Should the atomic bombs have been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

World War II General WWII Discussion
#1

Please, do not vote with compassion but read first at least one article from links below.

http://archive.tri-cityherald.com/BOMB/bomb15.html

Attempts to answer the moral questions raised by the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are rooted in a cold-blooded mathematical equation of war.

The rationale is simple: You kill a lot of people now, hoping to save even more lives later.

An estimated 140,000 people were killed at Hiroshima and another 74,000 at Nagasaki. Would an Allied invasion of Japan have been more bloody?

Many factors cloud any calculation:

The battle for the outlying Japanese island of Okinawa a few months earlier killed at least 12,400 Americans, between 100,000 and 127,000 Japanese soldiers and between 70,000 to 80,000 civilians.

About 3,000 kamikaze suicide plane missions were flown at Okinawa, and only a handful of Japanese soldiers surrendered.

More people were killed in the battle for the small island than the combined toll of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

What would have happened if Kyushu - the westernmost of Japan’s four main islands - was invaded in November 1945 as planned?

Or if the Allies went ahead with plans to invade the main island of Honshu in March 1946?

The Allies estimated between 63,000 to 250,000 of their men would be killed or wounded in the battle for Kyushu - depending on which historian provides the figures. Japanese casualties were expected to be much greater."

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4733

"Traditionally, the terms of the historical discussion on Hiroshima have been set by the liberal elites of the press and academia, who focus solely on the question of whether it was necessary to use the bombs at all. The revisionists’ belief  is that Japan was already a beaten nation in August 1945, and that use of the atomic bombs was an immoral act tantamount to a war crime. To add punch to their argument, numerous survivors of the bombing provide first-hand accounts of the devastation and death wrought by the bombs.

This self-doubt is sometimes followed by rebuttals from American veterans of the Pacific Theater, who praise Truman’s decision as a necessary evil, giving him credit shortening the war and saving lives. They often point out that the Japanese surrender on August 14 came only five days after the dropping of the second bomb on Nagasaki. Their numbers dwindling, grizzled veterans from the Battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa recall their joy when they learned that they would not have to invade the Japanese home islands at a cost of untold thousands of American lives."

"

As one might expect, the few surviving crew members of the B-29s bombers Enola Gay and Bock’s Car are interviewed each August by reporters from around the world, who invariably ask them the same question with mind-numbing familiarity: “Do you have any regrets?”

In response to this question, Lt. Col. Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the Enola Gay, recently issued this statement:

In the past 60 years since Hiroshima, I have received many letters from people all over the world. The vast majority have expressed gratitude (that we) were able to deliver the bombs that ended the war. Over the years, thousands of former soldiers and military family members have expressed a particularly touching and personal gratitude suggesting that they might not be alive today had it been necessary to resort to an invasion of the Japanese home islands to end the fighting.

I have been thanked as well by Japanese veterans and civilians who would have been expected to carry out suicidal defense of their homelands. Combined with the efforts of all Americans and our allies, we were able to stop the killing. It is a sentiment upon which the surviving crewmen are unanimous."

“To try to comprehend the human costs of Japan’s rampage across the Pacific, one should consider that the generally accepted casualty figures for the Hiroshima attack include at least 100,000 people killed outright by the blast and fire that destroyed the city. Thus, if we are to quantify the loss of life across Asia due to Japanese aggression in terms of Hiroshima, then the minimum number of Hiroshimas inflicted by Japan onto its neighbors, including China, Korea, Indochina, Burma, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines and the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) is at least one hundred. Beginning in 1931 with the invasion of Manchuria, Japan unleashed wave after wave of death and destruction on her Asian neighbors, the rough equivalent on one Hiroshima per month for more than 14 years.”

http://www.iht.com/articles/1995/02/08/edlet_14.php

#2

I’ve gone for the easy option that after some years of serious thought I believe that they probably werent necessary in hindsight, but hindsight is a wonderfull thing.

The US was already carrying out low level night area attacks at the time, culminating in the firebombing of Tokyo which killed far more people than any of the A-Bombs.

