Hiroshina and Nagasaki -- Speak Out
- Thread starter amadeus
- Start date
Daryl17
Chieftain
The caption on the site I found this:
This boy was born within a few months after the first nuclear test at the Semipalatinsk test area. He died right after his birth. Now he is an exhibit in the museum of the Semipalatinsk medical school.
VoodooAce
Emperor
Just like future babies from Nevada. 
You know, where they're dumping all of the nuclear waste that comes, mainly, from the, er, clean source that is nuclear power.
And thanks Knowltok. Like I said, I wasn't sure either. I am surprised that any one of the Tokyo runs caused so much death.
I knew they were destructive because of the firestorms, etc.., but 100,000 is more than I would have guessed. Wow.
Still, I think we could have 'gambled' and tried a lesser populated area to drop the first nuke. There have been a lot of good posts on why we had to drop one SOMEWHERE, which I did agree with,
As I've mentioned, I realize it needed to happen somewhere with a population to provide some kind of scale, I just didn't think a city the size of Hiroshima was necessary to prove the power.
You know, where they're dumping all of the nuclear waste that comes, mainly, from the, er, clean source that is nuclear power.
And thanks Knowltok. Like I said, I wasn't sure either. I am surprised that any one of the Tokyo runs caused so much death.
I knew they were destructive because of the firestorms, etc.., but 100,000 is more than I would have guessed. Wow.
Still, I think we could have 'gambled' and tried a lesser populated area to drop the first nuke. There have been a lot of good posts on why we had to drop one SOMEWHERE, which I did agree with,
As I've mentioned, I realize it needed to happen somewhere with a population to provide some kind of scale, I just didn't think a city the size of Hiroshima was necessary to prove the power.
Totally off topic, but from what I see, this is just a case of NIMBY. Now you can argue whether we should be using nuclear power, but considering that we are, it does have to go someplace, doesn't it?
If anyone wants to discuss this, go ahead and start a thread.
joespaniel
Unescorted Settler
Voodoo Ace -
Many American generals felt the same way as you. They wanted to drop the bomb on naval shipyards, limiting the civilian casualties, and maximizing destruction to the navy. I forgot what city, blast it.
But this would also limit Japan's ability to inderdict our invasion shipping.
One problem with this, was Japan's government controlling the media. Not many Japanese even knew they were losing the war, and had already lost all the Pacific islands they conquered!
They DID know American bombers were turning their cities into ash piles though. One firebombing of Tokyo with incinderary bombs killed over 100,000 people. Just one. The USAF conducted many, in lots of cities.
Yet there was no movement to end the war by the civilian population.
A "public display" of Americas power and resolve to completely destroy Japan (a bluff, by the way, we had only 2 bombs) was needed.
In reality, I doubt a "secret" bombing would have allowed the Emporer to make peace. The people freaked out as it was, once news of surrender came.
Sick as it sounds, we had to do it, to give the Emporer an "out". Japnese civilians needed the slap in the face, to realize it was time to throw in the towel.
Otherwise, imagine an island in the Pacific with no people on it where Japan is now. It could have happened. I dont even want to imagine the catastrophic holocaust from an invasion. I would call it biblical, except it would have been worse than anything in the bible.
I like Japan better the way it is now. Even if some dont know what really happened, or why.
BTW - Starlifters post about Invasion was based on a book that claims the casualty estimates are inflated. To justify the use of the bomb.
Knowing how fanatical the Japanese were, I think the estimates might be low.
Many American generals felt the same way as you. They wanted to drop the bomb on naval shipyards, limiting the civilian casualties, and maximizing destruction to the navy. I forgot what city, blast it.
But this would also limit Japan's ability to inderdict our invasion shipping.
One problem with this, was Japan's government controlling the media. Not many Japanese even knew they were losing the war, and had already lost all the Pacific islands they conquered!
They DID know American bombers were turning their cities into ash piles though. One firebombing of Tokyo with incinderary bombs killed over 100,000 people. Just one. The USAF conducted many, in lots of cities.
Yet there was no movement to end the war by the civilian population.
A "public display" of Americas power and resolve to completely destroy Japan (a bluff, by the way, we had only 2 bombs) was needed.
In reality, I doubt a "secret" bombing would have allowed the Emporer to make peace. The people freaked out as it was, once news of surrender came.
Sick as it sounds, we had to do it, to give the Emporer an "out". Japnese civilians needed the slap in the face, to realize it was time to throw in the towel.
Otherwise, imagine an island in the Pacific with no people on it where Japan is now. It could have happened. I dont even want to imagine the catastrophic holocaust from an invasion. I would call it biblical, except it would have been worse than anything in the bible.
I like Japan better the way it is now. Even if some dont know what really happened, or why.
BTW - Starlifters post about Invasion was based on a book that claims the casualty estimates are inflated. To justify the use of the bomb.
