it saved more lives than it killed" is completely made up though.

We'll never know how many people would have died in the invasion, so the most you could say is that "it probably saved more lives than it killed." I certainly believe it did. But as you pointed out, it's inappropriate to state this as a fact.

I think the "USSR warning" is more a product of post-war revisionism then 1945 reasoning. The Soviets were a factor (with the war against Hitler only two months over the "alliance" was already falling apart), but the over riding concern in Washington was ending the war with a minimum of American blood. Looking back on it in the Cold War world, with WW2 long over and the superpower rivalry in full gear, it's easier to see this motive.

EDIT:
Another thing: Why don't people point out the fact that the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo both killed more people than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Those were conventional means, but they were even more destructive.

I just did! ;)

I didn't mention Dresden since I was strictly talking about Japan...but we leveled Dresden.

Originally posted by The Yankee


I just did! ;)

I didn't mention Dresden since I was strictly talking about Japan...but we leveled Dresden.

I know, but that sparked my interest. Didn't we do a lot of leveling to Hamburg as well?

It would've been a nasty fight all the way to the gates of Tokyo. So, yes.

I think those who have made atrocities in their life go to the deepest hell.
those who decided to drop the bomb are there.

A lot of very good arguments. I would like to add that some Japanese Military commanders actually did stage a last minute coup. They arrested the Emperor. A night prior the Emperor had recorded a speech announcing that Japan would surrender, unconditionally, to the United States. The leadership of the coup desperately tried to find this recording and destroy it, but were stopped and arrested by other Japanese military officers before they were successful. The speech was broadcast on the radio and the rest is history.

As for those who ask why I have not pointed out wrongdoing by Japanese forces, the problem is that very little specifics are known about these events and they lack a defining moment to pinpoint a single date. As well, the media and history books do not contain a lot of this information. The best I could do is mention the rape of Nanking, but that is not what I wanted to hear about so I did not.

Originally posted by Benderino

Didn't we do a lot of leveling to Hamburg as well?
we leveled just about anything that looked like two sticks put together

Originally posted by John-LP
A lot of very good arguments. I would like to add that some Japanese Military commanders actually did stage a last minute coup. They arrested the Emperor. A night prior the Emperor had recorded a speech announcing that Japan would surrender, unconditionally, to the United States. The leadership of the coup desperately tried to find this recording and destroy it, but were stopped and arrested by other Japanese military officers before they were successful. The speech was broadcast on the radio and the rest is history.


Yeah, I mentioned that. Its quite an exciting story, and you told it better.

The bombs ended the reign of the perpetrators of some of the most despicable atrocities in history. Do you consider that?

kinda sad that the people who started the war and comitted many crimes- nanking, baatan,ect got the nerve to complain

I voted 'yes' - it is sad that it was necessary, but all the evidence from the historical record indicates that only the dropping of the bombs gave the 'peace party' in Tokyo enough strength to force Japan's surrender.

I must say i am quite surprised how the poll is turning out. I figured there would be alot less Yes, and more Undecided...

While i am glad that most people here are likeminded, it makes for a slow debate as pretty much all were doing is agreeing, and some are presenting evidence to why we agree. :lol:

KNAS, can I just say that I think your avatar is the best I have ever seen? I saw the full picture in the Babe Thread. :goodjob:

Isn't it interesting how the Japanese (specifically, the scholars) accept the bombings more than Americans do right now?

Many view it as a thing that saved Japan from much more destruction.

i agree you have nice duel air bags:D

Smart Japs, that's all I can say. They are right, of course.
Please note that 'jap/japs/ is an offensive demeaning term to the Japanese. Please take the effort to types the whole word out

EDIT: in response to The Yankee.

For those who votes yes, who would drop an possible 3rd when necicary, or a 4th, or a 5th (etc)...?

Originally posted by Cecasander
For those who votes yes, who would drop an possible 3rd when necicary, or a 4th, or a 5th (etc)...?
well if 2 wouldn't made them surrender then obviously they would of fought to the last man-so drop 3&4, better dead japanese than dead americans

Originally posted by Cecasander
For those who votes yes, who would drop an possible 3rd when necicary, or a 4th, or a 5th (etc)...?

