Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[michel]

Painted Wolf,

This is the problem with the "success" of those bombs. It gave the impression that unmitigated force will prevail in all circumstances. The world leaders saw past the human sorrow to the collapse of Japan's fighting spirit. "If such crude devices worked so well in ending our conflict", they mused, "then Bigger and Badder bombs will end them even more quickly!"

It was this case of one upsmanship that brought us to the brink of a nuclear holocaust during the cold war.

They say hindsight is 20/20, but in many instances it is incredibly myopic. It is nigh impossible for us to accurately second guess some decisions and more so as time progresses. It is easy for us to condemn acts as unholy when we really don't have a clue as to what was going on. In the same way, I have been guilty of second guessing our current president on the war with Iraq. I don't know everything he knew, and frankly I truly believe he not only deceived the nation but also himself in his desire to justify this unjustifiable war.

But then I look at this through the eyes of Vietnam and the Cold War. Many don't share my perspective. Their life learning has come not only from a different historical perspective, but from a different ideological perspective. Get my drift? It is IMPOSSIBLE for us to discern how accurately those who made the final decision (namely Truman) used the information at hand and how their life learning affected that decision. I am incredibly thankful that this was not a decision that I had to make.

Amen to that! But there are some who never learn; Napoleon tried to invade Russia - the Russians merely sat back, and watched him march into their land, knowing full well that by the time winter set in, he would be cut off from supplies.

Hitler did'nt take any notice - he fell into exactly the same trap. As you say "They say hindsight is 20/20, but in many instances it is incredibly myopic".

Is this out of ignorance, do you think?, or out of 'I'll do it better than the others' ?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

they could not have continued to fight with out oil, food, and a suppplyer of weapons.

So - you are saying that starving them to death over the course of another year would have been more humane? I'm having trouble with that one.

we cut all of that so tell me how long they could have financed an army, airforce, and navy?

Well, none of us know the exact answer to this question, but I can tell you that they had already lasted for about 5 or 6 years, using the slave labor of captured Allied soldiers and Chinese slaves. I doubt that they were within say, a year of giving up.

all the americans needed to do was to storm the royal palace and that would have ended the war.

Heck, that sounds easy. I wonder why the military didn't have a clear thinking individual around that could see the simple answer?

we had no justification to murder innocent people in that way or any other.

Remind me again why everyone thinks that war is an ugly business that should be avoided at all costs? As I said to Halcyon - EVERY country commits these attrocities - America's technology was simply better at eradicating a large number of people in one fell swoop. As a side question, which country involved in WWII was justified in it's attacks on civilians?

... for this country to have stockpiles of big bad nukes but that country can't. whats up with that? why was it alright for us to use something we didn't need to use, but other countries can't? it is hypricritical don't you think?

Surely you are not espousing the proliferation of nuclear weapons to all sovereign nations? Please tell me that is not what you meant.

TVOR

 

[Shadow Wolf]

all the americans needed to do was to storm the royal palace and that would have ended the war.

And more American lives would have been needlessly lost. Japan only surrendered after the Abomb was droped because they realized that there was no possible way to win, and that to continue would have meant total annihalation. If America would have stormed the "royal palace" the war would have continued. Japan would have the rescources to last on thier own for awhile, and more American lives are lost. Or, you could just drop a new, really powerful bomb, and quickly end the war.

 

[Mossburg32908]

Listen now if where talking about WWII being justified, of course it was, over 6 million jews were killed, then over 3 thousand americans died in pearl harbor. Lets say this, a man kills every one you know and love to leave you with only your self, and you telling me you would not want justice.

 

[Doc]

Although I am a peace loving dude, I can't help but think of no better solution then the A-Bombs. Total invasion would have continued the war and claimed the lives of millions on both sides. (My grandfather was all set to fight in the Pacific againsts Japan when the bombs were dropped) I discourage violence but I refuse to dismiss it as 'never effective'. The Holocaust could not have been stopped with picket signs outside concentration camps saying that we are pro life and its against God's plan. The Nazis were not going to here about it. The were ruthless and relentless in their mass slayings. Terrible things happened in Japan's camps as well, though not as terrible as the Nazis. So would cancelling the A-bombs and settling for even greater slaughter in the Pacific have helped the war?

