0
airdvr

Hiroshima and Nagasaki 70 years later

Recommended Posts

Necessary or not?

I think it saved hundreds of thousands of American lives by bringing a close to the war without forcing us to invade Japan.

I'm sure the Japanese feel somewhat different.
Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My only thought is was there not a large military complex they could have hit instead to get the point across. Like hitting the equivalent of ft Bragg who at the peak of WW2 had over 150,000 troops on base.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Necessary or not?

No; the Japanese were, at that point, trying to surrender to us. In April and May of that year they had sent ambassadors to neutral countries (Portugal and Sweden) to offer terms of surrender; the only thing they wanted that differed from their final surrender was a stipulation that the Emperor not be touched and be allowed to remain as a figurehead.

Indeed, the Emperor was one of the strongest advocates of peace. From the Emperor in June of that year to his generals: ""We have heard enough of this determination of yours to fight to the last soldiers. We wish that you, leaders of Japan, will strive now to study the ways and the means to conclude the war. In doing so, try not to be bound by the decisions you have made in the past."

We knew this. Navy Secretary James Forrestal said the messages they had intercepted were "real evidence of a Japanese desire to get out of the war." A government group called the United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded this in its 1946 report: " Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945 [the date of the planned American invasion], Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

This put the US in a quandry. We very much needed to drop those bombs to prove to Russia that we had the capability; at that point in the war we were more worried about Russia (who at that point was our ally) than the Japanese. Thus we ignored the intelligence, accelerated the schedule for the Enola Gay mission and dropped them.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>My only thought is was there not a large military complex they could have
>hit instead to get the point across.

We tried to claim that. Truman in 1946: "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will be the first to admit my studies of that time period are lacking.

After doing some searching it seems that it was chosen in a list of others that did not meet the same fate. The list of cites were chosen due to psychological effect, destruction of military outsourcing to factories in the cities, lack of conventional bombing recently so effects can be studied better, command resource buildings and personnel, and military bases/ports.

Leaflets were delivered threatening bombing of an un-conventional nature across japan but NO SPECIAL warning to the two cities chosen were made ahead of time.

As far as Japan wanting to surrender I read that they knew they were heading for a loss after the U.S took the Mariana Islands but the U.S. would have insisted on an unconditional surrender while Japan would insist that their way of life be kept the same including the ruler. Even after the first bomb, junior officers tried to stop the broadcast of Hirohito's surrender message by force. An attempt to abduct the Emperor and prevent him from advocating surrender also failed. This tells me that although they knew they could not win their way of life and pride would not let them surrender until after the second bomb.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why did we drop the bomb? Why does a dog lick his balls?

In 1939 the U.S. was roundly sanctimonious about collateral damage. In 1945 we wrote the book on unrepentant elimination of civilian populations by military means.

Curtis LeMay's stated intent was to reduce the population of Japan "by half," a goal largely achieved.

The appalling death toll at Dresden was due to its housing a large population of refugees. If you want a large body count, the Waffen SS makes going tough - much easier to incinerate orphans and geriatrics.

According to Richard Rhodes, the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were either pointless or counterproductive, depending on how charitable one wishes to be.


BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
muff528


Institute for Historical Review ....interesting outfit.

Yes...I can see that is an excellent source. Totally plausible...NOT.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/institute-historical-review
Founded in 1978 by Willis Carto, a longtime anti-Semite, the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) is a pseudo-academic organization that claims to seek "truth and accuracy in history," but whose real purpose is to promote Holocaust denial and defend Nazism. Once a prominent voice in extremist circles, the IHR has been on the decline, unable to publish its anti-Semitic Journal of Historical Review or sponsor major international Holocaust denial conferences since 2004. The organization still runs its website, where it peddles extremist books and other materials, and hosts some minor extremist gatherings.
Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Japanese may have offered terms for surrender but the conditions established in the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences by the Allies rejected any terms offered by Germany and/or Japan. The terms TO Germany and Japan were simple and direct; unconditional surrender.

There has been much debate about the bombing of Japanese cities. The Japanese dispersed a lot of their industries supporting the military into the cities and in particular, the homes of its citizens. It was not uncommon for military uniforms or rifle bullets to be manufactured in private homes and the result is that the home becomes a legitimate military target that can be destroyed by opposing forces under the terms of laws of war, Geneva Convention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boomerdog

The Japanese may have offered terms for surrender but the conditions established in the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences by the Allies rejected any terms offered by Germany and/or Japan. The terms TO Germany and Japan were simple and direct; unconditional surrender.

There has been much debate about the bombing of Japanese cities. The Japanese dispersed a lot of their industries supporting the military into the cities and in particular, the homes of its citizens. It was not uncommon for military uniforms or rifle bullets to be manufactured in private homes and the result is that the home becomes a legitimate military target that can be destroyed by opposing forces under the terms of laws of war, Geneva Convention.



Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

***The Japanese may have offered terms for surrender but the conditions established in the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences by the Allies rejected any terms offered by Germany and/or Japan. The terms TO Germany and Japan were simple and direct; unconditional surrender.

