60 Years ago...
 

at least 120 000 people died instantly in the nuclear explosion at Hiroshima.
They died for the stupidity of their own nation and the desire of the USA to show the world and Russia in particular what new toy they have.

60years ago:
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,500979,00.jpg

today:
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,502636,00.jpg

That's a really good shot of Hiroshima. As horrible as that day was, I think the whole world was shocked by what happened. One of those "turning points" you always hear about.

I read a really good book written by a doctor who survived this terrible event, gave me a much better understanding of what it would have been like to survive that day, and to try and cope afterward. hopefully that last time we see nukes involved with anything besides electricity.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki tells a lot about mankind. Both that we are such assholes that we can drop atomic bombs on hundreds of thousands of ourselves, and that we have such grit that we can rise from the ashes and get back to buisness as usual. When I first heard about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a kid I thought those places were now dead empty wastelands. Imagine my joy and amazement when I learned that they were real living cities, as normal as can be.
I like to think on the second part more than the first, but on a day like today... I've been having cold shivers all day.

if you study history at all with regard to WWII, you'll realize that it had to be done at the time it was done...

Thank you. To elaborate, it was well known that had the surrender not taken place, the cost would have been around 500,000 Allied lives, and millions of Japanese would also have died, whether by military action, starvation, exposure to elements, or what-have-you.

To say otherwise is to deny history.

Mmmm, well, history is a fluid thing. It's sometimes what the winners say, or the leaders of the winners say. I'm not specifically endorsing this article, a commentary from the LA Times, but it shows a different point of view -- that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were _not_ necessary.

and pearl harbor was a figment of our imagination? where the hell do these people come from? not necessary, my achin' ass...

While I am not in a position to second guess history or the decisions made during war, I have to disagree with your last statement. I know those were the estimates given regarding the possible outcomes of an all-out invasion, but one cannot prove that this would have been the outcome simply because it never took place. It is impossible to state as fact an event that never occurred. I'm not trying to argue; I just can't see how one can say that it is to deny history to not believe that millions would have died during an invasion.

One of the theories I most agree with about the reasoning behind the dropping of the bomb goes something like this:

The war in Europe was at an end. While we were busy forking over large amounts of the winnings to the Soviet Union, we still had Japan to deal with. It was certain the the Soviets were about to "help" us defeat Japan. Had that taken place, Japan could very well have ended up the same way Germany and the rest of Eastern Europe ended up: under Soviet control. Truman was not about to let this happen and have the Soviets get a stronger foothold in the Pacific, so the decision to drop the bombs was made: partly to ensure a quick victory before the Soviets could gather their strength.

Now, there are other theories out there, and I'm sure many of them are just as valid, but this is the one that makes the most sense to me.

Other than that, I think this was one of the darkest moments of human history.

My grandfather was in transport after fighting on Iwo Jima and set to invade Japan.

I'm very pleased we dropped those two bombs. I did extensive research on this due to my family connection and the above LA Times article shows typical after the fact self loathing of those who do not understand the situation we faced.

Its also typical for the America hating LA Times and I'll leave it at that.

Ustwo, new documents have been revealed from the archives of the former Soviet Union and they are being addressed by news sources in addition to the LA Times. Rodney is quite correct in stating that "history" is written by the winners.

the claim that 500.00 have been saved is not a fact. It is the same old BS that the some people in the US are telling. The US is unable to deal with its own errors and moralic failures, it tries to deny them with repeating a mantra ("500 000" were saved" or "thats not tortur but mere highschool pranks").

To claim the 500 000 gues is a fact is BS


Some have claimed that the Japanese were already essentially defeated, and therefore use of the bombs was unnecessary. General Dwight D. Eisenhower so advised the Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, in July of 1945. [12] The highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater, General Douglas MacArthur, was not consulted beforehand, but said afterward that there was no military justification for the bombings. The same opinion was expressed by Fleet Admiral William Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials) [13]; Major General Curtis LeMay [14]; and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet [15].



The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:

"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, 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.[18]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_...f_atomic_bombs

It is interesting. Look at Japan 60 years later. One of the worlds great cultures. Would it have been possible without Hiroshima & Nagasaki?

I'm very disappointed with the lack of t.v, print etc,..exposure of the event given the massive significance of the day, which was lost on every form of multimedia too the point of gross ignorance. Very sad. That day changed the world and it is the fucking third story on CNN, right after the Space Shuttle and the pimple that is on Katie Holmes' ass.


How does anyone learn from history when life moments don't take precident over Judge Judy?

With the benefit of hindsight, we can question whether the bomb should have been dropped on those two cites. But at the time, Truman had just come out of the Battle for Okinawa, losing over 10,000 military men. How could he, as the leader of our country, NOT use the weapons at his disposal to end the war as quickly as possible? How could he tell the soldiers wounded and the family members of those killed that he held back for fear of the geopolitical consequences?