Knowing how fanatical the Japanese were, I think the estimates might be low.
VoodooAce
Emperor
Those are some very good points, Joespaniel. As good an argument 'for' as I've heard.
Although, I think even after two bombs the people weren't exactly demanding surrender. But I suppose they may have made surrender a little more pallatable to them.
I know there were considerations having to do with 'giving the emperor an out' as you say, that were very legitimate concerns.
I guess I HAVE to agree, its just HARD to agree that anything responsible for that kind of death and destruction was the right decision. Probably something I'll debate with my self for all of my life and I'll never come down firmly on one side or the other.
Although, I think even after two bombs the people weren't exactly demanding surrender. But I suppose they may have made surrender a little more pallatable to them.
I know there were considerations having to do with 'giving the emperor an out' as you say, that were very legitimate concerns.
I guess I HAVE to agree, its just HARD to agree that anything responsible for that kind of death and destruction was the right decision. Probably something I'll debate with my self for all of my life and I'll never come down firmly on one side or the other.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
Any Japanese posters with an opinion on this topic?
All I'm seeing is the US point of view.
PS
I think the atomic attacks on Japan were sickening and horrendous...but so was the whole of WW2.
All I'm seeing is the US point of view.
PS
I think the atomic attacks on Japan were sickening and horrendous...but so was the whole of WW2.
RedWolf
Deity
Before everyone gets all excited - I have to admit upfront that I am NOT coming out of off-topic retirement. HOWEVER I do occasionally lurk in the forum and read the threads found here. I have thus far valiantly resisted the urge to throw in my two cents - HOWEVER upon opening this thread I realised that something absolutely earth shattering had happened. The sky had fallen, pigs started flying and hell froze over. I found myself AGREEING with rmsharpe. The only thing stopping me from losing my mind (it's STILL reeling from the shock) is that HE has slipped a little to the left on this one instead of me slipping to the RIGHT. *grin*
That being said let me throw in my two cents on this momentous occasion.
The main argument used when supporting the dropping of the two bombs is that it ended the war - thereby saving 1 million allied lives. It was said that the Japanese would fight to the last woman and child if the allies invaded the country. (many historians say that the "million casualty figure" is grossly over estimated)
The problem is that Japan was already defeated. The war had been virtually won and a naval blockade was more or less crippling the Japanese war industry. Admiral William Leahy (Chief of Staff to Roosevelt and later Trumann) said "By the beginning of September [1944], Japan was almost completely defeated through a practically complete sea and air blockade." (William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 259).
To address the concept that the Japanese would NEVER surrender. The Japanese were willing to surrender but they weren't willing to accept "unconditional" surrender. The potsdam proclamation issued by the allies demanded just that - "unconditional surrender" and that the Japanese "war criminals" would be punished. To the Japanese this meant that their emperor would be removed from the throne. THIS could never happen as it would mean the end of their way of life - the end of their very BEING - remember - they considered him to be a god. The Japanese people would NEVER, COULD never accept this for it was unthinkable.
The Americans also knew this. Under-Secretary of State Joseph Grew had been an ambassador to Japan and was well versed in their culture and way of life. He told Trumann "The greatest obstacle to unconditional surrender by the Japanese is their belief that this would entail the destruction or permanent removal of the Emperor and the institution of the throne"
There are many American officials from the time that firmly believe they could have assured a Japanese surrender acceptable to the Allies if they had of reworded the surrender demands with assurances that the emperor would be allowed to stay on the throne.
General Douglas MacArthur apparently disagreed strongly with the wording of the Potsdam proclamation. He KNEW that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor.
There are strong indications that in July the Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender using the Soviets as mediators. Intercepted messages between Japan and their ambassador in Moscow prove that the Americans KNEW of these intentions. Here's an example:
July 25: "it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter." (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 2, pg. 1260 - 1261).
Ive even seen evidence that shows general Marshall (the army chief of staff) didnt actually think the atomic bombs would end the war he supported their use but instead saw them as tools used to help invasion force.
Eisenhower didnt believe that the atomic bombing was justified. He said: ...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing.
Some American officials believed that Japan should have been given a warning about the bomb in order to scare them into surrender. People in past posts stated that this wouldn't work because the Japanese were fanatical. Well you didn't have to convince the ENTIRE population to surrender - Just the Emperor. When in the end HE asked for surrender his cabinet, military AND people fell into line. THEY believed him to be a god and to defy his will was also unthinkable. It just wasn't done - it would bring dishonour.
The irony in the end of course is that when surrender came it was NOT unconditional - The emperor was allowed to STAY on his thrown. So why weren't the Japanese given assurances that this would be the case? (Evidence I've read shows that the American government was well aware of this issue). Why not throw them a bone instead of vaporising 200,000 men, women and children?
I also ask... Why TWO bombs? They dropped one... and instead of waiting to see what happens they hit them AGAIN... three days later - as if the killing of 100,000 civilians meant nothing.
