Hello Kaya,
well they were ment for Germany in the first place - and I am dead sure that the US would have used them just as well - who want's to throw away 3 billion US$ into a barnyard storage :wink:
Regards
Kruska
Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Justified?
well they were ment for Germany in the first place - and I am dead sure that the US would have used them just as well - who want's to throw away 3 billion US$ into a barnyard storage :wink:
Regards
Kruska
Jeff Simmons
Active member
nukes in Europe?
The nuclear bomb was created in a rush to make sure that we got one before Hitler did. A nuclear strike on Germany probably wouldn't have been more damaging or brutal than the firebombing of Dresden. However (and there's always a "however"), I doubt that the decision to make a nuclear strike against a European target would have been made as easily as it was against Japan.
This is my reasoning: The Japanese and Germans were treated entirely differently. For example, the US didn't round up German Americans and put them in internment camps as they did Japanese Americans. And Germany didn't draw first blood; Pearl Harbor was still fresh in the minds of Americans in general, and they wanted payback. There was also a lot of racist propaganda aimed at the Japanese, making them seem like a sub-species.
Even if the bomb was created to use against Germany, it was not completed in time to use. I agree with the previous statement: Once you have spent so much time and energy into creating a weapon, you aren't going to mothball it because your primary target has surrendered. You would turn it on a secondary target.
The nuclear bomb was created in a rush to make sure that we got one before Hitler did. A nuclear strike on Germany probably wouldn't have been more damaging or brutal than the firebombing of Dresden. However (and there's always a "however"), I doubt that the decision to make a nuclear strike against a European target would have been made as easily as it was against Japan.
This is my reasoning: The Japanese and Germans were treated entirely differently. For example, the US didn't round up German Americans and put them in internment camps as they did Japanese Americans. And Germany didn't draw first blood; Pearl Harbor was still fresh in the minds of Americans in general, and they wanted payback. There was also a lot of racist propaganda aimed at the Japanese, making them seem like a sub-species.
Even if the bomb was created to use against Germany, it was not completed in time to use. I agree with the previous statement: Once you have spent so much time and energy into creating a weapon, you aren't going to mothball it because your primary target has surrendered. You would turn it on a secondary target.
Naddoður
Active member
Much of your case is based on the ahistorical assumption that Truman and US policymakers understood Japanese intentions with the same clarity as historians have been able to achieve decades after the event. In any case, the Japanese showed no serious signs of being willing to surrender in July and early August 1945, and the US government was faced with a possible conventional invasion of Japan which would have involved substantial casualties - if not quite the rates earlier figures had suggested. The bomb had been developed in accordance with US military strategies to win both the European and Pacific war as quickly and cheaply as possible and had the bonus of heading off Soviet influences in Asia. The war propaganda that depicted the Japanese as treacherous and sub-human reflected an American racism that may have made such a decision a little easier for Truman.
Yes; clearly the time to surrender had come. Incredibly, many in the Military wanted to fight on, preferring death to capitulation. The cabinet, made up of elder statesmen, tried to send out peace feelers through neutral Sweden, Soviet Union, and Switzerland as early as June 1945. The only condition was the continued existence of the of Imperial Throne. Unwilling or unclear of the Japanese offer, the Allies refused and issued the Potsdam Declaration on July 26
The Emperor was sympathetic to the peacemakers. The Army members of the cabinet were not willing to give up, and Prime Minister Suzuki had to move carefully. If there was a perceived weakness in the cabinet, even the Emperor might be assassinated. The idea that the Emperor would support surrender was inconceivable to many in both the Army and the Navy. Suzuki cautiously sought out others on the cabinet, finding all but two generals in support. On July 28, the government issued a carefully worded response to the Potsdam Declaration, which unfortunately used a word with a double meaning. English-language broadcasts used the word "ignore" and the Western press picked up that sentiment. Truman announced he had rejected the peace offer and dropped the atomic bombs.
On the issue of Japanese surrender, various studies suggest that in July 1945 the government had not decided to surrender and that Hirohito and the militarists had not been prepared to reach such a decision until the entry of the Russians into the war and the dropping of the atomic bombs finally forced the Emperor’s hand. And the entry of the Russians into the war ended Japanese hopes that the USSR might act as intermediaries with the Americans and may have been even more important than the bombs in the decision to surrender. This at least gives some credence to your claims that Japan would have surrendered before a US invasion if the bombs had not been dropped. However, there is some danger of hindsight in such a view. Many militants wanted to continue fighting even after Russian entry and after the two bombs had been dropped; they were willing to surrender only because of the Emperor’s orders. Moreover, Truman could not be certain of Japanese intentions. Evidence that the Americans hoped or suspected that Soviet entry might be enough to end the war does not demonstrate that Truman knew that the atomic bombs would not be needed.
