Hiroshima, 64 years ago

[troutman]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/spe...nt/procon.html

Historians are still divided over whether it was necessary to drop the atomic bomb on Japan to end World War II. Here is a summary of arguments on both sides:
__________________

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Dion

I was thinking the same thing. It's shame the Americans couldn't have found another way to end the war.

And that is the point right there. By that point it was the Americans doing most of the fighting. Asian Allies were exhausted, and European Allies were looking towards rebuilding.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by ken0042

And that is the point right there. By that point it was the Americans doing most of the fighting. Asian Allies were exhausted, and European Allies were looking towards rebuilding.

Don't forget the Soviets! Shortly after the mushroom cloud settled they declared war on Japan too! Opportunism much.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki get justified because it ended the War in the Pacific. What I'm interested more in is the fire bombing of Tokyo or even Dresden for that matter. Almost as horrible, without the convince of having ended the war.

I'm not overly familiar with the Tokyo bombing, but I've read much about Dresden, and I don't think anyone can legitimately justify that raid. It certainly wasn't a military target and Germany was all but defeated by that point already.

Before the Nuremberg warcrimes trials began, the Soviet Union wanted to include aerial bombing of civilians as one of the charges against the Nazis. The British and American governments fought successfully to have it excluded because they themselves were probably the most guilty of any of WWII's combatants at committing that offense.

[CrusaderPi]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Don't forget the Soviets! Shortly after the mushroom cloud settled they declared war on Japan too! Opportunism much.

The Allies agreed to this at one of their conferences. The Soviet Union was required to declare war on Japan 3 months after VE day.

[flamesfever]

When you look at the devastation from the a-bombs and realize that the hydrogen bombs are 1000 times more powerful......we should be doing everthing possible to avoid a nuclear catastrophe.

Thanks for posting this Dion. It's one of those things that everyone, particularly the younger generation, should be made more aware of.

Hopefully these events will act as a deterrent to other acts of this nature.

[PIMking]

Thanks for posting the pics!

Now War is a not a good thing but thank someone I dont know if I were to thank god but whomever. But now a days with all the new bombs that are guided to targets alot less civilians are dead.

Just to let you know I moved to the states in 89. Most of my great grandparents, uncles so on fought for the 3rd reich during ww2.

I actually have a great uncle whos still alive and he has told me stories about the war. Its crazy but things happen for a reason. I belive it was the right thing for the americans to drop the bombs. It shorten the war by years. Us americans/canadians should be happy that we were only fighting on a different part of the world not on us or canadian soil.

My fiance is a big anti-war person. I'm not a war monger but I belive there is time to put a foot in someones ass for actions they have done. Hitler was a tard and needed to be stopped. The empior needed to be stopped and saved thousands of lifes by dropping the bombs.

I am lucky enough to be bavarian so when I go back to germany I dont visit Berlin. I want nothing to do with that city. I do however want to go to the camps in poland and what not but there is too much bad history in Berlin. That has nothing to do with the 3rd reich its the wall and all the cold war issues.

I always found it funny the family that I have in Austria and the family that we have in Bavaria are so close but yet so different. Its kinda cool. But the fact is that it was needed and it saved alot of lives. Just think how bad it would of been if that nut job Hitler got ahold of a nuke.

Again I love history and I think its important for people to know history so it doesn't repeat itself.

Just be happy that none of this war took place on us/canadian soil.

[Ironhorse]

Imagine a time
When it all began in the dying days of a war
A weapon -- that would settle the score
Whoever found it first
Would be sure to do their worst --
They always had before...

Imagine a man
Where it all began a scientist pacing the floor
In each nation -- always eager to explore
To build the best big stick
To turn the winning trick --
But this was something more...

The big bang -- took and shook the world
Shot down the rising sun
The end was begun -- it would hit everyone
When the chain reaction was done
The big shots -- try to hold it back
Fools try to wish it away
The hopeful depend on a world without end
Whatever the hopeless may say

Imagine a place
Where it all began
They gathered from across the land
To work in the secrecy of the desert sand
All of the brightest boys
To play with the biggest toys --
More than they bargained for...

Imagine a man
When it all began
The pilot of enola gay
Flying out of the shockwave
On that august day
All the powers that be
And the course of history
Would be changed for evermore...

