Was it necessary to drop the bomb?

[Sidhe]

If I recall correctly, the Japanese actually requested that the Emporer's power remain uncomprimised, not just that he would be immune from accusations of war-crimes. But given that this was the only condition that the Japanese requested, when they made their first surrender offer after the two bombs were dropped, evidentally yes everything else was agreeable to the Allies.

In the end he got away scott-free anyway even after the unconditional surrender, although his power was reduced.

I will read the links, BTW.

Just read the links, I think you need to address the fact that they knew of the precondition long before they ever offered the treaty, the fact that they were advised by all military staff an Winston Churchill to include the provisos asked for, the fact also that that's precisely what happened anyway after they surrendered, the Emperor remained and was not tried for war crimes. In other words your talking out of your hat unless you at least read the link and debunk it? is that clear now? The book mentions communiques outlining conditions for a Japanese surrender as ealry as 1944? So please anyone else who wants to make some trite I believe only what I'm told, please at least either read the link and at least mention why you don't believe any of it's propositions, or don't post, I am trying to have a discussion about these provisos, I think just posting your opinion is fine but please justify it in context if you can , otherwise this thread is going to go nowhere. Thankyou for reading this, now if you could do me the courtesy of reading the links perhaps we could have some sort of discussion not a , American propaganda a must be true because why would my government lie fest of the usual historical x.

 

[Sidhe]

I skimmed through it. Nothing new there, just the same old ignorance.

Brilliant bravo there a man who was nominated for an award for this book in your own country for his hard hitting and troubling version of history, totally destroyed by Elrohir's breathtaking knowledge and depth, the way you just took each point analysed it within a historical context and the exposed it as fraudulent was brilliant! Thanks for that insightful blow by blow debunking of The Dr's work. next.

I'm beginning to think that the level of brainwashing in your country is astounding? I get this conclusion about once a month when I see threads like this, where no one bothers to do anything but say blah blah blah, doesn't debunk the source, which frankly I'd have no problem with but no one cares about it, it's as if you can't critique anything? Or is it you just don't have the knowledge to? So it's the level of ignorance and lack of comprehension that is in question, yes? Does anyone want to even attempt a shot at debunking this man's historical accounts? No never mind I think Trooper was right I'd of got a sensible answer in the History section at least.

Moderator Action: If you want your thread to remain open, then please keep the discussion civil.

 

[thetrooper]

Wow Sidhe. Are you in a belligerent mood these days?

 

[Sidhe]

Wow Sidhe. Are you in a belligerent mood these days?

Indeed, the idea was to discuss and or debunk the source, but it seems nobody wants to read it let alone make an attempt to challenge it. I'm grouchy yes, but you can kind of understand it, everyones just talking out of there hats, it's not a discussion it's more robots reciting information tape x. Except for those who had the courtesy to read and respond to it and others who at least appear to have thought a little before they posted.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

The Americans made a strong efort to get their bomb there quickly. They spared Hiroshima to commit this vial experiment. I find it sickining.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The Americans made a strong efort to get their bomb there quickly. They spared Hiroshima to commit this vial experiment. I find it sickining.

I hope that's some sort of weird sarcastic irony. Hiroshima is surrounded by hills: the shockwave bounced off the hills and went over the city several times.

 

[Elrohir]

Brilliant bravo there a man who was nominated for an award for this book in your own country for his hard hitting and troubling version of history, totally destroyed by Elrohir's breathtaking knowledge and depth, the way you just took each point analysed it within a historical context and the exposed it as fraudulent was brilliant! Thanks for that insightful blow by blow debunking of The Dr's work. next.

I'm beginning to think that the level of brainwashing in your country is astounding? I get this conclusion about once a month when I see threads like this, where no one bothers to do anything but say blah blah blah, doesn't debunk the source, which frankly I'd have no problem with but no one cares about it, it's as if you can't critique anything? Or is it you just don't have the knowledge to? So it's the level of ignorance and lack of comprehension that is in question, yes? Does anyone want to even attempt a shot at debunking this man's historical accounts? No never mind I think Trooper was right I'd of got a sensible answer in the History section at least.

What are you, a two year old who missed his nappy time? If you can't debate like an adult, go away and don't come back until you can.

Moderator Action: As above - debate the points, not the person.

That Lewrockwell article is crap, by the way. The Japanese weren't willing to surrender with the sole condition that the Emperor remain on this throne - ever after the first atomic bombing, the imperial council was split 3-3, with half insisting on three other conditions: That Japan take charge of her own disarmament, that Japan try any war criminals, and that there would be no foreign occupation of Japan. Obviously these terms weren't acceptable to to the Allies. The Allies gave generous terms in the Potsdam Declaration, and the Japanese threw it in their faces.

The bombings were justified because it saved lives, and the Japanese had no real intention of surrendering on any terms but what would allow them to stay a danger. The bombings were justified, and that's not propaganda.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

I hope that's some sort of weird sarcastic irony. Hiroshima is surrounded by hills: the shockwave bounced off the hills and went over the city several times.

