drop the Bomb...

[ObjSRgtLw]

I hope there isn't already a thread like this...

Topic: Use of Atomic Bombs against Japan

Why i want to dicuss that matter:
I learned about the events in WW2 and the use of the A-Bomb in school, the matter was closed and crystal clear: otherwise the Japanese would have never stopped fighting- so i thought until i reconsidered my view a few days ago. I don't know why i started to rethink the matter (i guess it happened while i saw the movie "flags of our father"- dunno exactly why i came to think about the A-Bomb). Now i'm not so sure, there are many things that came to my mind: financial problems, human mistakes, military reason, scientific and not at last crime- bomb two big cities with millions of (innocent?) civilians, not even talking about the long term problems of the atomic waves... all the casualties, unborn childs with defects and so on.
Please don't get me wrong- i just want to discuss the matter because i never gave it a real thought before and i come to think that this action could be considered as a big inhuman thing or as last resort or i don't know. I can't help to think of the old saying: "history is written by the winners", i don't know if i just didn't see it but it looks to me that the matter is/was far less in (public, scientific) discussion than other acts of violence commited against civilians (by losers ).
I'm just mentioning some of my thoughts to get a discussion started- i DONT want to blame someone, i just want to get new and different views on the matter and i'm sure, as for every time in history, there are many different aspects, sources etc. that are getting into it.
And just to make sure: i have full and deep respect for America, my godfather was col. in the US- Army and America is the reason that i have the chance to live a great live - from the beginning on, i can't get it into words how much i owe this great country. I hope you don't misunderstand my (obviously weak ) english and my intentions.

Knowledge is the key to everything- that's what i want to gather in this discussion.

Tom

 

[MontyB]

There are many schools of thought on this and depending on which path you choose to follow you can come to a different conclusion.

1) The argument that the bombing was necessary otherwise Japan would have continued fighting is somewhat contentious as from late 1944 onwards the Japanese were attempting to negotiate a peace (or at least to determine terms for peace) via the Russian government however this wasn't in the best interests of Russian expansion and thus met with stalling tactics from the beginning.

Therefore had Stalin been thinking of anyone but his own glorification it is possible (albeit unlikely) Japan could have been out of the war before Germany and the A-Bombs would not have been used at all.

2) Based on what the West knew of the peace opportunities (which was bugger all) and on the how the Japanese had fought up to that stage it is fair to say that an invasion of mainland Japan would have been a bloody affair both in terms of Allied and Japanese civilian casualties possibly in the realms of hundreds of thousands if not millions and given that knowledge dropping the bombs probably ended up saving countless lives.

Personally given the information available at the time (which obviously did not include the long term effects of radiation sickness) I believe that the bombing was the right decision.

 

[ObjSRgtLw]

Well that way it wasn't really un-bloody... but for America it sure was.
What about the thesis that America's financial situation didn't allow a longer war against Japan (apart from the bloody aspect ...) and so they just dropped the A-Bomb.
And do you think there was much consideration (i'd like to think so)- who decided it? were there strong voices against it in the time being or after the bombs exploded (condemning it)

Are there sources like (state-)Protocols or sth comparable to that? I would like to know more about the decision- process because i guess it must be very interesting how you decide sth like that...
Would be also interesting to consult the press before and after the strike against Japan but i wouldn't know where to get them articles from my location...

 

[MontyB]

Well that way it wasn't really un-bloody... but for America it sure was.
What about the thesis that America's financial situation didn't allow a longer war against Japan (apart from the bloody aspect ...) and so they just dropped the A-Bomb.
And do you think there was much consideration (i'd like to think so)- who decided it? were there strong voices against it in the time being or after the bombs exploded (condemning it)

Are there sources like (state-)Protocols or sth comparable to that?
One way would be to consult the press before and after the strike but i wouldn't know where to get them articles from my location...

Well lets take a look at the Pacific war in general, it was stated that 99% of Japanese soldiers preferred death to surrender and massive numbers of Japanese civilians had committed suicide on the islands that had been taken up until that point so even from the Japanese perspective the atomic bombings were a relatively low casualty rate given the possible outcome of an invasion, add to this the expectation of between 200,000 and 1 million Allied casualties in completing the invasion (I would suggest this was the biggest motivation for the Allies) 250,000 casualties in two cities was really not that important.

In terms of finance I seriously doubt that was an issue as I don't know of any country that has not found the money to fight a war, its not until after it that the bills roll in.

