The Atomic Question?

[Zwelgje]

The bomb on Hiroshima was on August 6 and the bomb on Nagasaki was on August 9. I think the second bomb was dropped too soon, the Japanese should have gotten more time to see the amount of damage caused by only one bomb. When the Americans would have told them they had some more where the first came from it could have been enough for the Japanese to surrender. Anyway, it's only speculation, we never know what would have happened if the second bomb wouldn't have been dropped. Things that have happened in the past can't be changed, deal with it, live with it.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally posted by basher
Maybe I'd first have sent them a film containing footage on the A-bomb testing to convince them.

In fact most of scientist working at Manhattan Project supported this ideea. But military and politicians thinked different ...

Regards

 

[Simon Darkshade]

And the Japanese response to be sent a film would be what?

They would argue that it was doctored in some fashion, and ignore it.
They would expect the enemy to try and fool them.

I am reminded by a scene from one of the Austin Power's movies, where Dr. Evil shows the power of his "laser" by seeming to blow up the White House, causing the President and his advisors to cringe under the table. "Oh, that was actually a scene from the film 'Independence Day', but the real effect should be something like that."


A film would not convince the Japanese; reality would and did.

 

[Zwelgje]

Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan
In fact most of scientist working at Manhattan Project supported this ideea. But military and politicians thinked different ...

Regards

Another piece of evidence that politicians are not chosen on basis of their IQ.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by civ1-addict

Another piece of evidence that politicians are not chosen on basis of their IQ.

You can be very smart, but lack elementary common sense.
I prefer to get military and political judgements from those who know what they are talking about, rather than theoretical nuclear physicists, like those on the Project. Just because they were brilliant at their job did not make them experts in everything, nor even good people.

 

[Zwelgje]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade


You can be very smart, but lack elementary common sense.
I prefer to get military and political judgements from those who know what they are talking about, rather than theoretical nuclear physicists, like those on the Project. Just because they were brilliant at their job did not make them experts in everything, nor even good people.

At least the scientists had some knowledge on what the bomb could do, the politicians didn't have a clue. They saw the bomb as just another weapon to be used in the battlefield while the bomb really is not. I can't imagine that the politicians weren't surprised of the effect of the bomb.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by civ1-addict

At least the scientists had some knowledge on what the bomb could do, the politicians didn't have a clue. They saw the bomb as just another weapon to be used in the battlefield while the bomb really is not. I can't imagine that the politicians weren't surprised of the effect of the bomb.

It is not as mystical and taboo a weapon as you suggest. The reason it was made was to be used, firstly upon Germany, and then, when they were defeated early, Japan.
The politicians, specifically Truman, were not informed of the effects of the bomb until later, as Vrylakas said.
The scientists may have known what the bomb could theoretically do, but they were not knowledgable on the military and political realities and background to any use of it.

 

[philippe]

america just wanted a harsh payback for pearl harbor
the japaneze got one lesson dont with us japaneze,or you will be kicked and banned from this planet!
thx to america japan is now a industrial country with the most multimedia stuff on earth
i think the japanze would thank the americans now for nuking them

 

[Lt.Col. Kilgore]

Know what I found strange? I never learned about the internment of Japanese citizens in 'camps' after the Pearl Harbour attack. I never read about it in school. Funny...

I seriously disagree with these actions, but no one should apologise for this.

The most accurate definition of 'apologise' I've seen is found in the 'Devil's Dictionary':

Apologize, v.i. -- To lay the foundation for a future offence.

 

[roadwarrior]

If it helps, try looking at it this way...

If the bombs had not been dropped, the invasion had gone as planned, and the civilian population had taken up arms against the American invasion force, there would not be a nation of Japan today. In addition to the protracted fighting of the armies, the air raids etc. would have continued, basically pounding Japan even more into the dust than it was already. Do you really think that Japan could have recovered as it has in the long run if its civilian population had been decimated like that?

Also, the second bomb was necessary. Hardliners were not even convinced then to make peace. Several kamikaze pilots planned to attack General MacArthur as he accepted the surrender of Japan. Does that sound like the behavior of a people that would so easily accept defeat? Not saying getting nuked is easy, but Nagasaki was what sealed the deal for the Japanese.

And as others have pointed out, I would rather have 2 A-bombs used in 1945 than world-wide nuclear warfare 10 or 20 or 50 years later...

 

[Archbob]

It was the right choice. The invasion of Japan would have cost over 1 million deaths on each side.

 

[Smoking mirror]

Trumans choice was already set. The precedent for bombing civilians by the allies had already been set by the firebombing of dresden. Popular opinion would have forced the issue sooner or later. I would like to think it wouldn't be the case, but the Americans could perhaps have dropped the bomb after the invasion, "just to teach them a lesson"...
The actions of a democratic government tend to gravitate towards popular oppinion, and the Americans, English, French, Russians, Canadians etc. were screaming for blood long before Hiroshima. When I say I wouldn't of dropped the bomb, what I mean is I would not have voted for a president who was willing to do so. That is my democratic perogative. (even if every one else did).
As to not reading about japanese being put in camps, and the japanese not learning about the war in schools, you should see what British children are taught about northern Ireland. Its a disgrace! I didn't study history at school because I was not interested in learning the offical "British" history of the world. Instead I actualy went out and investigated history for my self.
If you want to learn, don't go to school! Teach yourself. (Um.. some things are better learned at schooll, such as mathematics etc..)