I have been in Hiroshima. If the Americans didn't bomb the mountains as well that wouldn't have been a big problem. Most of Hiroshima's city limit is towards the sea.

 

[Elrohir]

I have been in Hiroshima. If the Americans didn't bomb the mountains as well that wouldn't have been a big problem. Most of Hiroshima's city limit is towards the sea.

Are you seriously saying that we dropped multiple atomic bombs on Hiroshima?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I have been in Hiroshima. If the Americans didn't bomb the mountains as well that wouldn't have been a big problem. Most of Hiroshima's city limit is towards the sea.

We didn't bomb the mountain, you misunderstand me.

A nuclear weapon doesn't detonate on impact, it does far more damage if it detonates several thousand feet above the target: if I recall correctly, it went off two thousand feet above the city. The high hills around the city, which I'm sure you saw, reflected the shockwave back into the city again, that, combined with the huge munitions factories there, is why Hiroshima was considerably more damaged than Nagasaki, which was bombed because of its importance as THE major southern seaport.

 

[Sidhe]

What are you, a two year old who missed his nappy time? If you can't debate like an adult, go away and don't come back until you can.

That Lewrockwell article is crap, by the way. The Japanese weren't willing to surrender with the sole condition that the Emperor remain on this throne - ever after the first atomic bombing, the imperial council was split 3-3, with half insisting on three other conditions: That Japan take charge of her own disarmament, that Japan try any war criminals, and that there would be no foreign occupation of Japan. Obviously these terms weren't acceptable to to the Allies. The Allies gave generous terms in the Potsdam Declaration, and the Japanese threw it in their faces.

The bombings were justified because it saved lives, and the Japanese had no real intention of surrendering on any terms but what would allow them to stay a danger. The bombings were justified, and that's not propaganda.

The article is a synopsis of the book, so you are saying the whole book is crap, even though it was widely critically acclaimed by his peers? You obviously can't debate or you would provide something other than the article is crap.

Japan had two provisos only, The emperor should be spared and he should remain the Emperor, both of which happened anyway.

EDIT:Elrohir I had a look actually I can find no mention of your secondary terms, the US demanded an unconditional surrender and that nothing else was acceptable, I don't seem to be able to find Japan saying what you claim can you link it?

In fact can you back up your statement as communiques by Japanese saying the exact opposite that they were in fact prepared to accept all the terms provided the emperor was spared and retained power, which as I said happened anyway, these pieces of evidence seem to conflict with all of your statement.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Are you seriously saying that we dropped multiple atomic bombs on Hiroshima?

No but that it couldn't have been much of a reflection. There are always multiple shock waves with nuclear weapons, mountains or not. This is because after the first blast there is more or less a vacume where the bomb was dropped. My if they bombed a mountain comment was just a joke on Americans bombing everything.

 

[Fifty]

I think the more important question is, Was it bomb to drop the necessary?

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

More things that people forget/ignore about the dropping of the bomb...

It is quite easy to see why the United States wanted unconditional surrender. Unconditional surrender was good enough for the Germans. If Hitler had not committed suicide, what would people think of a peace treaty with Germany that would have kept Hitler as chancellor after the war? Why would the United States wish to hamstring the reconstruction and disarmament of Japan with promises they might later regret. It is true that the United States did not try the emperor with war crimes and let him keep his post(but without power). So with 20-20 hindsight unconditional surrender might have been unnecessary.

 

[Sidhe]

More things that people forget/ignore about the dropping of the bomb...

It is quite easy to see why the United States wanted unconditional surrender. Unconditional surrender was good enough for the Germans. If Hitler had not committed suicide, what would people think of a peace treaty with Germany that would have kept Hitler as chancellor after the war? Why would the United States wish to hamstring the reconstruction and disarmament of Japan with promises they might later regret. It is true that the United States did not try the emperor with war crimes and let him keep his post(but without power). So with 20-20 hindsight unconditional surrender might have been unnecessary.

Truman was advised by not only Churchill and all of his generals to change the treaty, but he refused? Can you think why he might of done this? Considering everyone except his mentor told him to accept the terms in response? Seems a bit hokey doesn't it...

The emperor wanted to keep his powers, those powers were somewhat discretionary anyway, obviously the generals could just say no, and in a situation where they had no military or any other ability to do anything, it's hardly a great power, and besides this is entirely what happened, the Emperor still has these sorts of powers.

To be honest for the vast majority of Japans history the power rested with the Shoguns, and in all honesty it always did, those who control the armies control the state in lieu of an army then those in power control the state.

It's not a fair comparison, a German Chancellor had much more power than the emperor.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Truman was advised by not only Churchill and all of his generals to change the treaty, but he refused? Can you think why he might of done this? Considering everyone except his mentor told him to accept the terms in response? Seems a bit hokey doesn't it...

Maybe because the atrocities of the Japanese war machine would make Nazis blush?