 

[skills101]

And I reiterate, that if you were indeed correct that there was no way they would surrender, then they'd either still be fighting today or they'd all be dead, regardless of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Neither is the case.

I recently inquired my buddy, who teaches world history, about the matter. He said, and I quote, "the nature of the Japanese, during the time, would be to fight until every citizen died." Does the method of teaching children how to sharpen sticks and kill Americans with sound like a real effort to surrender?

Now, to think that no one will EVER surrender is a bit unrealistic. I know I'm contradicting what I'm saying, but I believe the A-bombs pushed them to the point where surrender was well over the horizon. Therefore, the idea of the A-bombs worked. They ended WW2...

 

[BUDDY]

Just wanted to bring up a few facts about the bombings. Prior to the dropping of the first bomb, leaflets were dropped for three straight days, warning the inhabitants that the city would be destroyed. They did this before both bombs, in both the primary and secondary target cities (Nagasaki was a secondary target). Also, the number of people killed in the nuclear bombings of both cities pales in comparison with how many died in the fire bombing of Tokyo. If that type of bombing had continued, the number of dead would have dwarfed those killed by the nuclear bombs. I think you really have to look at these things in context in order to fully understand them. It is very easy for us to sit here, fifty years later, and say it wasn't justified. Most of us have the advantage of not seeing every able bodied man in our communities go to war, know of those in our neighborhoods who went on the death march in Corrigador or had friends and families lost at Pearl Harbor. Estimates of the number of dead that would have resulted from a full scale invasion number in the millions. Not just from combat casualties, but from citizens that would have thrown themselves and their children from cliffs into the ocean, such as was the case when we invaded Okinawa. The Japanese mentality was that death was better than surrender. I think that as difficult a decision as it must have been, it was the right one given the situation.

 

[skills101]

The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the greatest atrocities, next the holocaust, ever perpetrated by human beings. The American government quite literally melted 300,000 men, women and children indiscriminately just to see what would happen. War is evil, but even in war there should be certain rules, like only attacking military targets. But did they cripple Japan's war machine? No they just A-bombed H and N and napalmed Tokyo killing 500,000 civilians in total - plus the radiation kills and mutates children for years afterwards. It makes me sick just thinking about it. I won't look at this thread again becasue if i saw someone defending the killing of half a million innocent people in such a gruesome way i might do something i'd later regret, so don't bother addressing any posts to me.

Okay, I won't address it to you. But I will address it to people who believe the same way you do.

You said that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were meant "just to see what would happen." That makes me sick. Just as the question of whether Jesus really lived, or whether America really landed on the moon, I think its quite indisputable that the A-bombs were the reason the Japanese surrendered, saving hundreds of thousands of American lives in the process.

Yes, war is evil. But when you have people who are taught savagery every day, you can't measure gentlemenly ways to stop it, you just have to stop it.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Yes, war is evil. But when you have people who are taught savagery every day, you can't measure gentlemenly ways to stop it, you just have to stop it.

If you descend to the level of the savage, can you still take the moral high ground?

While I still have my doubts as to whether things could have been resolved another way, I imagine that given the information he had (he perhaps didn't have a full picture) Truman did what he figured he had to.

PS: Skills, better get ready to feel a little ill. Apparently, Kyoto - not Nagasaki - was originally the secondary target. Last minute intervention by then US Secretary of War Henry Stimson resulted in the target being changed. This despite strong opposition from the head of The Manhattan Project, Lt.Gen. Leslie Groves. Groves later wrote in his memoirs:
"…I particularly wanted Kyoto as a target because, as I have said, it was large enough an area for us to gain complete knowledge of the effects of an atom bomb. Hiroshima was not nearly so satisfactory in this respect." [Leslie Groves: Now It Can Be Told (Story of the Manhattan Project), Andre Deutsch, London, 1963, p.275]

While Truman and others perhaps had the best of intentions behind their actions, this at least shows that some people were very interested in the 'let's see what it can do' aspect.