What do you mean? Do you mean in terms of the Japanese at the end of WWII? If it would've taken 3 bombs, then yes, I'm for it as well. 4, probably, that's still 800,000 lives, but I still think more would be lost without it. 5, again, i still think way more than a million lives would've been lost, so 5 would be necessary as well.

I heard that there were only 2 bombs to be dropped, though.

Well, certainly the threat of a bomb going off in Tokyo scared the hell out of the Emperor and made the surrender call....but I'd wait for a little while (at least until we got a 3rd bomb, I think we were all out by then)...but just to see whether they would fight or surrender. If they wanted to fight...then there's no choice. Surely more people would have swayed to the peace side if another bomb or two were dropped....tough call, though.

good point thestonesfan i support the action that was taken because of the lives that were saved by dropping it. I thought the 2nd bomb had to be dropped as the Japanese still weren't prepared to surrender and dropping a 2nd so soon after convinced the Japs that the Yanks had a stockpile of these weapons.
Please note that 'jap/japs/ is an offensive demeaning term to the Japanese. Please take the effort to types the whole word out

Originally posted by Benderino


What do you mean? Do you mean in terms of the Japanese at the end of WWII? If it would've taken 3 bombs, then yes, I'm for it as well. 4, probably, that's still 800,000 lives, but I still think more would be lost without it. 5, again, i still think way more than a million lives would've been lost, so 5 would be necessary as well.

I heard that there were only 2 bombs to be dropped, though.

They weren't sure. If the Japanese weren't weak, perhaps they would let another bomb fall, and another and another, without making a difference. Most of the Japanese general staff was dead before august '45, mind you.

But you would rather kill 800.000 civilians with atomic bombs than a million soldiers in combat??

Originally posted by Cecasander


They weren't sure. If the Japanese weren't weak, perhaps they would let another bomb fall, and another and another, without making a difference. Most of the Japanese general staff was dead before august '45, mind you.

But you would rather kill 800.000 civilians with atomic bombs than a million soldiers in combat??

JESUS!!!
:mad:
That's the last straw!
I'm sorry this is directed at you. It is not your fault.
There are too many people who come on without having read any of the posts previously. I have repeated 2-3 times now that there would be more than just soldiers being killed. Check back on some of my earlier posts please, I don't want to explain it again.

Please, can you do that. That way you'd understand what I'm talking about. Thanks. :)

Far more civilians would have died in combat then by the 4-5 nukes. Look at Tokyo, Dresden, and Osaka and all the cities that were thoroughly bombed to smitherens by conventional weapons. Do you think that the Japanese would fight the americans out in the field, in a pithced battle? No, they would fight in the cities and villages, doing everything in their might to stop the US soldiers.

Originally posted by .:KNAS:.
Far more civilians would have died in combat then by the 4-5 nukes. Look at Tokyo, Dresden, and Osaka and all the cities that were thoroughly bombed to smitherens by conventional weapons. Do you think that the Japanese would fight the americans out in the field, in a pithced battle? No, they would fight in the cities and villages, doing everything in their might to stop the US soldiers.

Thanks for covering that one. :)

Hey, us sexist pigs have to stick together... :D

Originally posted by Cecasander

They weren't sure. If the Japanese weren't weak, perhaps they would let another bomb fall, and another and another, without making a difference. Most of the Japanese general staff was dead before August '45, mind you.

But you would rather kill 800.000 civilians with atomic bombs than a million soldiers in combat?? more than 1 million soliders would have dies, since both America and the Soviet Union were going to invade. plus, Japan mobilized their whole country. children as young as five years old were given rifles. plus, most pople would have done whatever the Emporer said.

Originally posted by .:KNAS:.
Hey, us sexist pigs have to stick together... :D

Damn straight.

I have a very OT joke for you, so I'd better PM it.

How do you know?
Who said the peasants just didn't surrender when they saw a big American army and the Huge and kind of resurected Red Army march onto Tokyo? Its not really the fact that 250.000 people died, its the way it happened, with the most terrifieing thing created by mankind, and compared to modern models not more than a fire cracker.

Originally posted by Cecasander
How do you know?
Who said the peasants just didn't surrender when they saw a big American army and the Huge and kind of resurected Red Army march onto Tokyo? Its not really the fact that 250.000 people died, its the way it happened, with the most terrifieing thing created by mankind, and compared to modern models not more than a fire cracker.

