Hiroshima Day

[Tokitoki]

Thinking back to the research on this that I did for a paper 4-5 years ago...

If the US had not dropped the atomic bomb the projected US troop loss for an invasion numbered in the millions. That does not include the Japanese forces or any civilians that would have been caught in the crossfire during an invasion.

Also given the attitude of the Japanese leaders, it was much more effective to drop an atomic bomb and show a clear difference in power than to continue fighting on land and sea battles. The leaders of Japan at the time showed no signs of surrender after threats of dropping the bomb by Truman, not to mention the troops were not afraid to kill themselves just to cause damage to the US troops (kamikaze pilots). Even after dropping two bombs Truman threatened with a third bomb (that we didnt have) before the Japanese surrendered. During this same time period Truman talked to Stalin about the bomb, basically bragging of its power and that the US developed a successful bomb before the Soviet Union.

The bomb was used to end the war quickly to avoid 2+ million casualties between the two forces, plus any other nations that would get involved. The better question would have been "Do you think it was logical to drop the second bomb on Nagasaki 3? days after Hiroshima?"

Do I think that the bomb was used properly? No, not entirely. I believe that even if their targets were military in nature, I'm sure they could have found an island that was less populated by civilians and more focused on military to display the power of the atomic bomb. As for Nagasaki being bombed only days after Hiroshima, that too seems illogical to me because of the small time frame for a response. The nation would obviously be in a state of chaos, trying to help all its citizens affected by the bomb, I do not think there was a reason to drop a second bomb so soon before making direct contact with the Japanese government.

Anyway, rant over.

[Correction]

Anybody can challenge and rethink after the fact. It's called 'covering your ass.'

[Beckwin]

Here's a more credible source than some "random tree hugger site":

The principal justification for obliterating Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that it "saved lives" because otherwise a planned U.S. invasion of Japan would have been necessary, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands. Truman at one point used the figure "a half million lives," and Churchill "a million lives," but these were figures pulled out of the air to calm troubled consciences; even official projections for the number of casualties in an invasion did not go beyond 46,000.

In fact, the bombs that fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not forestall an invasion of Japan because no invasion was necessary. The Japanese were on the verge of surrender, and American military leaders knew that. General Eisenhower, briefed by Secretary of War Henry Stimson on the imminent use of the bomb, told him that "Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary."

After the bombing, Admiral William D. Leary, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the atomic bomb "a barbarous weapon," also noting that: "The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."
The Japanese had begun to move to end the war after the U.S. victory on Okinawa, in May of 1945, in the bloodiest battle of the Pacific War. After the middle of June, six members of the Japanese Supreme War Council authorized Foreign Minister Togo to approach the Soviet Union, which was not at war with Japan, to mediate an end to the war "if possible by September."

Togo sent Ambassador Sato to Moscow to feel out the possibility of a negotiated surrender. On July 13, four days before Truman, Churchill, and Stalin met in Potsdam to prepare for the end of the war (Germany had surrendered two months earlier), Togo sent a telegram to Sato: "Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace. It is his Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war."

The United States knew about that telegram because it had broken the Japanese code early in the war. American officials knew also that the Japanese resistance to unconditional surrender was because they had one condition enormously important to them: the retention of the Emperor as symbolic leader. Former Ambassador to Japan Joseph Grew and others who knew something about Japanese society had suggested that allowing Japan to keep its Emperor would save countless lives by bringing an early end to the war.

Yet Truman would not relent, and the Potsdam conference agreed to insist on "unconditional surrender." This ensured that the bombs would fall on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It seems that the United States government was determined to drop those bombs.

But why? Gar Alperovitz, whose research on that question is unmatched (The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, Knopf, 1995), concluded, based on the papers of Truman, his chief adviser James Byrnes, and others, that the bomb was seen as a diplomatic weapon against the Soviet Union. Byrnes advised Truman that the bomb "could let us dictate the terms of ending the war." The British scientist P.M.S. Blackett, one of Churchill's advisers, wrote after the war that dropping the atomic bomb was "the first major operation of the cold diplomatic war with Russia."

There is also evidence that domestic politics played an important role in the decision. In his recent book, Freedom From Fear: The United States, 1929-1945 (Oxford, 1999), David Kennedy quotes Secretary of State Cordell Hull advising Byrnes, before the Potsdam conference, that "terrible political repercussions would follow in the U.S." if the unconditional surrender principle would be abandoned. The President would be "crucified" if he did that, Byrnes said. Kennedy reports that "Byrnes accordingly repudiated the suggestions of Leahy, McCloy, Grew, and Stimson," all of whom were willing to relax the "unconditional surrender" demand just enough to permit the Japanese their face-saving requirement for ending the war.