For me, the wonder is not that it was used a couple of times in 1945, but rather that it's not been used since--Korea, Vietnam and Iraq by us, Afghanistan by the Soviets, and so on. It's a weapon--a horrible one that does much collateral damage, but a weapon nonetheless.

My father was a paratrooper enroute to make an assault on Japan. He was 19 years old and scheduled to be in the first wave. I know how I feel about the bomb.

Instead he served in the occupation forces. It's something he never talks about. He wants nothing to do with American Legion or VFW. I'm really not sure what he experienced there, I don't ever expect to find out.

History is written by the winners, and the winners wrote that history with their blood from Hawaii to Okinawa. No more of it was to be spilled on Japanese soil if it could be helped. Hell while everyone talks about Hiroshima, it wasn't even close to the most deadly bombing in Japan, just the most dramatic.

I spent eight years in the United States Air Force, all of it in the Strategic Air Command. I am a member of the American Legion. I mention this only to qualify that my patriotism, even though I refuse to display magnetic ribbons on my car, is not to be questioned.

Although I concede the possibility that ulterior motives were at work when Little Boy and Fat Man were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I choose to believe that it was done in an effort to expedite the end of the war, thereby saving untold Japanese and American lives. Given that we are certainly capable of such subterfuge...that may be naive on my part, but that is what I believe.

What I know is that the world was so horrified, by what it saw 60 years ago, that it has never again gone nuclear. We have come close. More times, and closer than, most of you want to know. But, we've not done it since. To me, that makes the sacrifice of those two cities worth it. I know...that's easy for me to say. I was born 17 years after the bombs dropped. I lost no reletives in the bombings. I'm not even of Japanese descent. But I do know that that the memory of those mushroom clouds, and the unholy destruction of two cities, has kept fingers, although perilously poised, from pressing that horrible button...again.

All of that said...wouldn't it be better to celebrate how Hiroshima and Nagasaki have risen, like the proverbial pheonix from the ashes, than to bash 60 year old political motives?

The reason atomic weapons have not been used since then is because now many countries possess these devastating weapons. Even the smaller atomic bombs in stockpiles currently are larger than the bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That also doesn't figure in the thermonuclear bombs that countries possess. Using a nuclear or thermonuclear (hydrogen fusion bomb, f.y.i.) now would potentially create nuclear war.


In addition, the dropping of the bomb brought us into the atomic age and it is a good reason they have not been used since 1945.

nothing to say

A few hundred civilians? Try more along the lines of 120,000 People, from both bombings. And, the death doll arising from the effects of radiation account for a far greater number of deaths.

And you might want to reread your history book if you believe the attack on Pearl Harbor was an attempt to cow us in to submission. In actuality, the US and Britain had been crippling the Japanese war effort on account of a fuel boycott they had implemented against Japan in retaliation for their invasion of China. The attack was an attempt to weaken and neutralize our naval powers in the Pacific, so that the Japanese could secure needed pacific fuel sources in order to continue the war effort. Yet, Japanese Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku even admitted the attack bought them but a year's time with which to wreak havoc before the US retaliated. They also knew full-well that FDR was itching for a fight. "Cowing us" never even crossed their minds.

From all of the research I've done in to the topic, I really fail to see a need for us to drop the bomb. Some of the better information has already been brought up, however, I won't waste space by rehashing it. History is full of people inventing numbers and facts in order to justify some action or another, and even so, it's hard to look at such a horrific event objectively, yet, we ought to try our best to do so.

I don't think that hindsight would change the decision Truman made. The US had the weapon and used it to minimize casulties. Only one side had the weapon, and the eventual outcome was a virtual certainty.

That makes the bombing a very rational and human thing to do. The arena of war isn't awash with morality and compassion -- a brutal end made the end come much sooner. The Japanese were weakened, but they were not about to capitulate. I think an invasion was inevitable without the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the bombs prevented that from happening.

The article from the LA Times states "...the Soviet Union's entry into the Pacific war on Aug. 8, two days after the Hiroshima bombing ... provided the final "shock" that led to Japan's capitulation." This assertion is very narrowly true, but it also ignores the impact of the bombing. The bombing brought several circumstances to the doorstep of the Japanese that together were impossible to surmount. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki provided the necessary momentum for that to happen.

I also wanted to add that I see Oppenheimer's conscience as a most appropriate brake to any impulse to see the bomb as anything but a last resort. His part was primarily to invent the machine, not to determine how it was used. I can't imagine the burden he carried from seeing the bomb killing hundreds of thousands of people.

I object to Pacifier's portrayal of the situation as ..."They died for the stupidity of their own nation and the desire of the USA to show the world and Russia in particular what new toy they have." The bombs ended a bloody war. The Japanese were fighting for what they assumed to be their very existence. The defense of their country and empire was fanatical. In this discussion as a German, Pacifier has a unique responsibility for at least disclaiming what the belligerent government of his forefathers did to emboil the world (and a very isolationist USA) in a second world war. I defend my country as a liberator and a peacemaker in World War II. I have plenty of criticism of my country in the present tense, but IMHO Germans and Japanese historians cannot take enough blame for what happened to their countries in the 1940s.