At the May 31 Ernest Lawrence (scientific advisor) suggested that a demonstration of the atomic bomb might possibly convince the Japanese to surrender. This was rejected, however, out of fear that the bomb might be a dud, that the Japanese might put American prisoners of war in the area, or that they might manage to shoot down the plane. The shock value of the new weapon could also be lost. These reasons and others convinced Truman that the bomb should be dropped without warning on a "dual target" -- a war plant surrounded by workers' homes. On June 6, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson informed President Truman that the Interim Committee recommended keeping the atomic bomb a secret until Japan had been bombed. The attack should take place as soon as possible and without warning. In late May, the committee of scientists and Army Air Force officers listed Kokura Arsenal, Hiroshima, Niigata, and Kyoto as the four best targets, believing that attacks on these cities would make a profound psychological impression on the Japanese and weaken military resistance. (None of these cities had yet been bombed by Curtis LeMay's Twentieth Air Force, which planned to eliminate all major Japanese cities by January 1, 1946.) Stimson vetoed Kyoto, Japan's most cherished cultural center, and Nagasaki replaced Kyoto on the target list. Now all that was left was for Truman to give his final approval, and then it would be up to the weather to determine which of these four cities would be the first struck by an atomic bomb.
Naddoður
Active member
On the racial issues, it is true that stereotyping of the Japanese as sub-human was a significant part of US war propaganda. The perceived Japanese treachery at Pearl Harbor also made it easy to justify American revenge bombings on Japanese cities. On the other hand, the massive destruction of German cities throughout the war, including the fire-bombing of Dresden as late as February 1945, showed little in the way of US restraint when dealing with a European enemy. Indeed, the atomic bomb was developed primarily with a view to its use against Nazi Germany; and I think that had it not been for Germany’s surrender in May 1945, before development of the atomic bomb had been completed, a German city rather than Hiroshima could have been the first nuclear target. US wartime strategy was to use all means to bring the European and Pacific conflicts to an end as quickly as possible and to minimise American combat casualties. Whether it was correct or not, US military planners during the war had placed a great deal of faith in the use of massive air power to destroy an enemy’s military capacity and will to fight. The US government had always regarded the atomic bomb, from the beginning of its development, as a legitimate weapon of war. It was essentially just a more terrifying type of super bomb to be dropped in the same way as any of the conventional bombs of the war. Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan in order to quickly finish the war fitted in with these American military strategies that had little to do, ultimately, with racial attitudes irrespective of the personal beliefs of the President or for that matter Americans in general. However, provided we keep in mind US military thinking, perhaps racism did make the decision to use the bombs easier even if it was not an overriding factor and I also acknowledge they certainly could have been used against Germany if they had been ready in time.
Hello Naddoður,
good post - and my bad, geezes I stated Wilson
- off course Truman,As I said we will never know what might have happened if Truman would have been willing to set a negotiation frame of 3-4 weeks. Off course from today's perspective and insight things are easier to be excused or supported. However the Emperor issue was absolutly clear to all those involved in reading the daily correspondance Tokio - Switzerland and Moskow - there is no doubt in that matter.
But why should Truman give them 3-4 weeks if he had what was needed to end this war on his terms - right? and it is understandable from my point of view - racism doesn't really come into that equation IMO - what the Jap's had done was known - no matter their race.
The US had three bombs plus another 4-5 in the pipeline by November December - so even if one had been a dud - it wouldn't have changed the issue at all. I didn't mean for the US to anounce their wonder weapon but rather to pick out a remote target - upon the bomb going off the Japanese would have realized anyway what would come next.
The matter of the bomb itsself - not the cassulties or destruction - broke the Japanese religion and culture in regards to their God controlling the elements. And the bomb clearly demonstrated, that the bomb was of an element not under control by their God. As such the Tenno had no other alternative but as to surrender towards something that was beyond their religious believes.
He would have risked his entire status upon the US continuing a nuke onslaught and the whole Japanese population getting aware about something being not right in their religion and culture. The immediate capitulation by Hirohito was nothing more then a selfguarding towards his function within the religion.
Question is, did anyone within the circle of those responsible for the deployment of the A-bombs acctually realize that? - I guess not.