Truman said hiroshama was chosen because it was a "military target" and to reduce civilian casualties. This too was untrue - the vast majority of deaths were civilian. And official documents later showed that Hiroshama was chosen for it's high concentration of civilian population.
Its easy to say that threatening them wouldnt have worked How do we KNOW? Wouldnt it have been worth TRYING instead of just killing that many innocent people all at once?
There have been a few people on here that have said something to the effect of Im glad they used the atomic bomb because my grandfather was slated to be part of the invasion force Although this is understandable on a personal level I dont think from a historic point of view it makes the dropping of the atomic bomb any more justified. We killed 200,000 non-combatants. Ive heard American soldiers (that served in World War II) say things like they deserved it just because of what they did at Pearl Harbour. While Im sorry but no Pearl harbour was a naval installation and a valid military target in EVERY way. Its a far cry from the deliberate destruction of civilians. The Japanese attack wasnt a total surprise everyone mostly knew war was brewing and it was just a matter of time (They just happened to strike first)
Another issue Have you ever considered the fact that the bombs were used to send a message to the soviets? Or even that the Americans were scared of the Soviets gaining influence in Asia? Truman knew of their intentions to enter the war with Japan and was worried that this would cause them to surredner before an allied invasion force could be prepared. James Forrestal (Secretary of the Navy) described the secretary of State as most anxious to get the Japanese affair over with before the Russians got in.
Ive always wondered this If we still would have been at war with Germany would we have used the bomb on THEM? Hard to say I have no doubt that racism had SOME part in turning that many Japanese into radioactive dust. Take the internment of Japanese Americans (this also happened in MY country). Politicians were able to whip the people into this frenzy using national security as an excuse however NO German Americans (or Canadians) had THEIR civil rights taken away or their property confiscated. Would the public have accepted the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Caucasian people? Well never know will we?
Anyway there's lots of places where you can read about the issue. I suggest that everyone do some research. I'm not saying you'll change your mind - or even that you SHOULD. I'm just saying that you shouldn't blindly believe the line given to justify the mass slaughter of innocents. The quote "history is written by the victors" is very cliche but also very appropriate in the case i think.
Here are two of the sources that I used for this post:
http://www.sumeria.net/politics/a-bombs.html
http://www.doug-long.com/
I'm sure if you look you can find many others.
Ok.. back to retirement for me!
That being said let me throw in my two cents on this momentous occasion.
The main argument used when supporting the dropping of the two bombs is that it ended the war - thereby saving 1 million allied lives. It was said that the Japanese would fight to the last woman and child if the allies invaded the country. (many historians say that the "million casualty figure" is grossly over estimated)
The problem is that Japan was already defeated. The war had been virtually won and a naval blockade was more or less crippling the Japanese war industry. Admiral William Leahy (Chief of Staff to Roosevelt and later Trumann) said "By the beginning of September [1944], Japan was almost completely defeated through a practically complete sea and air blockade." (William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 259).
To address the concept that the Japanese would NEVER surrender. The Japanese were willing to surrender but they weren't willing to accept "unconditional" surrender. The potsdam proclamation issued by the allies demanded just that - "unconditional surrender" and that the Japanese "war criminals" would be punished. To the Japanese this meant that their emperor would be removed from the throne. THIS could never happen as it would mean the end of their way of life - the end of their very BEING - remember - they considered him to be a god. The Japanese people would NEVER, COULD never accept this for it was unthinkable.
The Americans also knew this. Under-Secretary of State Joseph Grew had been an ambassador to Japan and was well versed in their culture and way of life. He told Trumann "The greatest obstacle to unconditional surrender by the Japanese is their belief that this would entail the destruction or permanent removal of the Emperor and the institution of the throne"
There are many American officials from the time that firmly believe they could have assured a Japanese surrender acceptable to the Allies if they had of reworded the surrender demands with assurances that the emperor would be allowed to stay on the throne.
General Douglas MacArthur apparently disagreed strongly with the wording of the Potsdam proclamation. He KNEW that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor.
There are strong indications that in July the Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender using the Soviets as mediators. Intercepted messages between Japan and their ambassador in Moscow prove that the Americans KNEW of these intentions. Here's an example:
July 25: "it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter." (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 2, pg. 1260 - 1261).
Ive even seen evidence that shows general Marshall (the army chief of staff) didnt actually think the atomic bombs would end the war he supported their use but instead saw them as tools used to help invasion force.
Eisenhower didnt believe that the atomic bombing was justified. He said: ...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing.
Some American officials believed that Japan should have been given a warning about the bomb in order to scare them into surrender. People in past posts stated that this wouldn't work because the Japanese were fanatical. Well you didn't have to convince the ENTIRE population to surrender - Just the Emperor. When in the end HE asked for surrender his cabinet, military AND people fell into line. THEY believed him to be a god and to defy his will was also unthinkable. It just wasn't done - it would bring dishonour.