I agree totally. Remember, we were at WAR with the Japanese. They were our enemy - their country was our enemy - their people were our enemy. We destroyed them, which is something that they would have done without a second though to us.

I only regret that we didn't follow George S. Patton's advice and invade / bomb the Soviets. It would have saved us a lot of trouble in the future.

He didn't mean that's how many people died from the atomic bombs. He meant that NOW as in, in the present day, if you kill some civilians in a war, it's a huge controversy, but at that time little would have been thought of it. That was the whole point.

I think it says something that the controversy over the bombing is not much of an issue in Japan or to the Japanese people. On the other hand, China and Korea bitch nonstop about the atrocities of the Japanese military. Draw your own conclusions. I'm not afraid of criticising the US government, but in this case, I think some of the critics need to look at this from a more realistic perspective of the times. The modern social stigma against nuclear weapons didn't exist (and these bombings certainly had a role in its formation); they were just powerful weapons that could quickly end the war, and I can't blame the leaders for taking advantage of them.

IANAH (I am not a historian, though I did take a class titled Japanese History), but from my armchair general's point of view, I find it unlikely that the Soviet declaration of war alone without the bombs would have caused Japan to surrender, and maybe it wouldn't have cost x number of lives, but if Japan refused to surrender, it certainly would have cost some fraction of x greater than 0 and possibly just as many or more Japanese lives as in the bombings.

Top Japanese officials were deadlocked on the decision of whether to surrender or continue the war after the two bombings. The emperor was asked to make the final decision as a sort of "tie-breaker", eventually leading to the Japanese citizens first hearing their emperor’s voice.

Was that atomic bomb necessary?

In my humble opinion, I have no idea. I do know that many in this thread underestimate the Japanese when they say that they were already close to being defeated prior to the bombings.

nothing to say

i totally agree with you. I Know this may sound bad, but it is a good thing that those bombs were dropped back then. That event DID prevent current world leaders from dropping those types of bombs in the future because they saw the destruction it caused. Now, I do not know anything about world populations from the 1940's untill present time, but I think that it is safe to say that there are more people around then back then. And had they not dropped the bomb then, what was to stop us from dropping them on russia during the cold war? or vice-versa? or from dropping them in afghanistan after 9\11? Im sure that they eventually would have been dropped somewhere, and the death toll would have been MUCH higher than it was in Japan.

I know a man who has in his posession all the materials censored from that 1995 exhibit. It includes VERY graphic photography and documentation of the devastation the bombs caused on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was stuff the government evidently didn't want the US public to see--but I don't understand why not. The point of dropping the bomb was to horrify people out of ever using it again, solidifying its MAD-doctrine role as the ultimate deterrant. Why not own up to the damage it caused and rally people behind an Auchwitz-style "never again" slogan? Wouldn't that have been just as politically useful as the denial that was thrown up instead?

You can see much of the censored Smithsonian exhibit at http://www.atomicbombmuseum.org.

So, because I'm a german I have no right to criticise the US?
You see, we germans accept our guilt, well most of us. We accept our mission that history gave us to prevent these things from happening again. We don't glorify our history or deny our errors.
All you americans do is to repeat this mantra of denial, "but we safed lives", which is BS.

Japan would have surrendered without the Bombs, that not the optinion of an "armchair general":

Some have claimed that the Japanese were already essentially defeated, and therefore use of the bombs was unnecessary. General Dwight D. Eisenhower so advised the Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, in July of 1945. [12] The highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater, General Douglas MacArthur, was not consulted beforehand, but said afterward that there was no military justification for the bombings. The same opinion was expressed by Fleet Admiral William Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials) [13]; Major General Curtis LeMay [14]; and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet [15].

Why didn't the US wait for Russia to enter the War? That would have an inpact, without killing 300000 people instantly?
Why did the US drop the second bomb shorty after the first without giving the Japanese time to realise what had happened?

america needs to develop something that is called "vergangenheitsbewältigung" (coming to terms with the past), a german word that describes a critical hindsight of the past.
But america has become a religion with historical dogmas, criticise and you're an unpatriotic heathen.

When the Japanese slaughtered an entire army of Australian soldiers who surrendered, when they invaded and raped much of China after they provoked a war with a fake sabotage, when they wouldn't have hesitated to use the same power against their aggressors, that is when use of such weapons is sanctioned.

Without it ending more or less that day in 1945, I highly doubt any less than 150,000 would have died (Pacifier, I don't know where your figure crept up to twice that). That figure is by no means a large amount in WW2, in fact, 100,000 civilians were killed in the firebombings of Tokyo. Much of England and Germany was literally flattened by bombing fleets.