When did the Japs ever do that?!! Please note that 'jap/japs/ is an offensive demeaning term to the Japanese. Please take the effort to types the whole word out

They fought to the death. One time on an island, everyone stationed their jumped to their deaths instead of surrender to the Americans. What makes you think they would lay down their arms now, when they would choose suicide over capture?

And 250,000 people were killed when Dresden was bombed by conventional means. Same with Tokyo, what's your point?

:( Dark times in history. You can't say that this was a good thing, you can only say it was the less of two evils. I always cringe at the thought of such atrocities against civilians, even if it saved countless more.

Originally posted by Ohwell
:( Dark times in history. You can't say that this was a good thing, you can only say it was the less of two evils. I always cringe at the thought of such atrocities against civilians, even if it saved countless more.

Meh, better than the alternative. It was certainly a necessary "evil".

good point Benderino, it was like supporting the dictators the Yanks did during the cold war- the lesser of the two evils or a necessary evil. No one likes it but it has to be done- like the washing up!

Originally posted by pawpaw
kinda sad that the people who started the war and comitted many crimes- nanking, baatan,ect got the nerve to complain

Which people are you talking about exactly?

Originally posted by Ian Beale
good point Benderino, it was like supporting the dictators the Yanks did during the cold war- the lesser of the two evils or a necessary evil. No one likes it but it has to be done- like the washing up!

NONSENSE. No alternatives were ever tried, and no serious attempt was ever made to get these dicators to lighten up and stop torturing their people. Instead, those dictators' goons were trained at the infamous School of the Americas to better and more painfully extract information out of people. It's nowhere in the same league.
It didn't have to be done, and what it amounted to was to usurp the right of people to elect their own governments because Uncle Sam (and, to be fair, most Western governments) knew what was better for them, never mind if tens of thousands of people got killed in the process.

I would have dropped it on Hiroshima, but I would have waited alot longer on Nagasaki.

I mean...3 days later? :eek:

Originally posted by jack merchant
NONSENSE. No alternatives were ever tried, and no serious attempt was ever made to get these dicators to lighten up and stop torturing their people. Instead, those dictators' goons were trained at the infamous School of the Americas ... ...knew what was better for them, never mind if tens of thousands of people got killed in the process.

For the record, I don't think making an analogy between Cold War decisions to subvert governments or to support authoritarian regimes and the decision to use the atomic bomb is morally fair. It's what's different about those situations that makes me support this particular decision when I wouldn't normally.

In the case of Japan, a good third of the globe was still engaged in combat with the Japanese across a wide front, with millions of troops, sailors and civilians at daily risk for their lives on every single day that the war continued - and, as it proved, for months after, owing to starvation, bad logistics, continued resistance, political dislocation and so on.

Compare that to, let's say, Chile? A terrible decision, let's not get into the details - but even if you think Allende was a monster, he was only a potential monster. Japan was a clear and present monster that was still hoping to hold onto wartime gains, still holding POWs hostage, still butchering civilians for entertainment. People often forget that in August, 1945, history's bloodiest war was still only half-over.

Cgannon, intel knew the japanese position was "no" when #2 was dropped. Why wait?

Moved to History... What-if type of history question...

On-topic, of course I would have. I am Chinese. ;)

Originally posted by Ian Beale
good point Benderino, it was like supporting the dictators the Yanks


Originally posted by Benderino
When did the Japs ever do that?!! Please note that 'jap/japs/ is an offensive demeaning term to the Japanese. Please take the effort to types the whole word out


How come we have to call the Japanese by their full proper name, but you allow this BRIT to call us Yanks instead of Americans? And how come it is not offensive to shorten "Britons" to "Brits", but it is to shorten "Japanese" to "Japs"? How come it's not offensive to shorten "Australians" to "Aussies"? How are the Japenese so special? I just think they know it pisses people off to have to be so damned PC about it, like calling blacks, "African Americans", etc. NO PC FOR ME!

and i dont mean personal computers!