The irony in the end of course is that when surrender came it was NOT unconditional - The emperor was allowed to STAY on his thrown. So why weren't the Japanese given assurances that this would be the case? (Evidence I've read shows that the American government was well aware of this issue). Why not throw them a bone instead of vaporising 200,000 men, women and children?
I also ask... Why TWO bombs? They dropped one... and instead of waiting to see what happens they hit them AGAIN... three days later - as if the killing of 100,000 civilians meant nothing.
Truman said hiroshama was chosen because it was a "military target" and to reduce civilian casualties. This too was untrue - the vast majority of deaths were civilian. And official documents later showed that Hiroshama was chosen for it's high concentration of civilian population.
Its easy to say that threatening them wouldnt have worked How do we KNOW? Wouldnt it have been worth TRYING instead of just killing that many innocent people all at once?
There have been a few people on here that have said something to the effect of Im glad they used the atomic bomb because my grandfather was slated to be part of the invasion force Although this is understandable on a personal level I dont think from a historic point of view it makes the dropping of the atomic bomb any more justified. We killed 200,000 non-combatants. Ive heard American soldiers (that served in World War II) say things like they deserved it just because of what they did at Pearl Harbour. While Im sorry but no Pearl harbour was a naval installation and a valid military target in EVERY way. Its a far cry from the deliberate destruction of civilians. The Japanese attack wasnt a total surprise everyone mostly knew war was brewing and it was just a matter of time (They just happened to strike first)
Another issue Have you ever considered the fact that the bombs were used to send a message to the soviets? Or even that the Americans were scared of the Soviets gaining influence in Asia? Truman knew of their intentions to enter the war with Japan and was worried that this would cause them to surredner before an allied invasion force could be prepared. James Forrestal (Secretary of the Navy) described the secretary of State as most anxious to get the Japanese affair over with before the Russians got in.
Ive always wondered this If we still would have been at war with Germany would we have used the bomb on THEM? Hard to say I have no doubt that racism had SOME part in turning that many Japanese into radioactive dust. Take the internment of Japanese Americans (this also happened in MY country). Politicians were able to whip the people into this frenzy using national security as an excuse however NO German Americans (or Canadians) had THEIR civil rights taken away or their property confiscated. Would the public have accepted the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Caucasian people? Well never know will we?
Anyway there's lots of places where you can read about the issue. I suggest that everyone do some research. I'm not saying you'll change your mind - or even that you SHOULD. I'm just saying that you shouldn't blindly believe the line given to justify the mass slaughter of innocents. The quote "history is written by the victors" is very cliche but also very appropriate in the case i think.
Here are two of the sources that I used for this post:
http://www.sumeria.net/politics/a-bombs.html
http://www.doug-long.com/
I'm sure if you look you can find many others.
Ok.. back to retirement for me!
allan
Cabrón
You've made some good points, Red Wolf. I see both sides of the issue actually. I've visited the memorials at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and am saddened that these things took place.
Did they HAVE to? Maybe yes, maybe no--for all our speculation, we do not KNOW for sure, do we? As RedWolf said, it may have been a matter of how we worded our demand for surrender--we left the emperor in place after surrender, so why didn't we mention that we would? That could have made all the difference--again, we don't know. We should have at least tried to find out first though.
I think it was perceived necessity (perceived for some GOOD reasons) that drove us to it, but political decisions are NEVER that simple or one-dimensional--there were no doubt some forces who maneuvered to encourage the perception of necessity, too, for various reasons: to test this new weapon, to demonstrate our new power to Stalin, etc. So was it REALLY necessary? We probably will never know that for sure. Obviously saying and believing it was necessary FOR SURE, as many seem to do, is easier--in that it absolves us of some serious soul-searching--but we CAN'T know for sure.
"Ive always wondered this If we still would have been at war with Germany would we have used the bomb on THEM? Hard to say I have no doubt that racism had SOME part in turning that many Japanese into radioactive dust. Take the internment of Japanese Americans (this also happened in MY country). Politicians were able to whip the people into this frenzy using national security as an excuse however NO German Americans (or Canadians) had THEIR civil rights taken away or their property confiscated. Would the public have accepted the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Caucasian people? Well never know will we?"
Well, we had a stockpile of much stronger nukes aimed at the USSR in later years--and they're caucasian.... Even before they got nukes in 1949, we were building nukes primarily because of Stalin's threat to our European allies. You bring up a good point about the internment camps though.
Did they HAVE to? Maybe yes, maybe no--for all our speculation, we do not KNOW for sure, do we? As RedWolf said, it may have been a matter of how we worded our demand for surrender--we left the emperor in place after surrender, so why didn't we mention that we would? That could have made all the difference--again, we don't know. We should have at least tried to find out first though.