Regards
Kruska
Jeff Simmons
Active member
Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay
I was just reading about Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay. As many of you probably already know, he was in charge of the bombing campaign against Japan. Leading up to the atomic bombings, LeMay ordered incendiary bombing against not only Tokyo, but 63 other cities as well. Casualty estimates (and I stress estimates) range from 250,000 to 500,000, depending on the source. LeMay is credited with coining the phrase, "...bomb them into the stone age."
The thing that really caught my attention was that LeMay dropped leaflets warning Japanese civilians ahead of time that their cities would be attacked, urging them to get out while they could. The text of these leaflets read: "Unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives."
However, what I don't know, is if the civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were given such notice. Does anyone know?
I was just reading about Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay. As many of you probably already know, he was in charge of the bombing campaign against Japan. Leading up to the atomic bombings, LeMay ordered incendiary bombing against not only Tokyo, but 63 other cities as well. Casualty estimates (and I stress estimates) range from 250,000 to 500,000, depending on the source. LeMay is credited with coining the phrase, "...bomb them into the stone age."
The thing that really caught my attention was that LeMay dropped leaflets warning Japanese civilians ahead of time that their cities would be attacked, urging them to get out while they could. The text of these leaflets read: "Unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives."
However, what I don't know, is if the civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were given such notice. Does anyone know?
Hello Jeff Simmons,
I guess all those in charge of bombings had the same attitude - no matter if a Bomber Harris, LeMay or a Goering.
If my memory serves me right - those cities were not warned - since the US command feared that giving notice might give the Japanese the idea to bring in PoW's as a human shield.
Regards
Kruska
Naddoður
Active member
Yes they were.
Front side of OWI notice #2106, dubbed the “LeMay bombing leaflet,” which was delivered to Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities on 1 August 1945. Office of War Information presses were turning out leaflets that revealed the special nature of Hiroshima’s destruction and predicted similar fates for more Japanese cities in the absence of immediate acceptance of the terms of the Potsdam agreement. The Japanese text on the reverse side of the leaflet carried the following warning:
“Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America’s humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately.”
An American-controlled radio station on Saipan was broadcasting a similar message to the Japanese people every 15 minutes. Five days after the fliers were distributed, Hiroshima was destroyed by the “Little Boy” atomic device. Following the first attack, the U.S. air force dropped even more leaflets:
America asks that you take immediate heed of what we say on this leaflet.
We are in possession of the most destructive explosive ever devised by man. A single one of our newly developed atomic bombs is actually the equivalent in explosive power to what 2000 of our giant B-29s can carry on a single mission. This awful fact is one for you to ponder and we solemnly assure you it is grimly accurate.
We have just begun to use this weapon against your homeland. If you still have any doubt, make inquiry as to what happened to Hiroshima when just one atomic bomb fell on that city.
Before using this bomb to destroy every resource of the military by which they are prolonging this useless war, we ask that you now petition the Emperor to end the war. Our president has outlined for you the thirteen consequences of an honorable surrender. We urge that you accept these consequences and begin the work of building a new, better and peace-loving Japan.
You should take steps now to cease military resistance. Otherwise, we shall resolutely employ this bomb and all our other superior weapons to promptly and forcefully end the war.
The distribution of these leaflets, along with the radio broadcasts, does put a dent in the argument that America was unconcerned about the potential civilian deaths as a result of an atomic attack, but the debate over the bombs’ necessity in ending the war will never be truly resolved. Also interestingly, one of the original potential bomb sites was the Japanese Emperor’s Palace, but it was scratched from the list due to its cultural significance.
Hello Naddoður,
like your post says:
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities on 1 August 1945, where warned - even after the A-bomb drop - no information was directed explicitly towards Nagasaki or previously Hiroshima. I think that is what Jeff Simmons wanted to know.
Regards
Kruska
like your post says:
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities on 1 August 1945, where warned - even after the A-bomb drop - no information was directed explicitly towards Nagasaki or previously Hiroshima. I think that is what Jeff Simmons wanted to know.
Regards
Kruska
People seem to forget that more Japanese were killed on the fire bombs attack on Tokyo than were killed by both Atomic bombs. So why is there all this wringing of hands about the use of the Atom bombs. Even after the second bomb had been dropped the Japanese Military were looking at staging a coup to keep the war going.
The Japanese were looking at a surrender but on their terms and we all know what happened in Germany after WW1. The twin attacks on Japan did, in fact, create a deterrent that has lasted 65 years. However, I also wonder if that deterrent will quell nations like Iran and North Korea.