Japan had a strong hold on the pacific islands. It was only a few australian soldiers defending a road through PNG that kept them from invading Australia, that's how close it came. It would have taken years to flush them out had the war continued, with far more losses on all sides. The US had the opportunity to end the war, with almost certain finality. They had no idea at the time the full extent of the collateral damage, as again, it's the only time the nuke was deployed offensively. As for the choice between dropping one or two, well, one would have very probably ended the war. Two? Guaranteed it beyond almost every shadow of a doubt.

Women and children were the most killed, naturally. The men were out fighting the Allies, and if anyone wishes to overlook the war crimes that were undertaken by the Japanese, well, you're not worth my time.

Criticism against something that's wrong is one thing. Against a measure used to end a war, that's another.

According to the city of Hiroshima, as of August 6, 2004, the cumulative death toll of atomic-bomb victims was 237,062

However another report issues a different residential number, speaking of Nagasaki's population which dropped in one split-second from 422,000 to 383,000, thus 39,000 were killed, over 25,000 were injured. Including those who died from radioactive materials causing cancer, the total number of residents killed is believed to be at least 100,000.

My grandfather was also on a transport en route to Japan as part of the invasion force. He has told me that he was very glad that the bombs were dropped, as the casualties were known among the troops to be enormous in a ground assault on the islands of Japan, as the citizens would have fought for every inch of land.

Now, I'm not saying that killing over a hundred thousand civilians is good, but the loss of life was much less through the use of the atomic bombs than would have been on a ground assault. I agree with your comment about the LA Times - I've read a few other of their articles on historical subjects like this.

I't makes me shiver the simple certainty that the same ideas and arguments used by many of the previous posters, are the exact same ones rounding Osama's and gang heads. There's nothing wrong about been patriotic and pride, but one must accept the fact that we are not perfect and that mistakes have been done and horrible things have been done against other nations.
Many talk about religious fanatism as one of the main causes for terrorism and violence in the world, but they fail to see that patriotic fanatism is doing as much harm if not more than the first. I just wish with all my heart that world leaders, the ones that have our lives in their hands, realize that this is not a pissing contest. May God protect us all.

The key difference, ironman, is that our ideas and arguments are being used to support an movement against oppression, and the acts of Osama and co do quite the opposite. National pride in being a free democracy and national pride in being powerful in a a crooked oppressive government, if you will. Both the same means to different ends.

I rest my case...

I don't think anyone ever said that dropping the two atomic bombs on Japan was "good", but it was better than a ground invasion of the islands. It caused a massive loss of life, yes - but the loss of life would have been greater if the assault had proceeded as planned.

The main thing I agree with is pokemon. Oh, and your statement "I see nothing wrong with using the best tools at hand to win a war". Absolutely. Otherwise, there would be nobody using mustard gas, or enriched uranium shells, or bomblets.

The Japanese did attack you with pre-emptive arrogance (blockade notwithstanding) But they had built up their arrogance because in their national psyche, they were a super power. sounds familiar. They should apologize for the many war time transgressions. But as the colonol said in the Bridge Over the River Kwai: "Those are just stupid rules. This is War!" and thus: two atomic bombs used in quick succession. Ah the best tools at hand, and it was War!

It makes me shiver how fast we forget the past, how quick we are to distort history to suit our feelings, and how we can turn the end of the greatest conflict in all of human history into an analogy about terrorism.

*Sigh*

I most likely shouldn't even bother going there but 'sounds familiar' how?

P.S. Unrelated but Bridge over the River Kwai was the most historically inaccurate war move ever made. Rambo holds more realism.

Sounds familiar in that the Soviet Union excercised identical methodology in their incorporation of Europe post WWII. They were now a superpower, with a doctrine that was obviously vastly superior morally to the West. Thousands upon thousands fed the mill with their lives with (sometimes enforced) fanaticism in order to create a 'preemptive strike" capability against their ex-allies.

I thought that this was obvious. hmmm.

Do you want me to go on about Mao and his cultural revolution?

A movie inaccurate??? Say it ain't so! What do you take me for? Even recent examples of movies demonstrate extreme historical inaccuracies (take Revenge of the Sith for example :lol: ).

My intent was to illustrate using an example quote from popular culture the attitude portrayed that the Geneva convention or the Queensbury rules for all their intent on civilizing human conflict, can be tossed aside when it comes to brass tacks.

(edit): inane comment removed - i calmed down a bit)

I saved your innane comment because it wasn't innane.

I am a bit defensive because of the number of people who would be more than willing to equate the current US policy to the dicators of WWII.

http://puppethead.com/blog/archives/...ush_hitler.jpg

So yea I'm a bit defensive :)

lol. ok, I didn't mean to offend.

at any rate, that equation is a bit of a stretch, i don't see how it even canbe attempted.

Now, I can believe though, that your government can be lobbied, influenced and subtley directed by special interest groups. I know that this can be the case because EVEN the vaunted Canadian goverment is susceptible. It's just our influence is insignificant compared to yours.

