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!