---------------------------------------
box set The Mentalist
The Japanese were looking at a surrender but on their terms and we all know what happened in Germany after WW1. The twin attacks on Japan did, in fact, create a deterrent that has lasted 65 years. However, I also wonder if that deterrent will quell nations like Iran and North Korea.
---------------------------------------
box set The Mentalist
Hello allias,
it is simply about international regulations on war and as such towards civilians. Besides the total number of those conventional victims extend over a 2-3 year period and not two days.
In war it is leagal to bomb industrial and military targets - this beholds the targets itself and not just simply the entire city.
That civilians are working on or within these targets is understood - that neighbouring civilian areas get hit (maybe even intensionally) is also understood. But a firestorm doesn't appear imminently, but after a specific bombardment technique taking about 20-30 min to develop.
So people still have a chance to save their lives - as crude as it sounds.
Besides due to construction and building materials used in Japan - a firestorm developed far easier then in Europe.
The A-bombs are not a weapon category which would allow the primary and singled out destruction of a military or industrial target within a city - it simply makes BOOM and everything within a certain radius goes to hell or heaven.
As such an A-bomb killes innocent civilians as per wanted and intensionally.
According to this and my understanding, the USA commited a warcriminal act.
So now the question around the A-bombs simply comes down to what might excuse such an act - and this is what many people are discussing about.
Regards
Kruska
LeEnfield
Active member
The firestorms.....They would burn all the oxygen out of the air and people would suffocate apart from being turned into crispy critters. The heat was so intense that doors and other objects were carried so high by the heat they were hitting the B29. Again people were so badly injured that like the A Bombs they took a long time to die some over months and some took a few years but the effects were just the same.
The problem is one lot were killed by one bomb and the others were killed by many bombs, it seems to be alright to use a lot of fire power to kill a lot of people but the problem is when just one weapon does the same job
The problem is one lot were killed by one bomb and the others were killed by many bombs, it seems to be alright to use a lot of fire power to kill a lot of people but the problem is when just one weapon does the same job
Hello LeEnfield,
actually it isn't - because according to the international regulations of war - the creation of a firestorm (intensionally) would fall into the same category as an A-bomb - it would be a warcriminal act.
Since the "creation" of firestorms is difficult to proof - unless USAAF records would clearly indicate that intensional cause was behind this - it comes back to the A-bombs were it is clear and obvious.
E.g - when the Luftwaffe bombed London - firestorms partially occured - but they were not placed intensionally by the Luftwaffe. AFAIK it was during those occurences in London that the matter and cause of firestorms was first dicvovered and investigated upon - the RAF then implemented its "research" onto Hamburg.
Regards
Kruska
1) the conventional bombings of the Japanese cities did not extend over 2 years:they started in 1945
2) on the effect of the A-bomb:no one was aware of it (excepting some scientists,who were considered as non serious)
3) attacks on civilians were legal :if it was legal to kill a Japanese soldier,it was also legal to kill a civilian who was making guns,.......
4) if,by attacking industrial area's,civilians were killed,bad for them.
5)the duty of the US commander in chief(Truman) was to care about his soldiers,not about enemy civilians .
6)the morality of the using of the A-Bomb is another topic,but in war,morality is a superfluous luxury
Naddoður
Active member
No lljadw; attacks on civilians were not legal.
At the beginning of World War II, the bombing of civilians was regarded as a barbaric act. As the war continued, however, all sides abandoned previous restraints. But international law has always distinguished between civilians and combatants.
PROTECTION OF CIVILIAN POPULATIONS AGAINST BOMBING FROM THE AIR IN CASE OF WAR
Unanimous resolution of the League of Nations Assembly, September 30, 1938.
I. Recognizes the following principles as a necessary basis for any subsequent regulations:
1) The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal;
2) Objectives aimed at from the air must be legitimate military objectives and must be identifiable;
3) Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighborhood are not bombed through negligence;
But it is easy for us to judge the decisions that have been taken years ago. We have all the information today. So if you have to look objectively on a historical event, then you can only use the information that was available at the time.
Jeff Simmons
Active member
legal or not
I agree that targeting civilian populations is wrong. However, the clauses in the League of Nations document against civilian bombing probably weren't considered much by anybody in any country. The United States was not even a member of the League, and therefore probably didn't care about its rules of engagement.
I agree that targeting civilian populations is wrong. However, the clauses in the League of Nations document against civilian bombing probably weren't considered much by anybody in any country. The United States was not even a member of the League, and therefore probably didn't care about its rules of engagement.