-Howard Zinn, WWII bombardier and American historian

full link: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zi...bs_August.html

[pohibaba]

The only possible outcome of the war for us was an utter and complete surrender of the Japanese forces and their government. We weren't going to accept any other result. How long would it take to get an unconditional surrender if we kept island hopping to Japan and to attack their native land. I'm not sure if they ever would have given up. I disagree with how the bombs were dropped. I would have dropped one over an unoccupied area of Japan and then told the government that they had 48 hours to offer us an unconditional surrender or we would drop another one, and this time we would be aiming to kill. 1 minute after that time period was over, I would do exactly as I had threatened to do. I've read the reasons for why they didn't choose to do that, and while I understand them, I don't agree with them.

[Tokitoki]

Howard Zinn is not exactly the most unbiased of writers, anyone that's read his books can tell you that.

With all this said: hindsight is 20/20.

I was thinking of saying that, but then again this whole thing is shrouded in debate so it isnt 20/20

[Elvis]

Anybody can challenge and rethink after the fact. It's called 'covering your ass.'

I hate statements like this. The idea that you can't debate something because it's already taken place is not only INSANE but fascist.

What's that quote? Those who don't learn from history or doomed to repeat it. Or something.

I would judge a debate by the nature of it's arguments. Again, this isn't a matter of emotional rhetoric.

You have 2 components to the argument on both sides:

Ethical and Strategic.

That's it. If someone isn't backing themselves up with some sort of evidence/logical reasoning then they're shooting themselves in the foot. All in all, it's funny to think that people would be covering their asses about these bombings as if there were any repercussions to avoid in doing so.

We (America) avoid the charge of war crimes quite often, so a debate of something like the Hiroshima bombings can't really yield any sort of 'punishment' to the States. For one, I'd imagine most of the planners involved are dead or too old to give a shit. Two, it's simply not the point. The point is to gain new knowledge from something that's happened. Just like that phrase.

I didn't intend to point the finger at "America." That 'entity' is too big; too broad to pin the 'blame' on if there is any.

[Charla]

Yes, dropping bombs on highly-populated industrial centers is not dropping them on human targets.

If you're gonna argue in favor of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and Dresden and etc), don't try to gloss over the conscious decision to end a lot of civilian lives. You have to make your argument acknowledge that decision or otherwise you're just being dishonest. Not trying to say you can't make the argument in favor of it though.

Here's the thing, though. If the humans present inside/around any given target automatically take precedence, then there is no such thing as attacking a non-human target. If I was trying to have an "implied ethical debate" (about a decision made 60ish years ago), the idea of attacking something other than a human would be meaningless. But I was drawing attention to the odd way we think and talk about warfare sometimes. There is a difference between a strategic attack on a military target and a direct attack on a population center, and we are talking about a combination of the two.

On top of that, although fission devices are currently the most destructive weapons ever used in warfare, the way we talk about them completely ignores the fact that conventional explosives are capable of equally large detonations, and that a number of other vectors are capable of killing comparable numbers. Nukes might be the single most powerful energy source we have, but they just aren't the deadliest.

[Elvis]

I've read that the Japanese were ACTIVELY seeking a surrender/terms of peace as early as spring of 45'.

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

Japan Seeks Peace

Months before the end of the war, Japan's leaders recognized that defeat was inevitable. In April 1945 a new government headed by Kantaro Suzuki took office with the mission of ending the war. When Germany capitulated in early May, the Japanese understood that the British and Americans would now direct the full fury of their awesome military power exclusively against them.

American officials, having long since broken Japan's secret codes, knew from intercepted messages that the country's leaders were seeking to end the war on terms as favorable as possible. Details of these efforts were known from decoded secret communications between the Foreign Ministry in Tokyo and Japanese diplomats abroad.

In his 1965 study, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (pp. 107 , 108 ), historian Gar Alperovitz writes:

Although Japanese peace feelers had been sent out as early as September 1944 (and [China's] Chiang Kai-shek had been approached regarding surrender possibilities in December 1944), the real effort to end the war began in the spring of 1945. This effort stressed the role of the Soviet Union ...

In mid-April [1945] the [US] Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting.

[Plow]

I don't want to get involved in this debate cuz my feelings are too strong, but the link in the OP is one of the most depressing things ever linked on BG.


It was... kinda like going to the Holocaust Museum.

