Hiroshima mon amour.

[InsaneApache]

I was reading an article in the Gruniad about whether it was right for the USA to drop 'the bomb' on Japan in 1945. I think it was the right thing to do, however horrible. I sometime despair of this fashion for revisionist history.

So, was the USA right or wrong in going newcular?

P.S. Pilger is an idiot.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

We will never know if the USA was right or wrong to drop the bombs, because we do not know how many would have died if they hadn't. At the same time, the USA was not as innocent in starting the Pacific War as some may think - but that's not for this topic, at least not yet.

By the way, good to know that someone likes Alcatrazz.

EDIT: I wouldn't denounce his article completely though. This, for example:

The National Archives in Washington contain US government documents that chart Japanese peace overtures as early as 1943. None was pursued. A cable sent on May 5, 1945 by the German ambassador in Tokyo and intercepted by the US dispels any doubt that the Japanese were desperate to sue for peace, including "capitulation even if the terms were hard".

I'm not sure about Japan, but I know Germany repeatedly offered peace deals when winning the war, with very generous terms towards Britain.

[PanzerJaeger]

It all depends on perspective.

From a human rights standpoint, it was nothing less than a war crime.

However, from a military outlook, it was entirely correct and even the moral choice. The ultimate form of utilitarianism.

Any student of military history knows that in total war those two schools of thought just don't mix. Personally, I always side with the military. In difficult times, sometimes human rights must be suspended to ensure they have a place in the future. (Or more practically, to save lives..)

[KrooK]

Jaeger point of view is correct IMO. We can't only talk about people died into Hiroshima. We must remember how many people would die if Japan did not surrender. Civilians into China, civilians into Japan (if country would be invaded), allied POWS into japan deathcamps and potencial allied casualties of invasion.
Comparing it I think loses into Hiroshima were ... small.
Atomic bombing saved much more lives that costed. And thats why it was right.

[Skandinav]

The bombs were dropped even though the japanese were beaten (although not officially, but american bombers had free runs in the skies above Japan and the pacific, Japan was in effect besieged with most industry either destroyed or closed down ), most probable it was an experiment, a show of strength or the often mentioned possibility that Japan had to be secured for american interests before Stalin, who was coming nearer with the Red Army to join the sack, had his part of the cake.

[CBR]

I sometime despair of this fashion for revisionist history.

There is nothing wrong with revisionism if it dispels myths.

But if the United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded in 1946 that the A-bombs were not needed then one would have to find some good arguments as to why the survey's conclusions were wrong.

Now one can argue that the civilian losses where not that different from what conventional bombings had produced, OTOH such bombings had not made Japan's population panic and give up so why should this one.

Even if they had to be used there was no military reason to hit civilian targets. This was a show of force and new capability, and a bit of bluff as USA did not have many bombs, and a remote area or military target could have been found instead. They did not have to destroy cities to get the attention of the Japanese government.


CBR

[Viking]

The bombings are a part of the 'greater good' nonsense. Apparently for some, human lives can valued, such that sacrificing a minority for the majority is morally right. The interests of the humans being sacrificed does not count because they are not numerous enough.

Another point being, that they, to save the lives of their own soldiers and the civilians of their own nation, find it morally correct to kill civilians, innocents that have not much of a say in the greater picture. This is more greater good nonsense. The lives of these civilians are at an expense because 'we are defending ourselves'; and that does of course make everything right. Losses have to be expected.

What we see here is a disgusting disrespect for human lives; bombs intended to kill as many innocents as possible. It demonstrates that these civilians were sacrificed, not to the best for humanity, but to the best for the United States; which is a country. National interests were at stake; not humanity's.

Other courses; i.e. not dropping the bomb; could lead to more deaths; which is expected when one fight for national interests.

[Husar]

Other courses; i.e. not dropping the bomb; could lead to more deaths; which is expected when one fight for national interests.

And how are more deaths suddenly to be expected and somehow better than less deaths?
It's not like the Japanese weren't fighting for national interests either and killing a majority to "save" a minority is no better than killing a minority to "save" a majority.

[Viking]

And how are more deaths suddenly to be expected and somehow better than less deaths?

It's expected, but not better. I still do not intend to have civilians killed; however there would have been as I was not the one in charge.