Originally posted by John-LP





How come we have to call the Japanese by their full proper name, but you allow this BRIT to call us Yanks instead of Americans? And how come it is not offensive to shorten "Britons" to "Brits", but it is to shorten "Japanese" to "Japs"? How come it's not offensive to shorten "Australians" to "Aussies"? How are the Japenese so special? I just think they know it pisses people off to have to be so damned PC about it, like calling blacks, "African Americans", etc. NO PC FOR ME!

and i dont mean personal computers!


If you feel the need to question moderator rulings, do so in private or in site feedback. Consider this a warning.

correction, you may not publicly post it anywhere on this site, inlcuding site feedback, Lefty

... just like what has been done to the jews, like all of the levelling of every single german city etc, the dropping of the bombs was a war crime and a crime against humanity.
Or the "up-to-date-term" : an act of terrorism.

Mass-killig innocent people can never, i repeat: never be justified
to achieve any political goal whatsoever.

Arguing that it might have saved more lives than it cost is pure speculation and opens he door to any mass-kiling in the future if considered "necessary".

Why not nuke every singel muslim country into oblivion ?
Possibly saves more lives in the long term than it costs...

Anyway.
What hapened happened and cannot be changed.
But at least one can demand that such actions should be remembered just as what they are:

Neither heroic decisions nor effective military strategies but a shame and disgrace to human kind.

It was utterly justified and necessary for the many reasons discussed here, and in the myriad previous threads on the matter. It was a good and proper thing to do, especially given the tens of thousands of Allied POWs still in Japanese hands.

I initially voted "unsure" in the poll. Mainly because I find it
hard to sit here several years later judging what would be right
or wrong then.

After reading the posts, my opinion is leaning towards "yes", though.
Many strong arguements have been presented, and IMHO it was clearly
a choise between two evils, and dropping the bombs may have been
the lesser one. We'll never know, though, but it is most likely.

Anyway, I find it weird that nobody has blamed Germany and Japan to
be at least partially responsible for the havoc that was put upon their
cities at the end of the war. For Japan had known for a long time that
there was no way that this war could be won. Normally a country would
capitulate when this fact is known. Germany also was clearly loosing
the war a long time before the final horrible battles of Berlin. This
'fighting until the last man has fallen' tactic is IMHO immoral and
insane.

Has anybody heard of U-234 (a german submarine), BTW? It was under its
way to Japan with a large quantity of uranium, scientists and a "recipe"
for making an atomic bomb. When Germany surrendered, though, all submarines
were ordered to surface and surrender, and so did U-234. It was captured
by the americans, and the uranium on board the sub was ironically
used for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. What if it had made it to
Japan in May 1945?

I watched People Century on the Discovery Channel last night, and it started with the atomic bombings of Japan. One of the scientists that worked on the project said that every week 25.000 Chinese people were killed. And thats only in China.

Originally posted by Richard III

For the record, I don't think making an analogy between Cold War decisions to subvert governments or to support authoritarian regimes and the decision to use the atomic bomb is morally fair. It's what's different about those situations that makes me support this particular decision when I wouldn't normally.

I'm afraid I didn't make my position clear enough there, because we really agree on this issue :) As I said, the use of the bomb and the support of authoritarian governments aren't in the same league. I support the first, not the second.
Hence, my post was directed at Ian Beale, not at you :).

While I agree the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was neccisary (without a direct word of surrender from the Emporer most of the Civilians, women and children, would have gladly fought invading Americans) even with them the surrender wasn't garenteed.

Recently I watched a History Channel program on "The Last Mission" about the last Bombing mission of World War II on Augest 14th(?) ,the night before the Emporer's Radio Broadcast. Even though the US government had word that the Emporer intended to surrender they were waiting on the Radio Transmission from the Emporer confirming surrender, cause even the US government knew that that was essentially the only way for the Japanese people to accept surrender, if they heard it from their own Emporer. The "Last Mission" it refered to was just a mission to Bomb the last remaining Oil refinery in Japan, not very important seeming with rumors of peace on the horizen. But that mission was more important then any of the disappointed crews flying that mission even realized.