 

[skills101]

PS: Skills, better get ready to feel a little ill. Apparently, Kyoto - not Nagasaki - was originally the secondary target. Last minute intervention by then US Secretary of War Henry Stimson resulted in the target being changed. This despite strong opposition from the head of The Manhattan Project, Lt.Gen. Leslie Groves. Groves later wrote in his memoirs:
"…I particularly wanted Kyoto as a target because, as I have said, it was large enough an area for us to gain complete knowledge of the effects of an atom bomb. Hiroshima was not nearly so satisfactory in this respect." [Leslie Groves: Now It Can Be Told (Story of the Manhattan Project), Andre Deutsch, London, 1963, p.275]

You have to understand what I was saying. Halcyon claimed that the sole reason for Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to see the effects of the atom bomb. I agree, it was impossible to know the complete effects of an atom bomb simply by 2 uses, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were simply not tests for the bomb...

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Have a squiz at this people...it's quite informative...especially for the 'never surrender' contingent.

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

After studying this matter in great detail, the United States Strategic Bombing Survey rejected the notion that Japan gave up because of the atomic bombings. In its authoritative 1946 report, the Survey concluded:

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the enemy leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender. The Emperor, the Lord Privy Seal, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the Navy Minister had decided as early as May of 1945 that the war should be ended even if it meant acceptance of defeat on allied terms ...



​

As difficult as it may be to accept after hearing how necessary it was for such a long time, there is a wealth of information out there that shows that perhaps the bombings weren't necessary to win the war. The site above is a wealth of information by itself...some of the people who condemned the bombings at the time were people in a position to know the facts. There is ample evidence that Japan would have surrendered BEFORE the bombings (more that I ever realised there was, actually.)



I can sit here and quote reams and reams of stuff but I doubt much will be achieved by that.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that people have a certain view of the Japanese and what motivates them. They have been told that the atomic bombs ended the war, and lets face it, that's a much nicer thought to go away with than that the Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender and everyone just ignored them and bombed them anyway, because that lends some credence to the people who say it was all for the sake of nuclear testing. It's a case of leading horses to water. You either drink or you don't.
​

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Just wanted to bring up a few facts about the bombings. Prior to the dropping of the first bomb, leaflets were dropped for three straight days, warning the inhabitants that the city would be destroyed.

Actually, I found one site that said they were given no warnings whatsoever. This is not strictly true, however.

Dr. Arthur Compton, the then Director of the Metallurgical Project (a unit of the Manhattan Project) later confessed that: "…Hiroshima had not been given any specific warning. The people were caught unprepared…. Men and women were accordingly in the streets, going about their normal business."
[Arthur Compton: Atomic Quest, Oxford University Press, London, 1956, pp254-255]

So I looked a little deeper, and found this site:http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol46no3/article07.html .
They have a pic of an actual copy of one of the leaflets that were dropped over 35 Japanese cities, which states:

Front side of OWI notice #2106, dubbed the “LeMay bombing leaflet,” which was delivered to Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities on 1 August 1945. The Japanese text on the reverse side of the leaflet carried the following warning: “Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately.”

No indication that they were dropping anything out of the ordinary, and nothing to even vaguely suggest that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were specific targets of something out of the ordinary.
They were warned that there may be something coming.
They weren't warned that there was something coming specifically for them that you couldn't even vaguely hope to avoid because it was one bomb that would take the whole city out when it went off.

 

[skills101]

As difficult as it may be to accept after hearing how necessary it was for such a long time, there is a wealth of information out there that shows that perhaps the bombings weren't necessary to win the war. The site above is a wealth of information by itself...some of the people who condemned the bombings at the time were people in a position to know the facts. There is ample evidence that Japan would have surrendered BEFORE the bombings (more that I ever realised there was, actually.)