LeEnfield
Active member
Bombing of Civilians had become common practice since the Spanish Civil War. When Germany bombed London in 1940 the idea was to start a fire storm. They chose a few days during the month when the tides were at the lowest so that when the water mains were ruptured then it would be difficult get water to fight the fires. The one thing that helped save london was that it was all brick built unlike Dresden
When the Allies bombed Dresden it was to start a firs storm that would do more damage than the bombing. The American General Curtis LeMay took these lesson with him when he moved from Europe to the Japanese conflict. The first thing he did was to go over to night bombing and remove most of the gun turrets from the B29s so that they could carry a greater bomb load and then instead of bombing from 30.000 feet he brought the bombers down to 10.000 feet and most of their bomb loads were incendiary bombs and the idea was to start fire storms and ravage a huge area. Now nearly all large Japanese cities got the same treatment except for the two that would be the sites for the atom bomb to be dropped on.
It was a American Civil War General that said with out civilians the war could not be pursued so if he destroyed every thing he could from farms to factories then the south could not pursue the war.
With out Civilians making the weapons during all the wars then no one can fight if they are are destroyed. During WW2 in Britain every one both men and women were allocated war work and if need be were sent all over the country to do it. The only way you got out of it as a women is if you had a young children. WW2 was a total war were every one worked or fought and there was no such thing as an innocent civilian.
When the Allies bombed Dresden it was to start a firs storm that would do more damage than the bombing. The American General Curtis LeMay took these lesson with him when he moved from Europe to the Japanese conflict. The first thing he did was to go over to night bombing and remove most of the gun turrets from the B29s so that they could carry a greater bomb load and then instead of bombing from 30.000 feet he brought the bombers down to 10.000 feet and most of their bomb loads were incendiary bombs and the idea was to start fire storms and ravage a huge area. Now nearly all large Japanese cities got the same treatment except for the two that would be the sites for the atom bomb to be dropped on.
It was a American Civil War General that said with out civilians the war could not be pursued so if he destroyed every thing he could from farms to factories then the south could not pursue the war.
With out Civilians making the weapons during all the wars then no one can fight if they are are destroyed. During WW2 in Britain every one both men and women were allocated war work and if need be were sent all over the country to do it. The only way you got out of it as a women is if you had a young children. WW2 was a total war were every one worked or fought and there was no such thing as an innocent civilian.
Last edited:
Naddoður
Active member
I regret that I have been wrong. :???:
I have checked up on this. And lljadw you're right
In the light of international humanitarian law, during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war.
I must remember to do my homework before I respond to something I thought I knew
I have checked up on this. And lljadw you're right
In the light of international humanitarian law, during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war.
I must remember to do my homework before I respond to something I thought I knew
Nor the US,Japan and Germany were members of the League in 1938.
And if they were,was the resolution binding? Was it approved by the US congres ?
Hi.
To the thing with civil bombing:
When the english airforce had no targets with number 1 priority (buildings wich were producing arms and stuff) they started targeting less priority targets and even towns wich had no military use at all. There are even maps of those towns where to throw a incendiary bomb to burn as many civil buildings as possible (i watched it in a documentation so i guess youll have to google it read a book or something else i cant provide a link).
"History is written by the victor." I dont want upset people cause the quote (as far as i know) is from a game, but i think it pretty much fits here. Nobody was there to judge the USAs actions and in the end you cant say what happened if they didn´t throw the bombs.
I think the "nobody knows what the nuke would do" is no capable excuse because you can see the testing videos today (earlier you probably couldn´t but still the people who had to make the decision knew it).
Yeah, that was pretty much my opinion feel free to dissagree, argue and confute.
To the thing with civil bombing:
When the english airforce had no targets with number 1 priority (buildings wich were producing arms and stuff) they started targeting less priority targets and even towns wich had no military use at all. There are even maps of those towns where to throw a incendiary bomb to burn as many civil buildings as possible (i watched it in a documentation so i guess youll have to google it read a book or something else i cant provide a link).
"History is written by the victor." I dont want upset people cause the quote (as far as i know) is from a game, but i think it pretty much fits here. Nobody was there to judge the USAs actions and in the end you cant say what happened if they didn´t throw the bombs.
I think the "nobody knows what the nuke would do" is no capable excuse because you can see the testing videos today (earlier you probably couldn´t but still the people who had to make the decision knew it).
Yeah, that was pretty much my opinion feel free to dissagree, argue and confute.