I think it was perceived necessity (perceived for some GOOD reasons) that drove us to it, but political decisions are NEVER that simple or one-dimensional--there were no doubt some forces who maneuvered to encourage the perception of necessity, too, for various reasons: to test this new weapon, to demonstrate our new power to Stalin, etc. So was it REALLY necessary? We probably will never know that for sure. Obviously saying and believing it was necessary FOR SURE, as many seem to do, is easier--in that it absolves us of some serious soul-searching--but we CAN'T know for sure.
"Ive always wondered this If we still would have been at war with Germany would we have used the bomb on THEM? Hard to say I have no doubt that racism had SOME part in turning that many Japanese into radioactive dust. Take the internment of Japanese Americans (this also happened in MY country). Politicians were able to whip the people into this frenzy using national security as an excuse however NO German Americans (or Canadians) had THEIR civil rights taken away or their property confiscated. Would the public have accepted the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Caucasian people? Well never know will we?"
Well, we had a stockpile of much stronger nukes aimed at the USSR in later years--and they're caucasian.... Even before they got nukes in 1949, we were building nukes primarily because of Stalin's threat to our European allies. You bring up a good point about the internment camps though.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
Sorry, Redwolf, but I've heard all of that before, and wanted to beleive it enough that I went on a research binge one day to test it. It doesn't stand up. As noted by someone else earlier, And, in fact, some Japanese troops continued to resist after the Emporer broadcast his surrender.
And, as I'd said, just blockading them and starving them out would be an option if no one else but Japanese got hurt. But that ignores the 20,000,000 Chinese under occupation from a sizable army still active across Asia,
the Dutch women in camps in Indonesia,
the Bataan prisoners starving or getting executed with each passing day,
the Russian casualties on the Manchurian front,
the ships - like the Indianapolis - being sunk while maintaining that blockade,
or British, Australian or Indian soldiers like my grandfather, still in active combat against real Japanese soldiers in Burma, Thailand and Malaysia.
If anyone should have been flexible about the Emporer in this situation, I don't think the Allies should have been first on the list.
I'm not being callous about the A-bomb casualties there, but I am just suggesting that if you put yourself in the conditions of the time, there were a lot of compelling, humanitarian reasons for a swift end to the war other than the potential costs of an invasion, and the "don't use the bomb" lobby is shockingly eager to ignore them.
I understand the motives for beleiving so, since I spent a big chunk of my time protesting the Gulf War, arguing that it wasn't worth an invasion to just liberate the Emirate. I stood up and advocated sanctions as an alternative to that if liberating the Emirate was the goal (although I always amde a point of supporting a military effort to actually whack Saddam). n retrospect, sanctions to starve the crap out of 15 million odd Iraqis aren't really so cool, are they? But that's more or less the "humane option" that was the alternative, with all the additional concerns I mentioned above.
And, as I'd said, just blockading them and starving them out would be an option if no one else but Japanese got hurt. But that ignores the 20,000,000 Chinese under occupation from a sizable army still active across Asia,
the Dutch women in camps in Indonesia,
the Bataan prisoners starving or getting executed with each passing day,
the Russian casualties on the Manchurian front,
the ships - like the Indianapolis - being sunk while maintaining that blockade,
or British, Australian or Indian soldiers like my grandfather, still in active combat against real Japanese soldiers in Burma, Thailand and Malaysia.
If anyone should have been flexible about the Emporer in this situation, I don't think the Allies should have been first on the list.
I'm not being callous about the A-bomb casualties there, but I am just suggesting that if you put yourself in the conditions of the time, there were a lot of compelling, humanitarian reasons for a swift end to the war other than the potential costs of an invasion, and the "don't use the bomb" lobby is shockingly eager to ignore them.
I understand the motives for beleiving so, since I spent a big chunk of my time protesting the Gulf War, arguing that it wasn't worth an invasion to just liberate the Emirate. I stood up and advocated sanctions as an alternative to that if liberating the Emirate was the goal (although I always amde a point of supporting a military effort to actually whack Saddam). n retrospect, sanctions to starve the crap out of 15 million odd Iraqis aren't really so cool, are they? But that's more or less the "humane option" that was the alternative, with all the additional concerns I mentioned above.
RedWolf
Deity
Allan,
Thats true I never thought about that... The question that goes along with that though is "Who did the American people dislike more? Asians? or Communists?" One just has to look at Senator Mcarthy and is paranoid ideals to realise that it's probably a toss up.
RedWolf
Deity
The japanese were on the VERGE of surrender. If we're vaporizing civilians on "humanitarian" grounds then why not just drop one in EVERY war. After all it's far easier than fighting a prolonged war - Think of all the death and destruction that could be avoided on both sides?
You can't tell me that if given an honourable out (ie: allowing the emperor to stay on the thrown) the Japanese would still not have surrendered because we will never know. They didn't TRY.