It is easy to sit here, 60 years after the fact, and say that dropping the bombs was unnecessary. Without our temporal vantage, however, the issue becomes much more complex. Truman had the weight of well over 200,000 dead Americans on his conscience when he made the decision to end a war that had consumed lives at a horrific rate for 3 1/2 years. It is hardly reasonable to expect a man in those circumstances to avoid using the most effective weapon in his arsenal because there might possibly be fewer total people killed if he didn't drop the bombs. I would imagine he was thinking mostly of American lives that would be saved. Surely, none of us would say that the bombs didn't save the lives of Allied soldiers? Killing the enemy isn't seen as a drawback when your nation is fighting a world war.

I have never understood the villification of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They weren't the deadliest bombings of civilians in WWII. I can only conclude that the nuclear critics have never heard of Dresden. The only special thing about Hiroshima was that we dropped one bomb instead of thousands. You're just arguing against technological efficiency, not against death tolls because, as I alluded to, Dresden was the site of the largest number of civilian casualties from a bombing campaign, not Hiroshima.

Why are you so certain?

Again:

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:

"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, 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.[18]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_...a_and_Nagasaki

20/20 hindsight is always a wonderful thing isn't it? This survey was conducted after the war ended, how were we supposed to know any of this information prior to the war's end?

yes, but how can you still claim an invasion would have costed X-thousands of american lives?
How can you still claim that it would have costed X-thousand americans lives if you didn't tried?
That claim is just a "what if", highly speculative, but it is always presented as "fact".

This is not about what should have done instead, but also how to view and value the events afterwards.


And again:
Some have claimed that the Japanese were already essentially defeated, and therefore use of the bombs was unnecessary. General Dwight D. Eisenhower so advised the Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, in July of 1945. [12] The highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater, General Douglas MacArthur, was not consulted beforehand, but said afterward that there was no military justification for the bombings.

I question your justification. IMO the "we saved lives" claim is wrong, there would have been multiple other option to save lives wothout dropping the bombs, also both bombs were dropped in quick succession which also makes the claim unbelievable. The biggest reason for the bomb was to show the Russians the finger.

I didn't have to study history to know it was necessary---

I was alive and well, and scared as hell, because my dad was
in the next batch to go..there were a lot of windows with gold
stars in them....

and even as a kid, I new it had to be done...to many neighbors
did not come home..VG

You know what? Dropping the bomb on Japan put a halt to the future use of nuclear weapons. It could have been New York, or London, or even Berlin that might have been subjected to a nuclear attack. It would have happened, eventually. The US gets criticized just because we did it first. If we didn't scare the bear, then the bear might just have ate us first.

You know what? It's just another casualty of war. So, a bunch of Japanese died. It could have been a bunch of Americans dying if Japan or Russia perfected the technology first. If the bomb wasn't used during WWII, then it could have been a bunch of Russians dying, or Turks, or Chinese, for all we know.

What I'm saying is that lives would have been lost eventually, regardless. People who lived on an island in the Pacific just happened to be the casulties. But lives are lives, after all. No one nation or group of people is better than another. However, the fact that it was used gives no one the right to cast stones at the US. We tried a technology which we did not know all of the consequences of. The past is over - let's be happy that nuclear weapons were never used again, as of yet.

Oh, come on. You can do better than that.

What do you think led hundreds of thousands of English, Australians and Americans into the grinder in WW2? It sure as hell wasn't common sense.

Look here. China had fourteen MILLION civilian deaths. The Japanese were no less savage than the Nazis. Do you think they'd have surrendered without an utter show of force like the nuke?

It took troops marching on a flattened Berlin to convince the Nazis to surrender, and they didn't have a long-held ideal that their leader was divine, unlike the Japanese. To suggest that their military would just lay down their arms without utter defeat imminent is almost ludicrous.

I question your ethics. You really put the value on those that died as nothing but a show of force to the Russians? You realize, I hope, without their hope WW2 would have been lost to us, and the US did know that, believe it or not.

I got back from Hiroshima today, it really is stunning to see the peace park, ground zero, and the A-Dome.

Something many people seem to forget about Japan... is that during world war II it wasn't just a small island.. Japan had expanded by quite a bit. And were rather ruthless about it.

nukes are horrid, but so is any war. Dying by a bomb, bullet, or nuke...

To say "U.S. shouldn't have nuked Japan" is the same as saying "Japan should have never attacked china".

Of course no one should ever kill anyone.

No. They are two totally different things.

Saying the US shouldn't have nuked Japan is the same as saying the British shouldn't have bombed Berlin. It is the difference between the aggressor and the defender.

Moved to politics.....Also inevitable

Hmph.

Welcome to Politics :)

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unfortunate, but after studying the events of the time I concluded awhile ago that it was preferable to the alternative.

I sleep well at night regarding this bit of American history.

...Which is the exact same thing as Japan attacking China. A difference between the aggressor and the defender.