[Correction]

Learn to read. I was referring to the quotes from generals and shit after the fact of the end of the war as classic 'covering my ass' rhetoric.

Also, I'm pretty sure I never said not to debate the topic. Who am I to deny History majors a chance to actually use their goddamn useless degree? What I did say is that you started the topic like this is your own personal MySpace page: brainless copypasta with no personal context until after folks with a mind of their own gave you something to respond to. The 'fascist' statement just reinforces that theory. Thanks!

[Myst]

it saved lives. american lives, and japanese lives alike.

[Kuya]

Learn to read. I was referring to the quotes from generals and shit after the fact of the end of the war as classic 'covering my ass' rhetoric.

Also, I'm pretty sure I never said not to debate the topic. Who am I to deny History majors a chance to actually use their goddamn useless degree? What I did say is that you started the topic like this is your own personal MySpace page: brainless copypasta with no personal context until after folks with a mind of their own gave you something to respond to. The 'fascist' statement just reinforces that theory. Thanks!

Why do you hate Elsidur?

[Doofus]

I don't think you people understand that in WW2, we were not a superpower. People lived their lives in fear Japan and Germany would take over the world. This wasn't modern times where there is basically no country in the world that could take us, hundreds of thousands of people died and nobody blinked in those wars.

This isn't us dropping a nuke on some poor defenseless country who had their hands up trying to surrender, this was a country where people would rather make suicidal last charges into machine guns than surrender. Both of my grandfathers fought in the pacific war(and probably would have been in the invasion force who went into Japan, hell i might not even exist if we invaded Japan), I'm going to believe their side of the story over academics who didnt like how their invention was used.

The only difference between japan back then and radicals today, is Japan actually had the military power to challenge us. You can't have these arguments without understanding the mindset of the world back then, you can't argue in today's mentality. I think everyone agrees that there is no need to nuke anyone today, but back then, people sang a different tune.

[Correction]

I hate everyone who posts before I can finish typing things into the quick reply button. That includes everyone who posted after you and before I finish this post.

It's a rule or something, I think.

[Melchiah]

It's real easy to sit here behind your screen and be an armchair strategist and second guess decisions made 60 years ago by people who were burdened by more responsibility than I daresay this entire forum membership will ever hold combined.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted for two reasons; they were centers of Japanese military production and they provided a maximum effectiveness for a show of force. Yes, the decision was made to end some 220000 lives. However, it is accepted that an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have cost that many and more Japanese lives, and a vast amount of American lives. As it stands, only the two cities were destroyed, as opposed to what would have been destroyed in a land invasion. Furthermore, a message was sent with these two bombings that thankfully has not had to be sent since then. No government on the face of the globe has attacked the United States since Pearl Harbor. The terrorist attacks happen by small groups who really do not represent(at least officially) any nation's government, because they have no country to be targeted for retaliation.

I deeply regret that our species as a whole has not outgrown warfare. It is lamentable that 200000 Japanese citizens had to be vaporized because of decisions made by their government and ours. However, the alternative to the crippling show of force, and subsequent threat of continued use of atomic weapons would have been an armed invasion of Japan, and it would have been long and bloody for both sides. Lives were saved by the use of those weapons, this cannot be argued.

In addition, I would like to see properly cited, legitimate references that indicate that the Japanese government was ready to surrender to the Allied forces. As best I can find, the Potsdam treaty/ultimatum was soundly refused, just as the one before it was. I will gladly rethink my position if someone can show me where my history is in error.

[Elvis]

Learn to read. I was referring to the quotes from generals and shit after the fact of the end of the war as classic 'covering my ass' rhetoric.

Also, I'm pretty sure I never said not to debate the topic. Who am I to deny History majors a chance to actually use their goddamn useless degree? What I did say is that you started the topic like this is your own personal MySpace page: brainless copypasta with no personal context until after folks with a mind of their own gave you something to respond to. The 'fascist' statement just reinforces that theory. Thanks!

My point still stands. Just because people comment on something in retrospect doesn't mean they are covering their ass.

You are, by using that tone/phrasing, taking a stance ON their opinion without any actual opposing argument.

It's almost ad hominem.

It's not my blog btw.

I'll admit I didn't come out w/ a stance although it was implied - OBVIOUSLY.

It's all sort of self-explanatory though. The debate took off in any case. I see now, that it was very misguided to post this (I didn't want to depress people; Plow) and I didn't want to spout hippy-America-is-evil rhetoric.

It's real easy to sit here behind your screen and be an armchair strategist and second guess decisions made 60 years ago by people who were burdened by more responsibility than I daresay this entire forum membership will ever hold combined.