I think the US could have had the following options:

  1. Invade Japan - with all the consequences that this entailed.

  2. Blockade Japan - which would have killed far more people than the bombings ever did.

In the end I think the final decision to use the Bomb was a combination of both military and political reasons together the other factor that it simply existed and so much effort had been put into its development that it probably had to be used.

As I keep saying, please remember that this was a diffrent time and that we cannot project our morals and values onto then.

War isnt pleasant and WW2 is so fascinating as it may have been the most unpleasant of them all.

#3

I’m not sure which one to vote for, I think it was a war crime by definition, but, it also had to be done to end the war.

#4

“You did the right thing. You know the Japanese attitude at that time, how fanatic they were, they’d die for the Emperor…Every man, woman, and child would have resisted that invasion with sticks and stones if necessary…Can you imagine what a slaughter it would be to invade Japan? It would have been terrible. The Japanese people know more about it than the Americans public will ever know.”

Japanese pilot Mitsuo Fuchida in a conversation with Paul Tibbets.

Taken from Flyboys by James Bradley

As for myself I refuse to decide if it was right or wrong. It happened and that is all we need to know. The importance of Hirishima/Nagasaki for the future isn’t whetther or not it should have happened but have we learned enough from what did happen to keep it from happening again

#5

You all , gentlemens dont notice one importain thing - Uncle Joe and USSR.
It’s naive to think that using terrible a-bomb depend just military reasons. Mainly it was POLITIC. Let’s read something

Although the motives of the solution about the use of these bombs are very multilayer, basic factors became two interconnected geopolitical purposes of the American ruling elites at the end war:

  1. tendency to limit the influence of the Soviet Union in East Asia, after completing war before Soviet troops will have time to move far to the territory of China and into Japan, and
  2. desire to actually show the insurmountable power of American army and her readiness to use this power for the protection of her own interests

The decision of the president’s administration of Harry Truman about the application of an atomic weapon against Japan was accepted for political and strategic reasons. First of all, the use of a bomb it had to ensure to the United States the position of the unquestionable supremacy in the postwar period

The common purpose of the administration of Truman - on the level with the direct interest of the United States in the limitation of Soviet influence in East Europe and in East Asia - was the establishment of American hegemony at the end of war.
This expressed well historian Thomas McCormick:
“two dazzling flashes - terrible end of the war, which all conducted by terrible methods - for the United States proved to be key to the American hegemony”. In order to dostich’ this hegemonistic purpose, it was necessary to endow by cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Mc Cormick notes: "the previously organized demonstration - application of an A-bomb in the unpopulated locality, what was proposed by some scientists - for this would be insufficient. It would show the power of bomb, but it would not confirm the American determination to use this terrible power. One of the reasons, on which America did not want to support careful attempts at Japan on the conclusion of peace in the middle of the summer of 1945, was the unwillingness to finish war before will be succeeded in using A-bomb