Sure the allies didn't HAVE to be flexible on ANYTHING if they didn't want to. They could always use the EASY quick option of destroying 200,000 innocent people at once (not to mention the birth defects and cancer in people for DECADES later). Which they chose of course. I would however think that a democratic nation would exhaust all options before killing people on such a large scale.
Thats the problem with wars i belive. Nobody HAS to be flexible... they can just go on endlessly killing people if thats what you want to do - secure with the idea that you are "right" - but it doesn't really solve the problem.
If we had of vaporised a Japanese carrier battle group or something... I could accept that - but to turn TWO major cities into smoking craters (in two days)?! I'm sorry but i cannot agree with that - ever.
"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. 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."
- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.
Yes they were on the verge, BUT the top military leadership was willing, even PREFERRED, to fight to the last Japanese citizen rather than surrender. They even had plans to prevent the emperor from publically accepting surrender. These plans included using force with the emperor, something no normal Japanese at the time would have ever countenanced. In hindsight our use of the Bomb gave Hirohito the opportunity to tell his advisors to stuff it. (Not that we knew that at the time.)
And I agree with you on this statement. Any soldier, past present, or future, can tell you: WAR IS HELL! There is nothing clean, or 'surgical' about it. People die. And not just the people you want to die, either. Yes, we killed hundreds of thousands of people with those two bombs. Would anyone be happier if we had killed them with firebombs (a la Tokyo) instead? The only reason those cities weren't destroyed earlier was because they were the top two cities on a short list of cities kept relatively damage-free. Scientists and weapon designers wanted to be able to measure the effect of the weapons. That's hard to do if you've already destroyed the targets ahead of time.
Finally, let me reiterate what was said earlier: we weren't there when the decision was made. We are like Monday morning quarterbacks, with 20/20 hindsight. We get the luxury of saying "they should have done this, or that." The people who were there made what seemed to them to be the best decision at the time, given the knowledge that they had. For my part, I seriously doubt that any nation involved in that conflict would have not used the Bomb, if they had had it.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
#1 - In case you weren't listening, this wasn't every war. A large chunk of Asia was under Japanese occupation. That's a few hundred MILLION people. You still haven't said a word about their problems - death among them - Redwulf.
#2 - Actually, I CAN tell you that, because it's documented. Like I said, once you research beyond the Coles notes version of history, you'll learn that resistance continued after the Emporer's decision to surrender, and you'll learn that there was a plot by armed forces officers to "detain" the Emporer to prevent him from announcing his decision. And, during the interregnum between Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a strong majority of cabinet was still opposed to surrender as well. And you'll learn that US psywar troops made broadcasts with the full approval of the State department making it clear that they would accept the Emporer's position, but these were ignored by the Japanese regime.
And finally, you should watch your tone, because I've said twice in this forum now that I'm not excited by the decision, but I understand it. There is a difference. For all of the talk in your post about killing this and killing that, not once have you said a word about the people who were being killed in places outside the Japanese islands. If you want to start getting snippy, then I want to start pointing out how interesting a contrast it is that you care about a vaporised Japanese civilian but can't see how an American President wouldn't be eager to "wait patiently" for the release of thousands of prisoners taken in a war of aggression that wasn't of their choosing, and so on, and so on.
Maybe I am alive today because that bomb was dropped. Maybe not. But the fact is debatable enough that it's obviously not as cut and dry as you or a lot of generals SPEAKING IN HINDSIGHT chose to be.
RedWolf
Deity
Personally i didn't think I was getting "snippy". I was presenting my opinion and backing it up with facts. I don't want to start a fight and I apologize if it seemed that way.
I also tend to believe that the generals and politicians I quoted were more knowledgable about the situation in the world than either you or I.
As for the people under Japanese occupation - yes i do understand their problems. However the 200,000 japanese civilians were NOT part of an occupying Army.
Can you explain the two bombs? One after another on major civilian centers? 3 days? They couldn't wait to see what happened? if they truly considered it this horrible "only option" then they would have waited to see if the Japanese gave up afterwards They WANTED to use both bombs in my opinion - lives of enemy civilians are cheap after all (even more so at THAT time then now)
I'm not trying to bash America or say that Japan was blameless. Just that the destruction of civilians on that scale (and the resulting radiation sickness) is sick and unjustified.
You have the right to your opinion and I have the right to mine. I've said my piece.
Alcibiaties of Athenae
Imperator
What a biased and incorrect statement.
I still find it astonishing that anyone could draw the wrong conclusion from history as remarkably as you did with this statement.
There is nothing "sick or unjustified" about it, it was a world war.
Japan would stop at nothing to win it, as shown by the cute things they did, like dropping insects infected with bubonic plauge on Chinese cities, medical experiments on prisoners and innocents, indiscriminate killing of people (in Nanking, for example), tortue and other mistreatment of prisoners, excutions, the list of Japan's evil in WW II is endless.