Pretty much. You guys started the war by invading other countries.


Let me sum this up for you: You guys invade other countries, ally yourself with torturers, "experiment" on how long it takes a human to freeze/burn to death, inject dye into twins' eyes for the fun of it, and then tell us we're "inhumane" because we didn't want to send our exhausted soldiers into a Quagmire (capital "Q" intentional)?


Look up "Operation Cherry Blossom." That's the failed plan of the Japanese to drop plague bacteria on the US west coast.


Until you can convince me that the Japanese had a way to make sure it would not infect civilians, I won't lose any sleep over the atomic bombings.

You need to give it a rest. Preferably while doing some research.

Here's a history lesson I was involved with awhile back. I challenge you to find a factual error in it.

The Japanese also used biological warfare against the Chinese. Some of it was directed against villages suspected of helping the American fliers in the Doolittle raid over Tokyo. In areas that might have served as landing areas for the bombers, the Japanese plowed up every Chinese airfield within 20,000 square miles, and massacred 250,000 civilians. We now know that Japanese aviators sprayed fleas carrying plague over large metropolitan areas like Shanghai, and that flasks containing cholera, dysentery, typhoid, plague, and anthrax were tossed into rivers, wells, reservoirs, and houses. The Japanese also mixed food with deadly germs to affect Chinese civilians and military. Cakes laced with typhoid were left in areas full of hungry peasants, and bread containing disease germs was given to POWs before they were freed. The final death count was almost 4 million, with all but 400,000 being civilians. Millions more perished from starvation and disease caused by Japanese looting, bombing, and medical experimentation. If those deaths are added to the final count, the Japanese killed more than 19 million Chinese people in its nine-year war with China.

This will give you some idea of the [evil] enemy we were fighting, and why it was decided that the atomic bomb would save more lives than it destroyed. A land invasion of Japan would cost at least a million American lives, by most estimates. Japanese citizens were being armed, and had the same views of honor and death as did the soldiers. They would fight to the death. (As late as 1977, Japanese pilots were found on Pacific islands, unaware that the war was over and still fighting it.)
In his history of World War II, Winston Churchill wrote of the decision,
"Up to this moment we had shaped our ideas towards an assault upon the homeland of Japan by terrific air bombing and by the invasion of very large armies. We had contemplated the desperate resistance of the Japanese fighting to the death with Samurai devotion, not only in pitched battles, but in every cave and dugout. I had in my mind the spectacle of Okinawa island, where many thousands of Japanese, rather than surrender, had drawn up in line and destroyed themselves by hand-grenades after their leaders had solemnly performed the rite of hara-kiri. To quell the Japanese resistance man by man and conquer the country yard by yard might well require the loss of a million American lives and half that number of British-or more if we could get them there. . ."

There are those who say that dropping the atomic bombs was unnecessary, that Japan needed only to be blockaded and starved into submission, or that air power alone could destroy the Japanese power of resistance. The American Chiefs of Staff rejected these ideas. Even though the Japanese homeland was in chaos and on the verge of collapse, power still lay almost entirely in the hands of a military clique determined to commit the nation to mass suicide rather than accept defeat. When he learned of the atomic bomb, Churchill saw the weapon as so "supernatural" that its use might provide the Japanese with an excuse to surrender while saving their honor (and thus many Japanese lives). They wouldn't have to commit themselves to fighting to the death of the last man. In addition, we wouldn't need the help of the Russians. The final decision rested with President Truman, and Churchill said, ". . . I never doubted what it would be, nor have I ever doubted since that he was right. There was unanimous, automatic, unquestioned agreement around our table; nor did I ever hear the slightest suggestion that we should do otherwise."

On July 26, 1945, a document giving Japan an ultimatum was published. It was from the President of the United States, the president of the Republic of China, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain. The document contained the sentence: "The full application of our military power, backed by our resolve, will mean the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese forces, and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland." The document called for Japan's unconditional surrender; the alternative was "complete and utter destruction."

Japan rejected the terms, and plans were made to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (military targets). Every chance was given to the inhabitants. Many Japanese cities were warned by leaflets of upcoming bombing raids which were then carried out as stated. We did what we said we were going to do. By the time of the last warning on August 5, a million and a half leaflets had been dropped every day since July 27, along with 3 million copies of the ultimatum. (Contrast this to Pearl Harbor, where war was declared six hours AFTER the torpedoes were launched.)

The terms of surrender were accepted by the Japanese emperor on August 14, and the Allied fleets entered Tokyo Bay. On the morning of September 2, 1945, the formal surrender was signed on the U.S. battleship Missouri.

LOL thats priceless. So germans have no right, not now and not in the furure to critizise anyone because our atrocities in the past?