Sometimes, when you're trying to gather evidence for something, you have to question its source. The Institute for Historical Review has been the leading anti-Holocaust propagator for the twentieth century, claiming the whole idea is a hoax. Surely you aren't one to take from sources who claim the Holocaust never happened?

 

[armageddon]

Do you believe that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII justified?

If not, what do you think would have been the better solution?

i think that no, they were not justified, especially the way that everything was timed. the US told japan about a weapon of mass destruction and japan, of course, just blew it off because they havent seen any proof of the greatness of the weapon. all the US gave them was a warning and japan could have seen it as an empty threat to get them out of the war (which they were soon going to do anyway). second, the time difference inbetween the bombings was only three days. the US didn't even give japan much time to surrender, so the second bomb was extremely unnecessary, or so i believe. lastly, one of the main purposes of dropping the abomb in hiroshima and nagasaki was to test it on a target as a science experiment. many innocent lives died and those who survived had to suffer diseases/illnesses. all those people had to pay the price of something they probably didn't want to take part of with their lives and, although that is the cost of war, that is still wrong.

 

[Bastet]

Sometimes, when you're trying to gather evidence for something, you have to question its source. The Institute for Historical Review has been the leading anti-Holocaust propagator for the twentieth century, claiming the whole idea is a hoax. Surely you aren't one to take from sources who claim the Holocaust never happened?

Sometimes, when you're trying to debunk someone's argument, instead of going off and doing independant research to see if there is another site that you might consider a more 'legitimate' source of their information, you just throw your hands in the air and go "See! This site says one thing that is total rubbish, therefore everything else this site claims is total rubbish as well!". It all goes back to that leading a horse to water bizzo...some are just bound to die of dehydration regardless.

 

[lilithu]

Do you believe that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII justified?

If not, what do you think would have been the better solution?

I admit to just skimming the previous posts so if this point has already been made and I missed it, I apologize.

It seems to me that there are two separate questions here: was the bombing of Hiroshima justified and was the bombing of Nagasaki justified? I've seen a lot of discussion in favor of justifying the bombing of Hiroshima - that the fighting in the Pacific theater was particularly vicious and it was a matter of saving American soldiers who otherwise would have experienced even more horrendous casualties. I would point out that just war theory says that civilians are never a legitimate target (altho it does allow for collateral damage). Is it ethical to value the lives of American soldiers over Japanese civilans, including children? Still, I do understand the desire to protect our own. I don't know if that makes it justified, but I understand it.

However, even if one accepts that justification for Hiroshima, does that justify the dropping of the second bomb on Nagasaki? Was enough time given to allow Japan to absorb the consequences of what had happened in Hiroshima and surrender?

 

[michel]

I admit to just skimming the previous posts so if this point has already been made and I missed it, I apologize.

It seems to me that there are two separate questions here: was the bombing of Hiroshima justified and was the bombing of Nagasaki justified? I've seen a lot of discussion in favor of justifying the bombing of Hiroshima - that the fighting in the Pacific theater was particularly vicious and it was a matter of saving American soldiers who otherwise would have experienced even more horrendous casualties. I would point out that just war theory says that civilians are never a legitimate target (altho it does allow for collateral damage). Is it ethical to value the lives of American soldiers over Japanese civilans, including children? Still, I do understand the desire to protect our own. I don't know if that makes it justified, but I understand it.

However, even if one accepts that justification for Hiroshima, does that justify the dropping of the second bomb on Nagasaki? Was enough time given to allow Japan to absorb the consequences of what had happened in Hiroshima and surrender?

Lilithu, Namaste.