It's not like the Japanese weren't fighting for national interests either and killing a majority to "save" a minority is no better than killing a minority to "save" a majority.

I am not saying the Japanese are any better; quite on the contrary, they started this part of WW2.

[Martok]

Wow, I never thought I'd find myself in simultaneous agreement with both PanzerJaeger and Krook. Guess I'll have to look out for the flying pigs now.

The bombings are a part of the 'greater good' nonsense.

No, they're not. In fact, it's patently absurd that anyone can say it was nonsense. As horrible as the bombings were, they *did* save lives -- far more than the poor souls lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Even the most conservative estimates show that were we to have invaded the Home Islands, American casualties alone would have been at least 500,000, with Japanese casualties (both military and civilian) in the millions. Some of the more pessimistic numbers estimated 2-4 million U.S. casualties and over 20 million Japanese. While I'll admit the latter estimates are probably a bit extreme, even the lower numbers are still horrifying.

Don't get me wrong: I don't like what we did. I don't like that our primary concern was to minimize American casualties at the cost of Japanese civilians who'd never harmed anyone. From a military perspective, though, I feel we made the right decision. The simple, brutal truth is that when the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki died, they ended up saving not only the lives of American GI's, but millions of their own countrymen as well.

Even if they had to be used there was no military reason to hit civilian targets. This was a show of force and new capability, and a bit of bluff as USA did not have many bombs, and a remote area or military target could have been found instead. They did not have to destroy cities to get the attention of the Japanese government.

I disagree. If we'd only hit military targets, I don't think the Japanese government would've reacted the same way. By deliberately targeting civilians, we were finally demonstrating a willingness to be as savage & inhumane to them as they had been to us. I honestly believe that it was that which finally got through to them.

[PanzerJaeger]

There is nothing wrong with revisionism if it dispels myths.

But if the United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded in 1946 that the A-bombs were not needed then one would have to find some good arguments as to why the survey's conclusions were wrong.

That's the problem with his argument. A 1946 survey reflects knowledge that was availible in 1946, not 1945.

The bredth of knowledge availble post-war, including detailed internal military and political assessments from the Japanese leadership itself, was far and away different from what was availible to Allied commanders at the time.

The most enduring lie is that the atomic bomb was dropped to end the war in the Pacific and save lives. "Even without the atomic bombing attacks," concluded the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, "air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. 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 ... 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."

In any event, it seems as though people fall into two distinct camps on this issue. Either it was an appalling sacrifice of Japanese innocents just to scare the Russians, or it was a moral choice taken for the greater good of saving more lives than it took. In reality, I think history shows that in the minds of American commanders of the time, the two were not mutually exclusive. In fact, I think the historical record demonstrates that the decision to drop the bombs reflected both ambitions.

[KrooK]

Theory that bombings were not target into military objectives are not all truth.
Japanese commanders moved war industry from big facilities to smaller into living districts.
As Martok wrote...
Normal invasion on Japan would costs milions or tens of milions casualties. Japanese High Command had plan to change whole nation into kamikadze. Previous bombings, despite terrible damages into war industry, did not break Japan and their will to fight. In my opinion it was because nation blindly respected orders and high command did not care about nation. Teens of thousands people died every bombing raid but .... high command was safe. Other reason might be Japanse military doctrine - they wanted one great decisive battle where samurai spirit breaks enemies. Thats why normal bombings would not break Japan - they would patiently waiting.

Atomic bomb show rulers of Japan that they are not safe - that everyone will be destroyed.
And that Americans will not loose even 1 men more and that there will be no decisive battle.

Thats why they signed casefire.

I must tell that I do not regret people of Japan. Japanese war crimes were one of the most terribly during war. People of Japan simply got what they deserved.

[InsaneApache]

I think it might be useful to remember that civilians on all sides were targeted by the enemy military. After all it was they who formed the industrial effort needed to maintain the armed forces capabilities. As such they were fair game, if you like, to mass bombing. This was not just an effort to reduce industrial capacity but also done with the view of breaking the moral of the populace.

Another thing to remember was the Imperial Japanese governments desire to protect the emperor from facing trial as a war criminal. Something abhorrent to the Japanese, he was considered a living god. A get out clause was needed and the bombs furnished them with one.