Just for your information. I never assisted in the invation of another nation. :lol:

Once again one atrocity doesn't jusitfy another. If you're wife gets raped you don't have the right to rape the other guys wife too.

another "unimportant guy" who thought the bomb was unneccecary:

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act? During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment, was I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.
Eisenhower, Dwight D. The White House Years: Mandate for Change, 1953-56. Garden City: Doubleday.

Much as many German citizens regret the actions of past government action during wartime, So do Americans...but this does not change the Fact thet the actions occured. War is a nasty business, with the goal of destroying an enemy as quickly as possible with as little loss to yourself as possible. In this the United States was successful, hopefully the world learned a valuable lesson from this action......as it was inevitable (in my opinion) once the technology was created.
I was not there....and must rely on the opinions of others to evaluate the need to use these weapons, but I can still regret that they were used at all, and I do. This does not in any way change history. We can blame Hitler, Einstein, or the Pilot that flew the Bomb.....which will accomplish nothing. Just as blaming an entire people for the past is counter productive.

Rape isn't quite war. To end a global conflict through the demonstration of an unstoppable power is another thing altogether. The US could have well nuked Japan to a slagpile. They could have hit a majorly populated area, a capital city. Instead, they chose largely industrial targets, to not only cripple Japan's war machine but to minimalise civilian casualties.

Of course you do--it just makes you look silly!

It resembles a situation in which a mugger attacks a karate expert, and then whines that his intended victim defended himself too roughly.


It would be highly beneficial to you if you talked to some of the people who did the "invating," before they pass away.

I never said I did, but I believe I have the right to do whatever is necessary to make him stop.



I'm sure you can find people who think it wasn't necessary. Can you find any who can explain why, if Japan was so ready to surrender, that they didn't do so after Hiroshima?

More to follow when I have a little more time.

Justified or not... it is entirely besides the point.

Why rehash the intentions of military leaders made 60 years ago? The fact is it was a tragedy. The bombing of Dresden and Tokyo (and the fire storms that followed seem to me to be much more horrific in nature since they were committed with conventional explosives).

For me, Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain important bench marks NOT because the US did the bombing (it really doesn't matter who did it in the end) but rather because these two bombings gave us a *very* clear picture of the devestation that can be had from nukes.

If these bombings, as horrible as they were, had not taken place I think there would have been a rush for the US, Russia, or someother nation to use one... just because they could.

Sure, they did all sorts of testing and could see that the bombs they were creating were very powerful. But is the gut wrenching images of what these bombs (small by the standards of even a few years later) could do to people.

I am convinced it is one of the main things that kept the "buttons" from being pushed.

Yes. We need to remember the bombings but placing blame on either side of the equation (US or Japan) is a fruitless endeavour.

Learn from past experience and move forward.

yeah, I know its "invading"
and yes I talked to people who lived in that time, I'm a german and have relatives who lived through the war.



Perhaps it took them some time to realise what exactly had happened?
What did the US do in the time between? Why didn't they started negoations again if they were so eager to save lifes?

Kwai is an anti-war movie, not a war movie.

This is probably the best possible analysis of the event. :thumbsup:

Never forget that Hiroshima, Nagasaki and all the other potential nuclear targets were spared from conventional attacks (while the rest of Japan was being firebombed to hell and back) to further increase the damage and terror caused by these weapons.

It is a fallacy to believe that nuking 100k Japanese civilians or losing 500k American lives were the only two options.

This is what happened. :confused:

Of course there were other options. Nuking was the best option. Firebombing was expected and would have accomplished little and destroyed just as much as it had in Tokyo.

This was in fact a psychological slap in the face. We just made your city go 'poof' in a way you don't understand, surrender or have no hope.

One bomb would have been totally enough. The other one was just a experminent and therefore a war crime.

Care to explain your logic a bit more here?

Of course, because Japan was so quick to surrender after Hiroshima...oh wait.

And besides, wouldn't it make more sense for the FIRST one to be the experiment? You don't usually need to experiment if you have a working model that has been field tested. But please continue, more anti-American hysteria is always good for a laugh.

Is 8 days too slow for you alan?

For an army that (according to some of the propaganda in this thread) was already on the brink of surrender, yes. If surrender is already being considered (IMO a dubious claim) and you just see your enemy annihilate one of your cities with one attack, it doesn't take months of discussion to decide to surrender.

No, it would apparently take about 8 days.

Is there any evidence that Truman knew that Japan was going to surrender 'too soon' and that the second bomb was thus dropped intentionally knowing that it was not necessary to bring about Japanese surrender? If not, than while hind sight may or may not support the idea that one would have still brought about a 1945 surrender, since this is really just conjecture, it doesn't serve to indict any of those who made the call to drop it.

In the end, dropping the bombs saved both Japanese and American lives. While dropping only one, if it had the same effect politically, would have cost even fewer, I think it is far too insensitive to the reality of the time to consider it acceptable to have dropped one, yet criminal to have dropped two. The facts simply don't support such a proposition.

Josh

Or a second nuke.