To say it unjustifed is incredibly naieve a postion to take in light of the facts of WWII.
I have read all your posts here, and I can tell you, there is not ONE qualified historian that feels the projected losses were "grossly over estimated".
Talking about how Japan was on the "verge of" and over nonsense is just that: nonsense.
I was the one who pointed out that Japan's forign office and many of it's leaders knew the war was lost.
A "Blockade" would have accomplished nothing, except many more deaths then the A-Bombs strikes.
As for the "Major popluation center" stuff, the fact is that neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki (or the true second target, Kobe), were very large cities, but rather medium to small by Japanese standards.
They were, however, the only remaining cities not heavily bombed by the US 20th AF, which is the major reason they were selected.
Argueing about the surrender wording is just an old argument, even with provision stated outright many would not have surrendered, as the palace rebellion shows quite clearly.
I also doubt most storngly that they were a message to the Soviets, and before you try to claim racism (What a silly connection, I might add), keep in mind that the A-bomb was proposed and would have been used as an anti-Nazi weapon.
If you believe the US would have hesitated to use atomic weapons on the Nazis, then your indeed naieve, sir.
A good look as Dresden, Numerberg, Hamburg, ect in 1945 would dispell this myth fast.
Racism played ZERO part in this.
Everyone is so entitled, and we encourage it, as long as it stays civil.
I just find it unfortunate that people today try to accuse people in the past of wrong doing, when even a superfical view would quickly dispell that, but we see, it still lingers on today.
The A-Bombs were needed and did what they were designed to do:
Win WW II with a minimum of Allied losses.
Thank god they used them, or many more families would have had to hang gold starts in their windows then actually happened, and many people in Japan owe their lives to the weapons, whether they believe it or understand it or not.
RedWolf
Deity
I like how whenever somebody disagrees with you then their opinion must be nonsense. You haven't changed a bit have you?
You can tell me that i am wrong about the japanese being "on the verge of surrender" but there are a great many people that believe this to be true and they are more qualified than either you or I to judge that.
Among them:
Dwight Eisenhower
Admiral William Leahy (Chief of Staff to Trumann)
General Douglas MacArthur
John Mcloy (Ass. Secretary of War)
Ralph Bard (Under-secretary of the Navy)
Paul Nitze (Vice Chairman, U.S Strategic Bombing Survey)
Ellis Zacharias (Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Inteligence)
Here are some quotes to read:
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
There are experts that disagree - so the idea IS debatable... but my opinion certainly isn't nonsense. For the record - any opinion that casts the American government in a bad light does NOT automatically become nonsense. Thats the second post of yours in this thread that has taken the "i'm american and you must be wrong, young, and stupid because you disagree" attitude.
Here is an open letter (by historians) to the Smithsonian questioning their interpretation of the atomic bombings:
http://www.doug-long.com/letter.htm
As for the Japanese contacting the Soviets... you can "doubt most strongly" all you want but this appears to be fact. Truman even admitted it in his diaries. Note that in my original post i even quoted the source of the japanese transmission.
As far as racism goes - war is always about racism to some extent. Why do you think our culture creates racial slurs to describe the enemy? "japs", "gooks" etc. If we truly believed that the people we kill are exactly like ourselves then how could we kill them? I'm not saying we kill them BECAUSE of racism - but it makes it easier if we can believe that they are "different" than us or "evil".
How else could politicians at the time convince the population that it was morally and legally justified to deprive an entire ethnic group of their rights, freedom and possessions. (Again - I'm not blaming just the U.S. WE interned Japanese Canadians as well and it's one of the darkest moments in my country's history). Racism was alive and strong in the 40's I'm afraid. I don't think anyone said "lets drop this bomb so we can kill a whole bunch of japs" but I do think that it's easier for a population to hate another group of people when they're a different ethnic group - more so at that time in our history.
Me thinking that the atomic bombing was wrong is NOT biased and wrong. It is my opinion. It comes down to whether you believe that any country should ever be "justified" in killing 100,000 men, women and children in the blink of an eye (and then doing it AGAIN 3 days later)
I personally do not accept it. You are entitled to believe whatever you want and so am I.
God
God
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2001
- Messages
- 1,354
My grandfather who was a brigadere(spelling??) in the British Army was lucky to survive in WW2.
He was in India, and half of the forces were sent westwards into the Middle East to guard overthere incase Hitler got North Africa and the other half went east to Burma to guard against the Japanese.
The half that went to Burma were all slaughtered. Almost everyone of them were killed or captured and then killed.
My grandfather was lucky enough to be sent westwards because some of his fellow officers were in the other force and didn't make it back.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
I also do not buy the notion that the USA would have nuked
Europe. The idea of the US 8th AF nuking cities so close to the
UK and France is rather far-fetched.