I agree. We're all arm-chair [whatever depending on the topic and a coinciding lack of expertise on the matter].

That doesn't mean the debate is over when the war is over or when those involved are gone.

In any case, people back then as early as months later were vocally debating the bombings. If we're against the bombings do we equal arm chair strategists? And if we're for them or accept them for what they were equal us to sensible people?

[Plow]

it saved lives. american lives, and japanese lives alike.

That's a bad argument, the Japanese lives saved were those of soldiers fighting for a terrible cause, the Japanese lives lost were those of civilian women and children trying to live their lives while their husbands sons and fathers were off dying.


American and other innocent lives sure, the tradeoff for the Japanese was terribly unfair.


I really don't want to get started on this >.>

[Beckwin]

Here's the thing, though. If the humans present inside/around any given target automatically take precedence, then there is no such thing as attacking a non-human target. If I was trying to have an "implied ethical debate" (about a decision made 60ish years ago), the idea of attacking something other than a human would be meaningless. But I was drawing attention to the odd way we think and talk about warfare sometimes. There is a difference between a strategic attack on a military target and a direct attack on a population center, and we are talking about a combination of the two.

On top of that, although fission devices are currently the most destructive weapons ever used in warfare, the way we talk about them completely ignores the fact that conventional explosives are capable of equally large detonations, and that a number of other vectors are capable of killing comparable numbers. Nukes might be the single most powerful energy source we have, but they just aren't the deadliest.

Y'know, I did mention Dresden in the very post you quoted, lol.

Look, the issue here isn't "omg America was wrong for entering WWII, wrong for fighting back against the Japanese, wrong wrong wrong i haet amurica" at all. What the issue should be is encouraging critical looks at our history and government. We have accounts of differing opinions within the government and military of the time of the bombs- and looking back, we can get a pretty clear perspective of the outcome. What's maybe most baffling is that people in this topic who have expressed a lot of criticism for the current Iraq war and the circumstances leading up to it are kinda willing to give free pass to dropping the a-bombs on Japan, to firebombing Germany and Japan, napalm on France, etc... I can't decide if the mentality is "well, if someone really does attack us, we get to go wild without cares, kill 'em all" or if it's a matter of the image of "The Good War" and it's heroes being so ingrained.

As for criticism of Zinn: his bias is towards Joe Schmoe, Joe Schmidt, Joe Suzuki, Joe Tran, Josephine Schmoe, etc. His historical focus is on the effects of defining events and men on the common man, and he's pretty forward with that. I don't know about you guys, but I think it's a worthwhile view of history to present in an increasingly humanist world in a society and world striving to become more and more civilized.

If you're talking about his politics, he's admittedly leftist, but reserves no favor for Mao/Stalin/etc in his criticisms. Marxist class-conflict certainly influences his work but he's hardly a Soviet apologist (and frankly, it's my opinion that you can think what you will of socialism, but writing off Marx's class theory, especially his historical application, is pure ignorance).

[Elvis]

In addition, I would like to see properly cited, legitimate references that indicate that the Japanese government was ready to surrender to the Allied forces. As best I can find, the Potsdam treaty/ultimatum was soundly refused, just as the one before it was. I will gladly rethink my position if someone can show me where my history is in error.

Google:

"Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace. It is his Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war."

- Foreign Minister Togo

From the Zinn article:

The Japanese had begun to move to end the war after the US victory on Okinawa, in May of 1945, in the bloodiest battle of the Pacific War. After the middle of June, six members of the Japanese Supreme War Council authorized Foreign Minister Togo to approach the Soviet Union, which was not at war with Japan, to mediate an end to the war "if possible by September."

Togo sent Ambassador Sato to Moscow to feel out the possibility of a negotiated surrender. On July 13, four days before Truman, Churchill, and Stalin met in Potsdam to prepare for the end of the war (Germany had surrendered two months earlier)

It would make sense for you or others in the debate to find a contrary explanation, rather than myself just posting the same ideas over and over.

I've seen people bash Zinn or the 'hippy' site but that doesn't bolster their argument. All that matters are the ideas which, despite the authors, are sourced to institutions and people of importance of the day.

I can find you books too, but they'll be on the net anyways.

[Katlan]

I don't want to get involved in this debate cuz my feelings are too strong, but the link in the OP is one of the most depressing things ever linked on BG.


It was... kinda like going to the Holocaust Museum.

/nod. only people w/half a brain should make topics. This topic has only served to increase the OP's post-count out of merit-bar status cause it's him debating all of BG