There has been much debate about the bombing of Japanese cities. The Japanese dispersed a lot of their industries supporting the military into the cities and in particular, the homes of its citizens. It was not uncommon for military uniforms or rifle bullets to be manufactured in private homes and the result is that the home becomes a legitimate military target that can be destroyed by opposing forces under the terms of laws of war, Geneva Convention.



Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Hehe...good thinq we didn't feel that way when Winston begged us for help.
Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.



Hindsight is a wonderful gift. The fact is more Japanese died and more real estate destroyed by conventional bombing than the two nukes delivered to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Conventional bombing could have continued but would have failed politically and war is a political action. The statement to the Japanese and of course to the rest of the world was this, the United States now has the power to deliver ONE bomb to destroy one city.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not have occurred had Pearl Harbor NOT been attacked as that was the thinking at the time.

My father-in-law, now 98, hit four beaches (Tarawa, Guam, Tinian, and Saipan). Over the 33 years I've known him, he has talked to me about his experiences and his thoughts. What he saw and what he did along with his fellow Marines describes the horror and barbarity of war. That's how it was, and essentially, that's how it is or to quote W.T. Sherman, "War is hell and you can't refine it."

But to another issue equally as important is the image and perspective of the United States at the time. My father-in-law made an important point in a discussion that has stuck with me to this day in understanding World War II. There was sufficient doubt in public opinion that the United States could fight a two theatre war and win both in spite of the outrage of Pearl Harbor. Sure, we can look back on it now and say victory was obvious all along, but that is hindsight.

Thus, my rejoinder is this: just because we can sometimes means we must simply because the times and circumstances require the action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
airdvr

******The Japanese may have offered terms for surrender but the conditions established in the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences by the Allies rejected any terms offered by Germany and/or Japan. The terms TO Germany and Japan were simple and direct; unconditional surrender.

There has been much debate about the bombing of Japanese cities. The Japanese dispersed a lot of their industries supporting the military into the cities and in particular, the homes of its citizens. It was not uncommon for military uniforms or rifle bullets to be manufactured in private homes and the result is that the home becomes a legitimate military target that can be destroyed by opposing forces under the terms of laws of war, Geneva Convention.



Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Hehe...good thinq we didn't feel that way when Winston begged us for help.

USA neutral until December 11, 1941, when Germany declares war on the USA.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

*********The Japanese may have offered terms for surrender but the conditions established in the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences by the Allies rejected any terms offered by Germany and/or Japan. The terms TO Germany and Japan were simple and direct; unconditional surrender.

There has been much debate about the bombing of Japanese cities. The Japanese dispersed a lot of their industries supporting the military into the cities and in particular, the homes of its citizens. It was not uncommon for military uniforms or rifle bullets to be manufactured in private homes and the result is that the home becomes a legitimate military target that can be destroyed by opposing forces under the terms of laws of war, Geneva Convention.



Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Hehe...good thinq we didn't feel that way when Winston begged us for help.

USA neutral until December 11, 1941, when Germany declares war on the USA.

I do believe the Brits and their French Allies got themselves into that one.... still playing at the same game they had played earlier in the century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amazon

************The Japanese may have offered terms for surrender but the conditions established in the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences by the Allies rejected any terms offered by Germany and/or Japan. The terms TO Germany and Japan were simple and direct; unconditional surrender.

There has been much debate about the bombing of Japanese cities. The Japanese dispersed a lot of their industries supporting the military into the cities and in particular, the homes of its citizens. It was not uncommon for military uniforms or rifle bullets to be manufactured in private homes and the result is that the home becomes a legitimate military target that can be destroyed by opposing forces under the terms of laws of war, Geneva Convention.



Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Hehe...good thinq we didn't feel that way when Winston begged us for help.

USA neutral until December 11, 1941, when Germany declares war on the USA.

I do believe the Brits and their French Allies got themselves into that one.... still playing at the same game they had played earlier in the century.

The Brits had played the same game since the time of Henry VIII. Ally themselves with whoever was threatened by the currently most powerful nation in Europe (which was at various times Spain, France or Germany).
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boomerdog

Quote

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.


Thus, my rejoinder is this: just because we can sometimes means we must simply because the times and circumstances require the action.

I think perhaps Stanislav Petrov is worth a mention - the man some say single-handedly stopped WWIII. He was working at a Russian nuclear early-warning station, and chose not to report what his system indicated as 5 nuclear missiles heading into Russia. He correctly believed it was an error, and chose not to report to his superiors, who would be likely to launch a nuclear retaliation upon such a report.

Perhaps a good thing he decided to not do so, even if he could... :)
More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>The Japanese may have offered terms for surrender but the conditions
>established in the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences by the Allies rejected any
>terms offered by Germany and/or Japan. The terms TO Germany and Japan
>were simple and direct; unconditional surrender.

Agreed, and Japan was offering surrender with no conditions other than retaining the emperor. That, however, is quite different than "there was no way to end the war - and save millions of US soldliers - other than dropping those bombs." In fact we could have ended it before that with an end result very similar to the result we achieved. We didn't want to.