There is nothing wrong with revisionism if it dispels myths

Perhaps, however it's important to view historical events in context. The planners of the bombing didn't have the luxury of hindsight. Unlike we have sixty odd years down the line.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I must tell that I do not regret people of Japan. Japanese war crimes were one of the most terribly during war. People of Japan simply got what they deserved.

People who take this attitude towards anyone scare me. Every side committed war crimes, so should every side have a city or two bombed flat and the population drastically reduced or destroyed?

Anyways, a more interesting question is was Hiroshima a war crime or not? This question is something completely different as to whether it was justified given the information at the time.

[seireikhaan]

People who take this attitude towards anyone scare me. Every side committed war crimes, so should every side have a city or two bombed flat and the population drastically reduced or destroyed?

Anyways, a more interesting question is was Hiroshima a war crime or not? This question is something completely different as to whether it was justified given the information at the time.

Was it a war crime? Well, I think by definition, it most certainly was. Of course, it can be argued that if you're really going to truly beat someone into submission, one must take drastic and shocking measures.

I personally would have much rather preferred we put a smackdown on a military installation instead of masses of civilians. My belief is that we could have attained the same results without having to commit mass murder of innocents. Lets not forget that one of the main reasons we didn't nuke Tokyo was because we'd already flattened it with firebombs, its not as though Japan had much for chips left on the table by this point.

[CBR]

That's the problem with his argument. A 1946 survey reflects knowledge that was availible in 1946, not 1945.

That is true but is not the only one of Pilger's reasons in his article.

The OP asks if it was right or wrong to go nuclear.

Since the survey of 1946 concludes it was not needed, one can say it was wrong to use them. But it still is a hot topic even today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_...a_and_Nagasaki

Now the US government might have had less information at the time that could have made them think it indeed was necessary. But I have not read anything convincing really.

Since Operation Downfall (the invasion of Japan) was not scheduled to start until November 1, it is not like USA was in a hurry unless we add the Soviets into it. And that is IMO the main reason why USA were so interested in dropping both the bombs it had as quickly as possible.


CBR

[Caius]

Other courses; i.e. not dropping the bomb; could lead to more deaths; which is expected when one fight for national interests.

If A-bombs weren't used... we would not be fearing nuclear wars. Why?

The 29th of August, 1949 IIRC the Soviets had an Fat Man replic. Which they used. No nukes thrown = maybe war, but no fear of nuclear apocalipsys.

By the way, thank Albert Einstein. And Oppenheimer too. The fathers of the a-bomb.

[CBR]

Soviets would have developed nuclear weapons anyway.

It's all speculative alternative history but without a Hiroshima and Nagasaki we would not have seen the horrors of nuclear weapons until too late perhaps. Someone might have been more willing to use them later on in a conflict with both sides having them.


CBR

[KarlXII]

Atomic bomb show rulers of Japan that they are not safe - that everyone will be destroyed.
And that Americans will not loose even 1 men more and that there will be no decisive battle.

Thats why they signed casefire.

I must tell that I do not regret people of Japan. Japanese war crimes were one of the most terribly during war. People of Japan simply got what they deserved

Actually, Japan was never "safe". Large scale bombings were already underway, with the destruction of the Carrier Fleet, Japan had no means to project naval power to defend it's holdings. With Midway, Leyte Gulf, and the overall invasion of the Phillipines, Japan had no way to maintain a colonial empire in the Pacific. However, they were very stubborn, deeply entrenched into the belief of "Death before dishonour". The A-bombs were simply the final nail of an already shut coffin.

You condone the killing of civilians because of the leaders actions? That's almost like justifying the 9/11 attacks because of the waterboarding used.

[Caius]

I must tell that I do not regret people of Japan. Japanese war crimes were one of the most terribly during war. People of Japan simply got what they deserved.

Using that stupid logic, why not condemn the US for supporting dictatorships and civil wars? Not mentioning all the nations they "helped".

Where are the 30000 desaparecidos?

[InsaneApache]

Back OT.

Regarding the Soviets capability to attack the Japanese home islands, I doubt if they actually had the ability to do so. How large was the Soviet pacific fleet? Granted they occuped the Kuriles (sp) but they were largely unoccupied. It's conceivable that they could have moved to Honshu via Hokkaidō but that's a long way round, involving another amphibious landing on Honshu.