While that Mission was flying to and over the Japanese Capital, Hard line Military forces took over the Emporer's Palace attempting to prevent the recorded message of surrender from being broadcast. The Bombing Mission was important because it resulted in a Black Out of the Capital (Tokyo or Kyoto, not sure which), not due to Bombs but to prevent the Pilots from getting a good fix on their targets. For a little bit this disorganized the Military overthrow, but when they reorganized they began searching for the Records which had the surrender message recorded on it. Since there was a blackout they could only use Flashlights through the night to search for the records making it very difficult to find them. They never did find the Records and in the morning went to the Radio Station asking the man there to transmit their own Message to the Japanese people to never surrender. However, the Blackout was still active and so the man in charge of the Radio Station, knowing what they were up to, told them that he could not transmit anything until the blackout had been lifted, while in truth he could have transmitted the message then.

Later that morning the Coup was forced to surrender when a much stronger garrison near the Capital was invited to join the Coup but replied that they would be coming to retake the Palace and put the Emporer back in control. Later that Day once the Coup was put down the Emporer's Message was transmitted and Japan was finally garenteed to surrender.

Originally posted by jack merchant


NONSENSE. No alternatives were ever tried, and no serious attempt was ever made to get these dicators to lighten up and stop torturing their people. Instead, those dictators' goons were trained at the infamous School of the Americas to better and more painfully extract information out of people. It's nowhere in the same league.
It didn't have to be done, and what it amounted to was to usurp the right of people to elect their own governments because Uncle Sam (and, to be fair, most Western governments) knew what was better for them, never mind if tens of thousands of people got killed in the process.

What alternatives could have been tried? I'm sorry but i feel supporting some of those ghastly dictators was necessary as Communism was beginning to take over the world by forcing their ideas onto others. The Yanks (apologies if this offends anyone- i don't mind being called a Brit!) were compelled to support thugs who had support to rule. During the cold war democracy wasn't always possible to introduce so we had to support undesirable dictators. I regret having to do this yet don't see the alternatives available? I was simply stating that dropping the atomic bombs was necessary- as was supporting the brutal dictators. Now we are living in a different world it is time to replace these people as liberty is a right of everyone.

I can understand the Yanks dropped the first bomb.
But why on earth they drobbeb the second?
I believe they were just doing some kind of tests with japanese. They had 2 different bombs so they decided to test both. They just thought "Nagasagi dolls are burning".

Yanks always think they did some heroic things in WW2
This is not simbly truth. The war was solved in Stalingrad, not in Normandy.

Also if Germany had won the war, Finland would be at least 3 times larger country. Hitler had promised large parts of Russia also to Finns, becouse there were many Finnish related people living in Russia. After the ww2 they and other minorities suffered greatly, becouse of Stalins actions against them. In Hitlers Russia they gould have been living in better conditions.

So, the WW2 made world better for someone, and worse for someone. IT WAS NOT GOOD AGAINST BAD BATTLE. Germans had suffered great humiliation in the aftermath of WW1, and they were sentenced to pay huge compensations. They were also declared as starters of the war, allthough that was not the case.
So they justifically wanted revence.

So in many ways "Allies" made Hitler and Mussolini possible, by humiliating Italy and Germany after WW1.

Originally posted by Inhalaattori
Also if Germany had won the war, Finland would be at least 3 times larger country. Hitler had promised large parts of Russia also to Finns, becouse there were many Finnish related people living in Russia. After the ww2 they and other minorities suffered greatly, becouse of Stalins actions against them. In Hitlers Russia they gould have been living in better conditions.

He also gave half of Poland to Russia, and look where that got Russia.... a Costly War. Somehow I doubt Hitler wouldn't have backstabbed the Finns as well.

Hitler also promised not to attack Russia, and look what happend...

I do agree that Germany was punished to hard after WW1. But it was the French that wanted them to be punished so severe, not the Americans.

However, the rest of your post is bull****, in its purest form.
First of all, that does not justify killing 11 million people in concentration camps. Second, what do you think would have happend when Germany needed more lebensraum? Do you think Finland would be safe from invasion in any way? Lets face it, no one would have had it better under Hitler. Unless ocfourse, you would happen to be a nazi.

Also if Germany had won the war, Finland would be at least 3 times larger country. Hitler had promised large parts of Russia also to Finns, becouse there were many Finnish related people living in Russia. After the ww2 they and other minorities suffered greatly, becouse of Stalins actions against them. In Hitlers Russia they gould have been living in better conditions.

Hitler's promises count for nothing. He had no additional territorial demands in Europe- what happened? He signed a non-aggresion pact with the USSR- what happened? If you believe anything Hitler said i am absolutely amazed!