As far as opposition to the bombing at the time goes I don't think I would be far wrong in suggesting that there was little to none, by that stage Britain and the Commonwealth had been at war for 6 years and suffered huge losses and the USA had been at war 4 years and sustained heavy casualties the Allies on the whole probably wouldn't have cared if they had to irradiate the entirety of Japan to bring the war to an end.

In terms of official documents on the decision to drop the bombs I would be surprised if there is a large amount available as the Manhattan Project was kept extremely quiet right up until the time of the bombings (in fact Truman didnt even know about it until he was sworn in as President in April 1945)

But here is a link that may give you some more information.... http://www.doug-long.com/truman.htm

 

[ObjSRgtLw]

Well lets take a look at the Pacific war in general, it was stated that 99% of Japanese soldiers preferred death to surrender

Although i would not entirely disagree- where is that 'stated'?

And i do agree that the other nations were sick of war (as they were after ww1), but that doesn't make actions less brutal or violent (i think i didn't find the right words here, may be you know what i mean...)

Thank you for the link, i'll take a closer look and thank you for taking the time reading and answering to my thoughts

 

[MontyB]

Although i would not entirely disagree- where is that 'stated'?

It was a quote by Major-General Douglas Gracey commander of the 20th Indian Infantry Division during the Imphal campaign, it is in the book "Retribution: The Battle for Japan, 1944-45 by Max Hastings. It is crap book but it contained that quote.

And i do agree that the other nations were sick of war (as they were after ww1), but that doesn't make actions less brutal or violent (i think i didn't find the right words here, may be you know what i mean...)

This is true but it does make it easier to understand why they made the decision they did.

Thank you for the link, i'll take a closer look and thank you for taking the time reading and answering to my thoughts

Hehe I am sure there will be a few more replies on this topic that should be good reading.

 

[LeEnfield]

Lets start of by saying that every film director has their own slant on history. They do not make films to be historically accurate but box office hits.

Do I think that dropping the bomb was necessary and saved lives well the answer must be YES.
The civilians including the children were being trained to die fighting for their country and as it was in their creed never to surrender and that death was better than capture, then I think that any landings in Japan would have been fiercely contested.
Now could you tell me why it took TWO atoms bombs to make Japan surrender, surely if they were thinking of surrendering then one should have done the trick.
It was the Emperor of Japan that in the finish said enough is enough we must surrender. Why was it that the Officer Corps tried to depose the Emperor so that the war could continue.
Why was it that the Japanese had set up death camps to kill all allied prisoners if the allied forces landed in Japan, and I knew a chap who was being march to one of those deaths camps ready to be killed when the bomb went of at Nagasaki and he was about 20 miles away when it went off. Now you wont here any complaints from those men.
If you are so concerned about the loss of life caused by these atom bombs why aren't you concerned about the deaths caused by LeMays fire bombing tactics used against Japan that caused far more death than the Atom bombs did.
It is all very clever of people who were not around during these events to twist them to their own point of view, but dropping these bombs was the right things to do at the time and they saved millions of life's on both sides in the finish.

 

[MontyB]

Now could you tell me why it took TWO atoms bombs to make Japan surrender, surely if they were thinking of surrendering then one should have done the trick.

How do we know they were seeking a negotiated end to the war (which is different to saying they intended to surrender) because the Allies had intercepted messages saying as much...

July 1945 - Japan's peace messages Still, the messages from Togo to Sato, read by the U.S. at the time, clearly indicated that Japan was seeking to end the war:

• July 11: "make clear to Russia... We have no intention of annexing or taking possession of the areas which we have been occupying as a result of the war; we hope to terminate the war".
• July 12: "it is His Majesty's heart's desire to see the swift termination of the war".
• July 13: "I sent Ando, Director of the Bureau of Political Affairs to communicate to the [Soviet] Ambassador that His Majesty desired to dispatch Prince Konoye as special envoy, carrying with him the personal letter of His Majesty stating the Imperial wish to end the war" (for above items, see: U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 1, pg. 873-879).
• July 18: "Negotiations... necessary... for soliciting Russia's good offices in concluding the war and also in improving the basis for negotiations with England and America." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/18/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).
• July 22: "Special Envoy Konoye's mission will be in obedience to the Imperial Will. He will request assistance in bringing about an end to the war through the good offices of the Soviet Government." The July 21st communication from Togo also noted that a conference between the Emperor's emissary, Prince Konoye, and the Soviet Union, was sought, in preparation for contacting the U.S. and Great Britain (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/22/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).
• July 25: "it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter." (U.S. Dept. of State, Potsdam 2, pg. 1260 - 1261).
• July 26: Japan's Ambassador to Moscow, Sato, to the Soviet Acting Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Lozovsky: "The aim of the Japanese Government with regard to Prince Konoye's mission is to enlist the good offices of the Soviet Government in order to end the war." (Magic-Diplomatic Summary, 7/26/45, Records of the National Security Agency, Magic Files, RG 457, Box 18, National Archives).