>There has been much debate about the bombing of Japanese cities. The
>Japanese dispersed a lot of their industries supporting the military into the
>cities and in particular, the homes of its citizens. It was not uncommon for
>military uniforms or rifle bullets to be manufactured in private homes and the
>result is that the home becomes a legitimate military target that can be
>destroyed by opposing forces under the terms of laws of war, Geneva
>Convention.

How is that different from what we did? Posters of the time exhorted everyone to support the war effort. Almost every town in the US had programs that collected scrap iron, paper and rubber for the military effort, and war bond efforts were in full swing. Many of these programs were run out of local schools. Does that mean that US schools were legitimate military targets under the laws of war? I have a feeling we would disagree.

We could have chosen a military target - but we wanted to send a very clear signal to Russia over what we could do to a city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

How is that different from what we did?



Actually, we would probably agree. It's not a matter of my opinion on my part it's what the Geneva Convention defines as what is and what is not a legitimate military target.

But would it have mattered? The fact is that despite some small attacks by Japan (long range balloon bombs come to mind), American cities were not bombed. Whether Nazi Germany or Japan would have respected the Geneva Convention with the initial planning in bombing only military targets in American cities is doubtful.

Daylight bombing by Eighth Air Force was focused on military targets but the undeniable fact is the Norden Bombsight was not as accurate as it was cracked up to be. So bombs did stray into civilian enclaves Ol' Bomber Harris (RAF) didn't give a damn. He didn't care where the bombs hit in German cities.

Fact is whether you or I like it or not, justice and history is respectively metted out and written by the victors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would bet and probably be correct that the event you cite is not the only close call of the Cold War. But the Cold War brought to it different constructs and strategies far apart from what we saw in WWII. Let there be no mistake, it was nonetheless a war and many died executing missions of which "the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of such actions."

My comments are made in the context AND ONLY the context of the Subject Thread and not the Cold War.

"...because the times and circumstances require the action."

I hope that clears things up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm hesitant to enter a discussion such as this because so much has been argued before, by smarter people, and because one really needs to personally know a lot of the background information on who knew what and when.

But here goes:

As I see it, some of those in Japan with influence were wanting to get out of the war. But "thinking about giving up" or "wanting to give up" or "probably will give up in the near future" are not the same as actually giving up. You were allowed to hit your enemy and hit them hard until the moment they actually surrendered.

The US's (and allies') insistence on unconditional surrender may have been a reasonable one, although perhaps flawed in retrospect. Such a measure tries to avoid delaying tactics in negotiation, but also may force an enemy to hold out longer to the bitter end. The US might have better picked up on the cues before war's end to offer an olive branch (allowing Japan to keep a non-divine emperor), but it is not wrong to have been imperfect.

Before the bombs dropped, some scientists and others moralized about and and questioned the future issues with atomic weaponry. Other, such as many in the military, were in the business of killing the enemy with whatever "legitimate" weapons they had at hand.

The US did reject the idea of using the bomb on a non-populated test target, but it was a possibility that was at least examined.

Was the bomb used as a signal to the Soviet Union? Sure. Were the bomb targets carefully picked to be able to use as "test cases" on largely undamaged cities? Sure. Do I believe that many in the US have often had a simplistic and biased view of history and their own morality, which has at times had a negative influence on the world in the last century? Yes.

But none of this changes the use of the bomb being legitimate in my eyes.

The US was in a struggle with an enemy that had not given up yet. The US had already been firebombing and destroying large swaths of Japanese cities, through an impressive industrial-military effort. The US now had a new, stronger weapon. It was war, the enemy hadn't surrendered, and so the US used that new weapon. Largely, that's the end of the story.

So the American use of 'the bomb' may not have been nice or good or absolutely necessary but it was legitimate in my eyes.


P.S.-- Americans, thanks for not being too fast in developing the bomb. My mom survived the Dresden bombing in Feb 1945. Bad enough with conventional weaponry. Again, it was bad, nasty, not absolutely necessary... but legitimate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And on a lighter (?) note, think about what would have happened had the US not dropped the bombs:

Commies would have been claiming for the decades of the Cold War that they had also won the Pacific part of World War Two.

Although I'm shaky on the details, I figure Japan would have given up without a full invasion, with just the atomic bombs dropped, or with the realization of the implications of the Soviet Union joining the war. Either would have done the job but at least with the bomb, the US can legitimately claim to have driven their enemy to surrender, from its actions from the beginning to the end of the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pchapman

And on a lighter (?) note, think about what would have happened had the US not dropped the bombs:

Commies would have been claiming for the decades of the Cold War that they had also won the Pacific part of World War Two.

Although I'm shaky on the details, I figure Japan would have given up without a full invasion, with just the atomic bombs dropped, or with the realization of the implications of the Soviet Union joining the war. Either would have done the job but at least with the bomb, the US can legitimately claim to have driven their enemy to surrender, from its actions from the beginning to the end of the war.



I do believe that the lessons of Saipan, Okinawa and other parts of the Empire of Japan were becoming painfully clear how far the Japanese population was willing to go with no surrender. Civilians killing themselves in large numbers was common... and soldiers fighting to the death was their only option.

I believe our leaders believed the mainland of Japan would be tragic for our Marines and Army personnel as well as millions of Japanese.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0