 

[allhailIndia]

I agree that without the nuke-attack, the Japs would not have been a nation today at all. Just imagine how a loss 20-30 million of its citizens could have affected a country like Japan, which is quite Xenphobic. The loss of Allied soldiers would have also made the populace of these countries demand a complete and total vengeance in Japan, akin to a scorched earth.


It could be said that the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unfortunate victims, but their death only prevented the death of a million more and brought a relative, if uneasy peace to the world

 

[Evie]

Smoking Mirror and Kilgore have extremely valid points in answer to the text book matter.

What's important to note first and foremost regarding Japanesse outlook on history education is that to them it is not a way to get the children (remember, we are talking about the school books here - there are a number of very accurate japanesse book about the war itself, they just aren't approved by the ministry of education for use in school) to think about the mistake of the past, but rather a way of teaching them important morals vallue such as "As long as we Japanesse are united and ready to go for sacrifice, we are a great nation." (and by sacrifice, I don't mean the "Kamikaze" kind, I mean the "Work above all" kind). Given how hard they had to work to restart from the ashes, this is no real surprise.

Of course, admitting that they did all those things through hard work and sacrifice would be a bit against what they are trying for there... (and side note to Darkshade, I am pretty certain that the Japanesse govt *has* appologized (only recently, admitedly) to the Korean comfort women).

Finally, as the other two I noted above have already mentioned, *EVERY* country tend to gloss over its dark points in the history books, unless its internationaly impossible due to the general knowledge of the event/situation. Which is why the Holocaust (or slavery, for you americans) isn't glossed over all that much (that I know), whereas the internment in camps of all Japanesse-descent civilians, the anti-japanesse-immigration law of 1925 and such are glossed over ; so is the treatment of the native indians in Canada (except in Québec, because our history book writers tend to want to prove Canada wrong ), and a lof of World War II things in Japan. When there are not enough watchdogs who care about it, or when they have no power in regard to the government (Ienaga leaping to mind), it's easy to get away with glossing over the less-glorious parts of a nation's history.

As for the original topic, I would have waited a few more days for a reaction before dropping #2, but I would most certainly have dropped #1 as well.

 

[mrog]

Simon- I've been trying to think of who your posts in this thread remind me of- and I've got it. Just about every aboriginal activist on the "guilt industry" bandwagon.

When such people insist that the PM should appologise (on my behalf mind you)and thus accept guilt for things he never did (and of course nor did I), that makes me pretty mad. I don't see any point in inflicting the same on the Japanese.

Should Japanese school kids get a more balanced history of the war- Yes they should, but the aim should not be to engender guilt or to force them to adopt our version of history.


As for the opening question- On balance I think using them was the lessor of two evils. As for whether I would have done it though- well fortunately I'll never have to know.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Panda
It's argued that the dropping of the A-Bombs was necessary to break the Japanese will to resist, thus saving tens of thousands of American's lives, so I could understand if one bomb had been dropped.

However, there's no justification for the second bomb. Japan would have surrendered if they had been threatened with a second bomb.

Hiroshima might have strategic purposes, but Nagasaki was pure genocide by a vengeful nation.

As was already furiously argued in a thread months ago, I should note that there is ample documentary evidence - and, at the time, there was ample anecdotal evidence - to suggest that the Japanese were having trouble surrendering after the SECOND bomb, let alone the first. Even after the second bomb was dropped, the decision to surrender barely passed in the cabinet, and a coup attempt designed to keep the war going was barely averted. I highly recommend "Downfall" as one of the latest books on the subject, and "The Last Great Victory" also does almost as good a job of reminding all who have forgotten that Japan was still fighting hard.

Nagasaki was bombed for the same strategic purpose as Hiroshima: to end the war swiftly so that there would be fewer deaths, fewer risks to POWs in Japanese hands, and less damage done to occupied areas yet to be liberated.

I will again, as I had in the previous thread, remind all that several hundred million people remained under Japanese occupation at the time. But why hurry?

But thanks, you have inspired me to set up a second poll.

R.III

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by mrog
Simon- I've been trying to think of who your posts in this thread remind me of- and I've got it. Just about every aboriginal activist on the "guilt industry" bandwagon.

When such people insist that the PM should appologise (on my behalf mind you)and thus accept guilt for things he never did (and of course nor did I), that makes me pretty mad. I don't see any point in inflicting the same on the Japanese.

Should Japanese school kids get a more balanced history of the war- Yes they should, but the aim should not be to engender guilt or to force them to adopt our version of history.


As for the opening question- On balance I think using them was the lessor of two evils. As for whether I would have done it though- well fortunately I'll never have to know.

1.) Gee, that's funny, me being about the exact opposite of an aboriginal activist.
There is a difference between supposed crimes and outright lies as peddled by the aforesaid "activists", and an acknowledgment of the truth, and of evil done. They should be forced to accept our version of history because we won and it is the right view of history.

 

[mrog]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade


1.) Gee, that's funny, me being about the exact opposite of an aboriginal activist.
There is a difference between supposed crimes and outright lies as peddled by the aforesaid "activists", and an acknowledgment of the truth, and of evil done. They should be forced to accept our version of history because we won and it is the right view of history.

Opposite direction, same argument- we (or our anscestors were wronged) by them. so they (or their descendents)have to pay in some way.

As for forcing the Japanese to accept our view of history- the opportunity to do that has long since past.

 

[amadeus]

Despite the fact that I'm a table-pounding right-wing conservative nationalist, it was morally wrong to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or any civilian targets for that matter.

Military installations? Yes.
Civilians? No.

There's a fine line between warfare and genocide.

 

[philippe]

rmsharpe is wright