I don't know how else you can possibly read anything else into these messages.

As I indicated in my first post you have to look at it from two scenarios.
1) Japan wanted a way out of the war as early as August 1944 and a concerted effort probably could have achieved an end to the Pacific war by early 1945 which would make the bombing unnecessary and impossible as they simply would not have been ready in time.

or

2) Japan had to be invaded to be defeated in which case the bombing was the right thing to do and saved countless Allied lives and as a (most likely unintended) consequence saved countless Japanese lives as well.

I actually love discussing this particular set of questions because it is one of the few areas where my attitude has completely changed with age and understanding I recall heated arguments with my father as a kid claiming that the A-bombs were nothing short of a war crime and now I argue that they were the right option and ended up saving a lot more lives than they took.

 

[ObjSRgtLw]

[1]Lets start of by saying that every film director has their own slant on history. They do not make films to be historically accurate but box office hits.(...)
[2]It is all very clever of people who were not around during these events to twist them to their own point of view, but dropping these bombs was the right things to do at the time and they saved millions of life's on both sides in the finish.

1- I'm studying historical science so i sure know that movies are just movies- the one i mentioned was just because thats what made me think about the matter (the movie itself is NOT about the A-Bombs...) and as far as im concerned- as long as you start thinking about it and start having discussions like that- even "un"-historical movies (also like Gladiator) are good to start general interest in history. Of course you have to be so smart to get an own point of view(s).
2- I hope we're not twisting anything - we're just discussing and argumenting which is one of the best things humanity is capable of (how philosophical )

Thank you for participating.

To the last Post: I'm not really convinced yet that it was necessary, may be LeEnfield is right- 1 should have been sufficent but that could have just provoced pure rage and will for revenge. The second was maybe a demonstration to show that they have more and there is no chance for Japan...
But whats bothering me: The Japanese people had and still have a great and also very spiritual culture AND they are surely and have never been completely deff or stupid- so i would agree that they already thought about how to bring the war to an end...
And as for the troops- they faught fiercily because they didn't have an other option. But i don't think that's a very special case- the germans also had the "Total war" (Volkssturm etc.) which was nothing else than suicide as well. And nearly every Soldier says he would die for his country, so what's so special about the Japanese that did only allow A-bombs and didn't allow a diplomatic soution?

 

[03USMC]

In 1945 General Lemay subjected Japan to the Fire bombings of several of their cities. The fire bombing of Tokyo in particular took more lives than both A-bombs combined. The Japanese still failed to understand that it was eithier surrender or face total war.

They were given a chance after Hiroshima, they refused it. After Nagasaki they got the message. IMO it was the Japanese Goverment that caused this to happen to save face.

 

[ObjSRgtLw]

Taking the fire bombings to say the A-Bombs weren't 'that' bad... i don't know - that doesn't sound reasonable to me. Maybe the point is that war is war and cruel things happen like bombings with many losses- but would that be fair to leave it be like that?

 

[03USMC]

I'm in no way saying that the A bombs "weren't that bad". I'm pointing out that they were an escalation of force. Seems to me that the IJ Goverment especially their Bushido driven military were content to allow civilians to die in order to save face. Up until the time that the Emporer decided that the country would annilated.

 

[LeEnfield]

Dropping the A Bombs was not about revenge it was about winning the war and bringing peace to it. Now twice as many people died in the fire bombings than they did by the Atom bombs, so why concentrate of the Atom bombs, or is it becuase they were more spectacular and are far more controversial.
As I have said in other threads the bombs saved countless lives especially those of the Allied POW. Now I had a large number of ex Japanese POWs working for the firm where i was manager and I never saw one whose health held up long enough for them to reach retirement age.