- Rush

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by PIMking

I do however want to go to the camps in poland and what not but there is too much bad history in Berlin. That has nothing to do with the 3rd reich its the wall and all the cold war issues.

'Bad' history is still history.

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Right, because the civilians in Hiroshima were the same people guilty of committing atrocities in Manchuria...

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Human life is human life. As disgusting as the rape of Nanking etcetera was, it does by no means condone the actions of US.

frankly, I agree with what you say. I'm not a warmonger. However, when your grandparents and relatives have their little farming village strafed by the Japanese, it skews ones perceptions, and warps sensibilities

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

frankly, I agree with what you say. I'm not a warmonger. However, when your grandparents and relatives have their little farming village strafed by the Japanese, it skews ones perceptions, and warps sensibilities

Oh totally. Hence why I make the assumptions of human nature that I do.

[HelloHockeyFans]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

frankly, I agree with what you say. I'm not a warmonger. However, when your grandparents and relatives have their little farming village strafed by the Japanese, it skews ones perceptions, and warps sensibilities

I remember speaking to a friend's grandmother at length about Nanking and what the Japanese did to the Chinese and it definitely hit a chord because it was first-hand information and because of how the Japanese viewed the Chinese as a culture... to put them at a level lower than animals (in their view) and do the things they did to them simply for being Chinese (forced rape and witnessing of rapes between family members, torture of babies in vats of boiling water, etc.)... but we need to be able to separate what specific groups of people did then, and what other groups alive at the same time had nothing to do with... it's tough and I completely understand why my friend's grandmother just can't let it go... not something that many people with very personal connections to can simply forgive and forget.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I've passionately defended the use of Little Boy and Fat Man in the past, citing the usual reason that while they killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians, they ultimately saved more lives (both American AND Japanese) since the alternative would have been a terribly bloody invasion.

Looking at those photos though, particularly the ones of civilians dying from their injuries or radiation, I can't help but think that humanity failed in this instance.

Isn't that a guess though? That more lives were saved by dropping the bomb? I always thought that was the official moral justification, not the actual justification. The real reason (purely imo) was to show Russia they had the Bomb and they were willing to use it. If you look at the results of previous fire-bombing raids on major Japanese cities, Japan's ability to wage war (ie, make guns, bullets, supplies, concrete, steel, etc., etc.) was completely shattered prior to the use of atomic weapons. They could have easily been starved into submission (not arguing the humanity of this, just that the Bomb wasn't the only option). I'm sure a couple months blockade combined with continued fire-bombing would have produced the same result in the end.

Not a dispute that will be solved here unfortunately... it'll be up to historians 100 years from now to get some true 'objectivity' (if possible).

Oh, and I'm pretty sure the official justification was the dropping the bomb saved American lives.... not American AND Japanese lives. I think the attitude at the time was 'f*** the Japanese, they started it'.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Isn't that a guess though? That more lives were saved by dropping the bomb? I always thought that was the official moral justification, not the actual justification. The real reason (purely imo) was to show Russia they had the Bomb and they were willing to use it. If you look at the results of previous fire-bombing raids on major Japanese cities, Japan's ability to wage war (ie, make guns, bullets, supplies, concrete, steel, etc., etc.) was completely shattered prior to the use of atomic weapons. They could have easily been starved into submission (not arguing the humanity of this, just that the Bomb wasn't the only option). I'm sure a couple months blockade combined with continued fire-bombing would have produced the same result in the end.

Dropping the bombs had multiple benefits - reducing the number of casualties that would have resulted from a land invasion and to flex their muscles in front of the Russians. I don't think it has to be one justification or the other.

As for starving the Japanese into submission: IMO, the Japanese mentality at the time, which was evident in the long battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa, makes me believe that the entire country needed something to shock them into submission. A continued blockade would have, IMO, resulted in a hardened mentality among the Japanese and would have resulted in millions of deaths.

Edit: To add (and support my second paragraph) - if the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed in the fire bombings in Tokyo and other cities weren't enough to force surrender, the US had to step it up and shock the Japanese.

Edit: To add (to my first paragraph) - an additional benefit (and no where near justification) was picking Hiroshima and Nagaski because they had been left relatively unscathed from conventional bombing - the US, and the rest of the world, could get a better idea of the type of capabilities the Abombs would have on a city.