It would have spelled a prompt end to the Alliance.
In reality;
I think the nuking of Japan was the final and probably only
way to end the imperial force's resistance.
The Japanese brought this conclusion upon themselves.
I guess wholesale slaughter is the road to liberty in the long run.
A signal to the USSR it may have been, but it didn't stop Stalin
getting his paws on the atom bomb technology, did it?
I would like to say a better world came out of the mess of
WW2, but it didn't really...
Europe. The idea of the US 8th AF nuking cities so close to the
UK and France is rather far-fetched.
It would have spelled a prompt end to the Alliance.
In reality;
I think the nuking of Japan was the final and probably only
way to end the imperial force's resistance.
The Japanese brought this conclusion upon themselves.
I guess wholesale slaughter is the road to liberty in the long run.
A signal to the USSR it may have been, but it didn't stop Stalin
getting his paws on the atom bomb technology, did it?
I would like to say a better world came out of the mess of
WW2, but it didn't really...
allan
Cabrón
"I also do not buy the notion that the USA would have nuked
Europe. The idea of the US 8th AF nuking cities so close to the
UK and France is rather far-fetched.
"It would have spelled a prompt end to the Alliance."
I don't know.... Was the concept of fallout spread that well known then? We were testing these things above ground on our own soil--granted, it was in a relatively remote stretch of desert, but it was still as close to such cities as Las Vegas, Phoenix, Salt Lake City and even Los Angeles as London or Paris would be to Frankfurt or Dresden. Plus, after Japan's surrender we brought our own troops over to occupy the country--and I assume some ended up pretty close to the recent explosions (Sasebo naval base is about 20 miles from Nagasaki, plus I think major cities like Osaka--about 100 miles from Hiroshima, on the other end of the "Inland Sea"--had occupation forces in them too). And with the low yield of these early nukes, the extent of fallout was probably a very small fraction of what modern nukes would produce.
I doubt though that racial attitudes had anything to do with nuking Japan, as RedWolf suggested. We stayed our hand with nuking Beijing during the Korean War--partly perhaps because of fear of Soviet nuclear retaliation, but I think mainly because of humanitarian concerns. With Japan, I think it was as you said--we really wanted to end the war quickly rather than slowly, and this seemed to be the only way to do it. Germany on the other hand would probably have surrendered with knowledge of our new nuclear capability, had they survived as a force up until then. They were researching these weapons themselves, so their higher-ups likely understood their implications better. But who knows? If they were as resistant as the Japanese, leaving us no other way out (perceived or real), we would probably have done it at least to make sure they never developed one themselves. Some say they were pretty close to doing so too.
"A signal to the USSR it may have been, but it didn't stop Stalin
getting his paws on the atom bomb technology, did it?"
Which means the signal was sent--and Stalin acted on that. Took him 4 years though....
The bomb may have been dropped on Japan partly to usurp the Soviets from effectively joining the war there and taking any part in the occupation of the country, as they did in Germany.
Europe. The idea of the US 8th AF nuking cities so close to the
UK and France is rather far-fetched.
"It would have spelled a prompt end to the Alliance."
I don't know.... Was the concept of fallout spread that well known then? We were testing these things above ground on our own soil--granted, it was in a relatively remote stretch of desert, but it was still as close to such cities as Las Vegas, Phoenix, Salt Lake City and even Los Angeles as London or Paris would be to Frankfurt or Dresden. Plus, after Japan's surrender we brought our own troops over to occupy the country--and I assume some ended up pretty close to the recent explosions (Sasebo naval base is about 20 miles from Nagasaki, plus I think major cities like Osaka--about 100 miles from Hiroshima, on the other end of the "Inland Sea"--had occupation forces in them too). And with the low yield of these early nukes, the extent of fallout was probably a very small fraction of what modern nukes would produce.
I doubt though that racial attitudes had anything to do with nuking Japan, as RedWolf suggested. We stayed our hand with nuking Beijing during the Korean War--partly perhaps because of fear of Soviet nuclear retaliation, but I think mainly because of humanitarian concerns. With Japan, I think it was as you said--we really wanted to end the war quickly rather than slowly, and this seemed to be the only way to do it. Germany on the other hand would probably have surrendered with knowledge of our new nuclear capability, had they survived as a force up until then. They were researching these weapons themselves, so their higher-ups likely understood their implications better. But who knows? If they were as resistant as the Japanese, leaving us no other way out (perceived or real), we would probably have done it at least to make sure they never developed one themselves. Some say they were pretty close to doing so too.
"A signal to the USSR it may have been, but it didn't stop Stalin
getting his paws on the atom bomb technology, did it?"
Which means the signal was sent--and Stalin acted on that. Took him 4 years though....
The bomb may have been dropped on Japan partly to usurp the Soviets from effectively joining the war there and taking any part in the occupation of the country, as they did in Germany.