The Japanese had been offered many chances to surrender but they refused them all and hoped that they could inflict enough casualties on the Allied Forces that the Allies would accept terms that would be better for Japan in their eyes.
Do you think then that the bombs should not have been used but we should have stormed the beaches of Japan regardless of costs
You mentioned Germany as well now if the bomb had been ready to use on Germany I think they would have used there as well to bring the war to an end.

 

[ObjSRgtLw]

Yes i do think the a-bombs were far more cruel (with the long term effects that no one knew about). The point there is not that they were more spectacular but they dropped them without exactly knowing what would happen... what about if the bombs would have erased the entire culture? Dropping such a weapon on an enemy without knowing the exact consequences... and who guaranteed that the Japanese would surrender after it? What i'm saying is that the situation for America must have been worse in some kind, maybe thats where the years of war, the losses and the finances come into play...
i just don't like the idea of coming back to the simple argument which i learned as a kid... but maybe there isn't really more to say about.
Was it really the last possible option?

 

[LeEnfield]

Try and put your self as a soldier during WW2, think of the carnage at Iwo Jima and the other islands and try and think if they felt hard done by. There were about a million Allied Service Personnel that lived happy use full lives because that bomb was dropped. Also there was nothing to stop Japan surrendering after the first one was dropped. 60 years on from these events it is very easy for people to moralize over these events, BUT YOU WHERE NOT THERE

 

[03USMC]

No the last possible option was an invasion by the allied forces and the high causalties in both allied lives and Japanese lives that would have resulted.
The IJ military was already training civilians to resist and would have persueded them to resist (by force if necessary) any invasion. They were training civilians to be "anti tank mines", "anti boat swimmers etc.

This is the same IJ Military that "persueded" Japanese civilians to jump to their deaths on Saipan and Okinawa (if they didn't decide to do it for the glory of the emperor...then they were shot).

The invasion IMO would have resulted in more Japanese causalties than the bombs as well as allied causalties.

And an invasion would have most probably resulted in a protracted campaign on each of the home islands. I've seen that terrian, alot of it is a defenders dream I wouldn't want to fight there.

So the bombs saved the allied forces from the last possible option.

 

[ObjSRgtLw]

so you think there were only two options- invading or bombing?
@Le Enfiel: I know what you mean and as a soldier i truly understand your arguments and i would have been the first to say "bomb em please!" but in historical science that may not be sufficent, at least we have to look for other reasons aside from the common marine thought during that time, because there are many examples where politicians didn't care about such aspects...

 

[MontyB]

And as for the troops- they faught fiercily because they didn't have an other option. But i don't think that's a very special case- the germans also had the "Total war" (Volkssturm etc.) which was nothing else than suicide as well. And nearly every Soldier says he would die for his country, so what's so special about the Japanese that did only allow A-bombs and didn't allow a diplomatic soution?

I think what made the Japanese soldier so "special" was that while every soldier says he will die for his country almost every Japanese soldier did die for his, the entire Pacific campaign was an example of this and more importantly on the Japanese populated islands they managed to convince the civilian population to do the same.

This is why it was important to bring the Pacific conflict to an end rapidly and the A-Bombs achieved this.

 

[ObjSRgtLw]

I do think i'm getting a greater picture here, please keep on

Another thing that came up: germany as target for A-bombs, i'd like to hear more about that... some of you guys already mentioned it...

Can one compare the german people to the Japanese in their end-struggle (many germans who refused to fight were killed by their own) or was Japan united in their decission to fight...

 

[MontyB]

Perhaps the better question in all this would have been to ask if a political solution was possible in the Pacific war and oddly enough I think one was, the later part of the Pacific war seems to have been mired in political confusion preventing a solution.

The more I read of Allied military leaders and politicians comments as well as the Japanese political situation the more I believe that had the Allies not had the mess and chaos of post war Europe to deal with the more likely an agreement could have been reached.

(To all the people who are about to jump up at down about me not being there please note this does not remove the fact that I believe the A-Bombing was justified it is purely hypothetical thinking about another possible aspect of the campaign with 60 years of hindsight).

Can one compare the german people to the Japanese in their end-struggle (many germans who refused to fight were killed by their own) or was Japan united in their decission to fight...

I don't think so, the war in Europe remained very much a soldiers war right up until the very end and as such German civilians were not really seen as a threat and for the most part could be simply passed by the Japanese civilians were not the same.