With the greatest respect ( I actually agree with you ) when it's wartime, it's wartime. Had there been reporters from every nation following WWI and II , I think you would have seen pockets of 'Allied troops' - including the French and Belgian resistance fighters committing atrocities. My own father had some stories to tell about how soldiers who went to war with the best of intentions ended up doing things even they themselves would have thought unthinkable before the war.

I think that it is easy for us to moralize now that we're comfortable in the knowledge that we would'nt have to make that sort of decision ourselves, but I reckon this is a tipycal example of 'There but for the Grace of God go I'

 

[lilithu]

Hi Michel, namaste.

I have the greatest respect for those who have gone to war so that the rest of us don't have to. For those who have witnessed and been forced to do horrible things, and then expected to come back to society and act "normal" as if nothing has happened. I can't imagine how hard that must be for them. If we were discussing the atrocities commited by soldiers in the field it would indeed be hard for me to judge their actions without a great deal of sympathy. I'm not saying that I know I would do better.

However, the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not done by soldiers on the front line in the heat of battle. It was done by generals and military advisors and our president, and they had plenty of time to think about it. Even so, I am not condemning them. I am just questioning whether we lived up to our ideals in these cases.

-lilith

 

[michel]

Hi Michel, namaste.

I have the greatest respect for those who have gone to war so that the rest of us don't have to. For those who have witnessed and been forced to do horrible things, and then expected to come back to society and act "normal" as if nothing has happened. I can't imagine how hard that must be for them. If we were discussing the atrocities commited by soldiers in the field it would indeed be hard for me to judge their actions without a great deal of sympathy. I'm not saying that I know I would do better.

However, the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not done by soldiers on the front line in the heat of battle. It was done by generals and military advisors and our president, and they had plenty of time to think about it. Even so, I am not condemning them. I am just questioning whether we lived up to our ideals in these cases.

-lilith

Lilithu, Namaste.

I see the point you're making - and I did'nt address it - you are right.

However, if you - for sake of example had lived at the time of WWII, as my mother and father (and their parents) did, I think even if you had been 'at home' your moral ideals would have been 'tarnished'.

I can only speak for the British here, but if you saw an entire city virtually anihalated over a period of a week of perpetual nightime bombings - targetted at everything, civilaians, hospitals, the lot - I can't of course speak for you - but I'm sure enough that even I would have 'lost it' and gone along with something like the Bomb. Whether or not two were necessary is a debatable question, but I don't think people had the time to sit and moralize - they just 'wanted out' at any cost.

 

[lilithu]

However, if you - for sake of example had lived at the time of WWII, as my mother and father (and their parents) did, I think even if you had been 'at home' your moral ideals would have been 'tarnished'.

I can only speak for the British here, but if you saw an entire city virtually anihalated over a period of a week of perpetual nightime bombings - targetted at everything, civilaians, hospitals, the lot - I can't of course speak for you - but I'm sure enough that even I would have 'lost it' and gone along with something like the Bomb. Whether or not two were necessary is a debatable question, but I don't think people had the time to sit and moralize - they just 'wanted out' at any cost.

Actually, my parents did live thru WWII as kids, along with my grandparents, aunts and uncles and great-aunts and great-uncles, etc. And they suffered directly under the occupation of the Japanese. My dad remembers signs in Japanese-occupied Shantung that prohibited Chinese from their own stores and restaurants. And my great-aunt on my mother's side still bears a cigarette burn on her stomach, a memento from a Japanese soldier when she was 8-months pregnant. On my last trip to China I saw a prison where Chinese prisoners had been kept in barrels, barely big enough for them to squeeze into, and then burried alive with an airhole. I grew up with this hurt and anger and some of it did rub off on me. And all the stuff in the news had just recently reopened wounds in my family. Even so. Even as I feel the pain of what my family and their countrymen went thru, even as I feel anger well up, I still question whether dropping two bombs that killed civilians and soldiers alike, that killed children, was justified.

Besides, the people who made the decision to drop the bombs did not live thru the horror that our parents lived thru. And I would hope that my leaders would make their decisions based not on anger and revenge, but what is right.