I think the atomic bombings were the right decision given the circumstances; and I've read so many things and attended so many lectures about nuclear weapons policy that to be honest, a fancy degree and a book doesn't make your opinion any more or less valid than anyone else's. Sure, I've seen PhD's talking out of, um, thin air, about nuclear weapons policy (not here, of course!), and it just doesn't impress me. That said, consider the options the USA had: they wanted to end the war as soon as possible, and Fat Man and Little Boy were just the quickest way they saw to do it that would limit American casualties as much as possible. The world was tired of war and wanted it to end. Killing people with a fission weapon was the same end result as with a bayonet, just less painful if you actually died. Nobody understood the after-effects of the weapons; now we do and perhaps a couple of 20 kT weapons has kept the rest of the world safe from many MT weapons.

Who can know for sure what may have happened? I suppose from one perspective, it was a fitting way for the war to end, at least.

 

[Sidhe]

That's what I don't understand where was the issue with just giving the Emperor and his generals what they wanted it was hollow anyway, and let's face it they got it anyway?

Unless you can explain somehow that with these new provisos, that Japan would of continued anyway, which it certainly said it would not, what is your point?

It's not just the book, it's the critical acclaim and it's nomination for awards, obviously his peers thought it was worthy too? That says a lot to me; so does anyone really want to discuss what happened? Or is this all just the usual accept the facts as presented by propaganda, move on, nothing to see here?

Can the US just not accept the term atrocity? Because it was, and because it will always be seen as one. Even if you don't believe - the CIA documents, the general's testimonies, Winston Churchill's documented attempts to convince Truman to change the treaty - it's still sickening.

And if you do, as do his peers then it becomes an even more serious war crime, this is the fundamental problem, England accepts that Dresden was a war crime and has apologised, the US seems determined to never admit it's faults, and to me this demeans the country far more than an admission of guilt would.

 

[nonconformist]

I wrote a paper on the subject for my A-level history, and so I've had a chance to look at a number of primary and secndary sources, and I've come to the conclusion it was a pointless and unneeded act.

There are several reasons:

1. Japan had attempted to surrender months prior to the bombs being dropped, having sent messages to the USSR and the US requesting surrender on the same conditions as were eventually accepted.
2.There was a fairly strong peace-seeking faction in the government
3. It was widely accepted that Japan's whole ability to wage war was destroyed, and it would collapse from inside


The primary reasons for dropping the bomb are, IMHO, as follows, in no particular order:
1.To shake the USSR up
2.Revenge
3.Testing the weapon on live subjects.
4.The poeple in charge of the project, and Henry Stimson, Secretary Of War, had to justify the expenditure put into the project.
5.The Soviet invasion of Japan was embarassing to America
6.To make sure the USSR had no real future in the East.

People who lend credence to this, by providing evidence for the futility of it include:
-Henry Stimson, US Secretary of War under Roosevelt and Truman
-Dwight D. Eisenhower. General of the Army, Supreme Allied Commander Allied Expeditionary Force, European Theatre of Operations
-Winston S. Churchill, Prime Minister of UK
-Captain Sir Basil Liddell-Hart, eminant UK historian
-Admiral W.D Leahy, Join Chiefs of Staff

Thirdly, the effects of nuclear radiation was unknown at the time the bombs were dropped. Again, much of the stigma against nuclear weapons today is because of the radiation the survivors of the initial blast have to deal with. This was unknown in 1945.

Wrong; various accidents during the manufacturing and experimental stages of the bomb ensured that the Allies know plenty about the effects of radiation on the human body.

A nuclear weapon doesn't detonate on impact, it does far more damage if it detonates several thousand feet above the target: if I recall correctly, it went off two thousand feet above the city.

A nuclear weapon does more blast damage when it goes airburst, because of air pressure.
A nuke going off at ground level, or worse, just under the surface of the earth is much more dangerous in the long-term, because of maximised fallout. AAt airburst, it's minimal.


Tangentially, there are reports of Japanese Army anti-air gunners (who were obviously trailing the B-29) having their eyeballs melt in their sockets as a result of seeing the bomb.

 

[Warman17]

In response to this question, and this question alone:

Was it necessary to drop the bomb?

No, it wasn't necessary. However I think it was beneficial. We could have blockaded Japan, starved hundreds of thousands, then invaded killing millions of Japanese and hundreds of thousands of Americans. But what did we do? We dropped a couple nuclear bombs and agreed to some terms (letting the emperor remain in power).

If we went down the same path as Germany with complete and total victory it would have costed so much more than the use of the two nuclear weapons. It wasn't necessary to use them for our victory, but it was beneficial towards a better victory.

I voted other btw.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

It was a time of war, and the enemy showed no signs of surrender. The fight to capture enough islands to have a clear route to the mainland cost enough lives as it was, a mainland invasion would of costed over a million Americans and even more Japanese. As for the bombs themselves, both atomic bombings killed less people than the firebombing of Tokyo.