[MarchHare]

Oh, and I'm pretty sure the official justification was the dropping the bomb saved American lives.... not American AND Japanese lives. I think the attitude at the time was 'f*** the Japanese, they started it'.

Oh, no doubt that was the justification at the time, but in hindsight, I think we can objectively state that a military invasion of Japan would have caused a tremendous number of casualties, which almost certainly would have exceeded the number killed by the two atomic bombs.

Whether or not an invasion was the only viable alternative to the bombs is, as you stated, a valid point of contention amongst historians.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Oh, no doubt that was the justification at the time, but in hindsight, I think we can objectively state that a military invasion of Japan would have caused a tremendous number of casualties, which almost certainly would have exceeded the number killed by the two atomic bombs.

Whether or not an invasion was the only viable alternative to the bombs is, as you stated, a valid point of contention amongst historians.

I guess I'm not convinced Japan was really still raring for a fight. My opinion is that they were so utterly broken at that point (the firebombings in particular were devestating), that their ability to wage an actual defense is highly overrated. They were low on almost all industrial resources as a result of bombing, low on food, ammo, guns, vehicles, gasoline, able-bodied males, etc. At Iwo Jima you have a defensive strong-point, supplied with all of the above, so naturally the battle was incredibly vicious. At Japan a-bomb point in time, I have a tough time imagining what kind of horrific defense the Japanese could have put up that would have slaughtered so many Americans. Did they have a few fully supplied crack divisions waiting in caves to pour out in defense?

I think that invading, and conquering, Japan in late-45 would have been insanely easier than doing the same to Germany in 44. The Germans had everything when they were invaded, while the Japanese would have had nothing (but ashes, of course). I think the current general historical analysis of the possible invasion of Japan overestimates American casualties and the time it would take to accomplish taking the island.

I do understand that Joe's Guide to WWII disagrees with my points though. I'm used to being in the minority on this one. Interesting debate though!

[CaptainCrunch]

There were interceptions of communications in the Japanese mainland extorting every citizen to basically kill as many American's as possible. It would have been a near impossible invasion through a constrained landing zone then through vicious house to house and urban fighting. It would have been a horrific blood bath on both sides. But also the American's had been somewhat taken aback by the Japanese willingness to throw lives away for nothing during the Island Campaign and through the Kamikaze raids against American naval assets.

American's at that time were tired of the war, they were tired of casualties and they wanted their boys to come home. There was also the agreement between the Allies that they would accept nothing but unconditional surrender, which was something that the Japanese were not willing to accept and had shown it by absorbing the first bomb.

The American's were also somewhat concerned about a resurgent Russia seizing parts or all of the Japanese home Islands.

There was also an institutional rage by the American's due to the Japanese Imperial Military's conduct during the war, and they didn't feel a need to handle them gently. They wanted to destroy any chance of a resurgent Japanese nation coming back in 20 or 30 years.

It was the proper decision by the American's to beat the Japanese utterly without taking massive casualties if they could.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The American's were also somewhat concerned about a resurgent Russia seizing parts or all of the Japanese home Islands.

There was also an institutional rage by the American's due to the Japanese Imperial Military's conduct during the war, and they didn't feel a need to handle them gently. They wanted to destroy any chance of a resurgent Japanese nation coming back in 20 or 30 years.

I definitely agree with both these points... I think they're probably the most important points, as opposed to the others you mentioned. Your version is pretty much the text-book historical analysis... I guess I just don't always agree with the historical text-book analysis, given that the 'winners write the history books' is a far more real concept than most of us choose to admit. But now I sound nutty.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

There was also an institutional rage by the American's due to the Japanese Imperial Military's conduct during the war, and they didn't feel a need to handle them gently. They wanted to destroy any chance of a resurgent Japanese nation coming back in 20 or 30 years.

It was the proper decision by the American's to beat the Japanese utterly without taking massive casualties if they could.

And it worked... The outcome stands in such stark contrast to Iraq and Afghanistan, where it seems like nobody has the will or appetite to finish off the foe.

Is it even possible to win a war without that institutionalized rage?

[HOZ]

An interesting topic.

Had the US not dropped 2 nuclear weapons on Japan for everyone to behold the destruction, death, pain and chaos they wrought.....

Do you think their would be any MAD talks but instead someone would have started a nuclear exchange not knowing how truly hideous the weapons are?