Finland sacrified 80 000 men in ww2 against russians, you think that Hitler couldnt value that kind of sacrifice.
He promised that Leningrad/ St. Petersburgh would be ravaged and all russians would be made slaves.
Hitler never deceived his allies. He was a man of honour, at least in some ways.

And nazis didnt kill 11 million people in concentration camps, Stalin mayde did that. After all, Stalin was maybe worse dictator than Hitler. (At least, if we look statistics)

And I am not a nazi, thank you. Hitler was a lunatis, thats for sure. Im just saying that history ALWAYS judges loosers, becouse winners write the history. You should not look things so black/white.

Originally posted by Ian Beale


What alternatives could have been tried? I'm sorry but i feel supporting some of those ghastly dictators was necessary as Communism was beginning to take over the world by forcing their ideas onto others. The Yanks (apologies if this offends anyone- i don't mind being called a Brit!) were compelled to support thugs who had support to rule.

In fact, one of the reasons that communism won so much support in many countries was that the West had no qualms about propping up dictators who were equally bad. Do you really think that those who were murdered or tortured by Pinochet's DINA (to name but one example) were thinking, hey, at least we aren't getting tortured by the Reds ? It's cancer for the cure.
In fact, since so many of these regimes survived on Western support alone, one would think that we might have had at least some leverage over these regimes.

Originally posted by Ian Beale
Now we are living in a different world it is time to replace these people as liberty is a right of everyone.

Oh, they can be free now that we don't need them to be oppressed anymore. It's revolting.

Originally posted by eyrei



If you feel the need to question moderator rulings, do so in private or in site feedback. Consider this a warning.

I am not questioning the ruling. I am questioning why there is no ruling among other similar statements. Also, I would like to add that this comment was addressed to everyone, not specifically at you or any other moderator. I wanted to raise questions in the minds of others.

Originally posted by John-LP

I am questioning why there is no ruling among other similar statements.

because " japs " was a term used in WWII as a put down/slang, therefor it is offensive to most japanese , while brit or yank are terms we use about ourselves sometimes--kinda like the "n" word, if it was used to put you down or insult, they are going to find it offensive

Hindsight is 20/20.

Yes I would have done it.

got to remember, WE know what an a-bomb will do, did they even in their worst nightmares think it could do that much--i doudt it

Inhalaattori, Better learn a few facts instead of revisionist propaganda, and change your opinion. Or you're going burn in hell, kid.

Originally posted by Inhalaattori
Finland sacrified 80 000 men in ww2 against russians, you think that Hitler couldnt value that kind of sacrifice.
He promised that Leningrad/ St. Petersburgh would be ravaged and all russians would be made slaves.
Hitler never deceived his allies. He was a man of honour, at least in some ways.

And nazis didnt kill 11 million people in concentration camps, Stalin mayde did that. After all, Stalin was maybe worse dictator than Hitler. (At least, if we look statistics)

And I am not a nazi, thank you. Hitler was a lunatis, thats for sure. Im just saying that history ALWAYS judges loosers, becouse winners write the history. You should not look things so black/white.

Does anyone believe this?!

He's practically denying the Holocaust and acting as if he was proud to be on the Nazi side. How can he go from bashing us and saying the Soviets won the war, and then say how much he hates the Soviets?

And you're right, 11 million didn't die. It was 13 million.

Look, the second world war happened because he started it. 50 million.

Originally posted by Richard III
Look, the second world war happened because he started it. 50 million.

You're right, of course. However, I was referring to the number of deaths in concentration camps--13 million.

Originally posted by Inhalaattori
Finland sacrified 80 000 men in ww2 against russians, you think that Hitler couldnt value that kind of sacrifice.
He promised that Leningrad/ St. Petersburgh would be ravaged and all russians would be made slaves.
Hitler never deceived his allies. He was a man of honour, at least in some ways.

And nazis didnt kill 11 million people in concentration camps, Stalin mayde did that. After all, Stalin was maybe worse dictator than Hitler. (At least, if we look statistics)

And I am not a nazi, thank you. Hitler was a lunatis, thats for sure. Im just saying that history ALWAYS judges loosers, becouse winners write the history. You should not look things so black/white.