Potsdam Declaration:

26 July 1945

Hiroshima:

03 August 1945 (Eight days later)

Nagasaki:

06 August 1945

Japanese surrender:

02 September 1945

By the way, the U.S.S. Indianapolis was torpedoed by a Japanese sub, and sank on July 30, 1945. Hundreds of lives were lost, including many who were eaten by sharks, while their buddies floated nearby, powerless to assist.

Exactly how much longer would you have preferred that our soldiers keep dying, when we had the means to prevent it?

:confused:

Remember the invasion of Okinawa? Remember the film of local civilians leaping to their deaths off of a cliff with their children in their arms rather than to be captured by the Americans? now imagine that on the scale of an invasion of the home islands...

Really? Care to cite the law it broke? If it was a war crime, it had to violate a law, yes? So cite it, and the date of that law's enactment.

I'm being a little offbeat by quoting myself, but I should clarify that I pulled the Japanese surrender date off the document itself. V-J Day is tomorrow.

Also, here's a little gem I dug up. I'm not going to the trouble of posting a link unless the volume of discussion in this thread increases, and someone claims it's not true.

Doesn't sound much like they were in the mood to surrender. Especially when Hirohito had to override his generals in order to do so.

this topic is pretty informational, I learned in history that the Truman had to act before Russia could get a strong foothold in the Pacific and therefore have a claim on postwar Japan. (it was stated earlier, I believe) Also of course to save lives, also Japan just earlier this week apologized to China for their atrocities. (dont know how it's relevant, but yea)

/me would love to see the original article from which that second quote came...

Here's a link that may do it for you.

Link

The beginning gives other references.

Anyone else see the program on the Hitler Channel a few days back about the Japanese atomic program? According to the show, the Japanese had all but caught up with the US in developing nuclear weapons and according to one witness said they'd even successfully tested one warhead off the coast of Korea. Apparently the weapons lab in Korea was run by the Japanese Navy and was unknown to the Americans (who only knew about the one run from the mainland run by the Japanese Army). Guess who looted this site at the end of the war? Yup, the Russians.

If this is all true, it certainly puts things in a much different light.

I'm revealing my ignorance here, but what's the "Hitler Channel?"

P.S. It looks like Pacifier has lost interest in this thread. I can see why.

Hitler Channel = History Channel, I believe....because it seems like half the time you turn it on there is something about Hitler.

you can? Please tell me. :crazy:

I dare say it's a wee bit more than half. But, yeah.

As everyone who has read this thread (including you) already knows,

1. The Japanese emperor had to overrule his military commanders in order to surrender. They refused to. Oh, and from your own link:

2. You have not explained why the Allies should have been content to watch their men die (U.S.S. Indianapolis) while waiting for the Japanese to get off the pot.

3. You have not explained why the Japanese were trying to achieve nuclear capability if they were preparing to surrender. Was the U-235 intended to be a gift to the Allies intended to express their regret?

In fact, you've been quite reticent in your responses to the latest posts, except for repeating the same "woulda, coulda, shoulda" that has been thoroughly discredited.

So you want to discuss ad infinitum?

Yes they refused, but still dropping a second bomb shorty after the other is not "sving lives" thats "oh we have another lets drop it"

So you rather kill 100000 civilians than let 883 soldiers (USS Indianapolis) die?

Well, I thought a adapt to the usual style of discussion here and repeat arguments until ppl. believe them.
I have giben you a shitload of sources of people you said that Japan would have surrendered without invasion and without the bombe. The sources included american and japanese. You haven't told me why you think that Nimitz, Eisenhower, MacArthur and others had no clue about the situation in the war.

Personally I think everthing is said here, you haven't convinced me and I obviously haven't convinced you.

...
 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I sustain my church leaders. So I feel war is neccesary. So, I support it. What happened 60 years ago, had to happen.
It's still so sad to think about though. System of a Down (almost) said it best.


System Of A Down - Boom Lyrics

I've been walking through your streets

where all your money is earned

where all your buildings are crying

And clueless neckties working

revolving fake lawn houses

housing all your fears

desensitized by TV

over bearing advertising

God of consumers

and all your crooked creatures looking good

Mirrors filtering information through the public eye

Designed for profit sharing

your neighbor what a guy

BOOM

BOOM

BOOM

Everytime your drop the bomb

You kill the God

Your child is born

BOOM

BOOM

BOOM

BOOM

Modern globalization

coupled with condemnations

unnecessary death

matador corporations

puppeting your frustrations with a blinded flag

manufacturing consent is the name of the game

the bottom line is money and nobody gives a f**k

4,000 hungry children leave us per hour from starvation

while billions are spent creating death showers

BOOM

BOOM

BOOM

Everytime your drop the bomb

You kill the God

Your child is born

BOOM x11

Why must we kill our own kind

BOOM

BOOM

BOOM

Everytime your drop the bomb

You kill the God

Your child is born

BOOM x 12

EVERY TIME YOU DROP THE BOMB