Also IIRC didn't the Japanese and Soviets clash on the Sino-Soviet border in the late thirties, early forties and the Japanese were roundly thrashed.

[CBR]

Regarding the Soviets capability to attack the Japanese home islands, I doubt if they actually had the ability to do so. How large was the Soviet pacific fleet? Granted they occuped the Kuriles (sp) but they were largely unoccupied. It's conceivable that they could have moved to Honshu via Hokkaidō but that's a long way round, involving another amphibious landing on Honshu.

Also IIRC didn't the Japanese and Soviets clash on the Sino-Soviet border in the late thirties, early forties and the Japanese were roundly thrashed.

I did a bit of searching and found this: http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...ad.php?t=43240

From that thread it seems that they had enough capacity to land a rifle corps. There was fighting on the Kurile Islands AFAIK and they took nearly 60,000 POW's there at the end.

They did fight each other in 1938-39: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lake_Khasan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol with Zhukov involved in the last one.


CBR

[Caius]

Today, 64 (IIRC) Fat Man was launched at Nagasaki. When did Japan surrender?

[King Jan III Sobieski]

Whether or not the U.S.A. was "morally" right or not...well, I'd have to say you'd have to consult your particular religion's holy books.

Whether or not they were "right" overall - as far as who deserved what (which is a slippery slope, I fully realize!) - but since we are looking at strictly the conflict known as World War II - well, the Japanese did perpetrate such things as the Nanking Massacre. During said massacre, the numbers killed lay somewhere between 100,000 - 300,000 deaths (depending who you believe, of course! Early Japanese estimates were in the range of a few hundred, but later Japanese researchers claim around 150,000-200,000. May nations believe it was between 200,000-300,000). During the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaka, the tolls were somewhere in the vicinity of 220,000.

I know people will argue that taking out the sins of the ruler out on the populace is evil in-of-itself, but I'm a firm believer that the agressor sets the rules of war. That's all.

[CBR]

Please keep this discussion civil. Thank you.


CBR

[Caius]

Please keep this discussion civil. Thank you.


CBR

This may sound stupid and provocative, but are you refering to someone in particular? I don't see this has gone a little out of the standarts.

[CBR]

The tone in some posts could be less confrontational, thats all. Just trying to improve the standards here


CBR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Sorry but I'm with Churchill on this one. When facing a foe as implacable as the Nazis or Imperial Japan, you will have to adopt the methods of those twin evil regimes or lose the war.

About Nazi Germany or Japan? Maybe with Japan it shortened the war, but with Germany it didn't make a difference, and Churchill knew it. He was a bloodthirsty bastard. Great wit, decent politician, but a cold-hearted devil of a man.

1) A bombs shorted war

The ones of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, maybe, yes.

2) Carpet bombings of german cities shorted war - how much resources Germany lost there

Resources? Cities like Dresden were targeted for their ability to cause firestorms, because of the architecture. If by resources you mean humans, then yes, Germany lost a lot of "resources."

The war was finished by this point Krook. Germany was as finished as Poland was five years before. The bombing of Dresden had no effect on the war. Zero.

3) Germany and Japan started massive killings of civilians - and behaving same to finish war was necessary. Trust me or not but if war took longer, Germans and Japans would kill much more civilians than was killed into their cities.

Behaving in the same way as the leaders of the German and Japanese governments was not necessary to shorten or finish the war. The war wasn't shortened by the bombings of Germany. Not at all. Not by breaking numerous articles of the Hague Convention, not by killing thousands of civilians. Not at all.

4) Whole German and Japan populations supported their governments. Typical "innocent" Germans behave with Slavic workers same like "innocent" SS soldiers with villagers into Russia.

Of course Germans supported the Nazi government, at least at the beginning of the war - though I am sure you are aware that support drained considerably by the end of the war. At any rate, Germans didn't behave in the same way with Slavic workers as SS soldiers in Russia any more than ordinary Poles behaved towards Germans in the same way the communist government in Poland did.

You're painting with a broad brush. The resulting art looks nice, but the fact is, it's still art. More accurate sketches are with thinner brushes.