What about Japan? He explained his policy which was basically there useful at the moment. What he then said was that there would be a showdown with the yellow race one day! Hitler's main concern was Germany and i disagree he didn't always treat his allies well! He showed no respect for the Germans in the Reich saying they had proved themselves to be unworthy of him! When asked what should be done with the German nation after the war he said that everything in the country should be destroyed- nothing should be left to the enemy. Speer said that this could be damaging for the countries recovery. Hitler couldn't care less abut those remaining and said "The good have already gone". He couldn't care about his own people so why should he care about their allies?

Originally posted by jack merchant


In fact, one of the reasons that communism won so much support in many countries was that the West had no qualms about propping up dictators who were equally bad. Do you really think that those who were murdered or tortured by Pinochet's DINA (to name but one example) were thinking, hey, at least we aren't getting tortured by the Reds ? It's cancer for the cure.
In fact, since so many of these regimes survived on Western support alone, one would think that we might have had at least some leverage over these regimes.



Oh, they can be free now that we don't need them to be oppressed anymore. It's revolting.

The point is now they can have freedom. It is horrible but the US and the freedom loving nations at the time were in an invidious position. Now these people can be liberated from terror without the fear that Communism shall takeover. It is a different world and it must have been very hard for the US at the time to make those decisions. What was the alternative? It is now we should act to free those people however, i agree it would be better that they hadn't needed liberating to start with.

I still disagree, but won't continue the threadjack any further. I may contribute more if another thread is started on the topic.

To get us back on subject... Hiroshima was not the first target. The orders went out to the pilot of the B-29 Superfortress: ...TO DELIVER THE FIRST SPECIAL BOMB AS SOON AS WEATHER WILL PERMIT VISUAL BOMBING AFTER 3 AUGUST, 1945, ON ONE OF THE TARGETS: KOKURA, NIIGATA, HIROSHIMA, NAGASAKI..."

Since take-off, they had been flying over a cloud-covered Pacific. At 0610, the clouds began to break up, replaced by a thin veil of high cirrus clouds. At 0700, the meteorologist observing in the Army weather plane over Kokura reports heavy cloud cover over the target. A report from the weather aircraft over Niigata is similar, 8/10 clouds. Finally, at 0715 comes the coded message from the weather observer in the spotter plane over Hiroshima: 2/10 CLOUD COVER AT LOWER ALTITUDE, AND 2/10 AT 15,000 FEET.

"We've got a target," announces Colonel Paul Tibbets to the crew of the Enola Gay . "Hiroshima."

Originally posted by Quasar1011


"We've got a target," announces Colonel Paul Tibbets to the crew of the Enola Gay . "Hiroshima." [/B]

hiroshima should of been praying to the weather gods:)

Quasar, Hiroshima was already the primary target for that day, no? The pathfinder aircraft for it had already been deployed there; I wasn't aware they'd deployed to an alternate.

I would of dropped the bomb, but on to a military site. No way would I drop it on a city that is just cowardly.

Japan didnt surrender because of the Bomb, they surrendered because Truman gave up the demand for Unconditional Surrender.

I would say no because of that.

They did not give up unconditional surrender, as has been mentioned at nauseum in other threads. They surrendered unconditionally, and then after the fact and after the treaty was signing, they were ALLOWED to keeo their emperor. The language of the treaty is very specific that there were no terms but one, and it was ours, unconditional surrender.

There is a very big differance between what we simply give you and what you demand and receive at a negotiation. We only did it to make OUR lives, not Japan's, easier during the occupation. Germany recieved many concessions after the fact as well, though none so symbolic. Hirohito surrendered believing he would be deposed. I can only imagine what the "living god" thought when a mortal let him continue to be god.

-Pat

Yes, I would have dropped the bomb.

:zzz:

i votes no, but I might very well have demonstrated them in a rural or uninhabited area. Since the Plutonium design had been tested at Trinity and the Unranium design was considered totally reliable, we could have demonstrated the bomb with certainty that it weould have worked. We could also have encouraged Japan to surrender by gaurenteeing that the emporer would be left alone. This would have given a greater voice to those wishing to surrender. We could have ended the war without the bomb or an invasion but the bloodlust had grown to a fever pitch by that point.:(

Closed; no new points raised in resurrecting this thread...