Truman and Byrnes were concerned by the fact that Japan can reach agreement with the Soviet Union and attain peace with his mediation, but not with the mediation of any neutral power or United States. The intercepted communications from Japan strengthened this preoccupation. For example, in one of the diplomatic summaries of the intercepted Japanese communications it is noted:
"on 11 July [ the Japanese ] Minister of Foreign of that sent the following " extremely urgent " communication to ambassador [ in the Soviet Union ] Sato: "we now secretly examine the possibility of the end of war because of the complex situation, which was established for Japan as in home policy sense and in foreign policy. Therefore, carrying out its encounter with [ the Soviet Minister of Foreign ] by hammer and following the previously obtained instructions, you must not be limited to reaching the rapprochement between Russia and Japan, but also probe through the possibility of using Russia in the interests of the end of war ".
Further in the communication it is indicated that Japan is prepared to go for the large concessions to Russia in order to avoid the invasion of Russians ". At that moment Japan still hoped to avoid Soviet intrusion. In the important diary record of 24 July Walter Brown assistant to Secretary of State James Byrnes, note that “Dzh.F.B. [ Byrnes ] continues to consider that Japan capitulates after A-bomb, and Russia so will not get involved in into the slaughter house in order to obtain the possibility to advance requirements with respect to China”
Later, on 3 August, in three days to Hiroshima, Brown writes:
"on board "Agusty " the President, Likhi, Dzh.F.B. [ Byrnes ] agreed that Japanes attain peace… The President fears, that they will attain the peace through Russia, but not through any other country, like Sweden " These and remaining documents attest to the fact that the American leaders not only feared the outcome of war favorable for the Soviet Union, but also they knew that Japan will any minute now ask peace.
In its book “solution about the application of an A-bomb” Gar Alperovitz convincingly proves the theory of the “two-step” capitulation of Japan. In the opinion Of Alperovitz, the combination of the threat of Soviet intrusion, nevertheless begun 8 August, and guarantees to the Japanese state of the fact that will be preserved the positions of emperor, could put an end to the war without the intrusion and without the application of an A-bomb. Specifically, this conclusion is contained in the report of the united committee of the chiefs of the reconnaissance OF THE USA, represented on 29 April, 1945, to the united Joint Chiefs of Staff: “the amplifying consequences of sea and air blockade, the increasing and joint results of the impacts of strategic aviation, and also” the amplifying consequences of sea and air blockade, the increasing and joint results of the impacts of strategic aviation, and also crash Germany… Together with the mentioned factors, the entering a war OF THE USSR will immediately convince the majority of the Japanese of the inevitability of complete defeat… When… the people of Japan and its leaders understand that the complete defeat is unavoidable, but unconditional surrender does not indicate the destruction of national state [ i.e., the displacement of emperor ], very soon can follow capitulation "
".

So gentlemens, can somebody explan to me:
What are the "millions of Japanes lives save mst. Trumen in august 1945 using A-bomb, if Japan was ready to capitulate in july 1945 ?

#6

Could you give also the source of your quotation?

#7

Please , Dani
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/aug2005/hiro-a08.shtml

American journalist Josef Kay write:

Figures given after the war about the number of American lives that would have been lost in an invasion were entirely mythical, and were conjured up largely post facto to justify the use of the bombs. This question will not be dealt with in this article, however an analysis can be found in Barton Bernstein’s essay “A Postwar myth: 500,000 US lives saved” in Hiroshima’s Shadow, edited by Kai Bird and Lawrence Lifschultz, The Pamphleteer’s Press, Stony Creek, Connecticut: 1998.

Under the direction of Byrnes, the Potsdam Proclamation—an ultimatum to Japan demanding unconditional surrender—was worded in such a way that the guarantee to the emperor was not given. Moreover the US and Britain decided not to invite the Soviet Union to sign the proclamation. On the one hand, this made it clear that the US and Britain were taking their own route to a Japanese surrender. On the other hand, it made the threat of a Soviet invasion ambiguous, thus sustaining Japanese hopes of an eventual Soviet mediation. This made Japanese rejection of the proclamation a certainty, opening the way for the use of the bomb

Once it had gained control of Japanese airspace, the American military increasingly turned to what can only be described as terrorist methods—indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations for the purpose of spreading fear and panic. Before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the most devastating example of these methods was the firebombing of Tokyo on March 9, 1945, which killed some 87,000 people . This followed by less than a month the infamous firebombing of the German city of Dresden, on February 13-14, 1945.

There was an interesting exchange, during a discussion between President Harry Truman and Secretary of War Henry Stimson on June 6, 1945 that gives a sense of the manner in which the American government considered the question of the mass annihilation of Japanese civilians.

Stimson records in a memorandum that he raised certain pragmatic concerns with the area bombing of Japanese cities being carried out by the US Air Force: “I told [Truman] I was anxious about this feature of the war for two reasons: first, because I did not want to have the United States get the reputation of outdoing Hitler in atrocities; and second, I was a little fearful that before we could get ready the Air Force might have Japan so thoroughly bombed out that the new weapon [the atom bomb] would not have a fair background to show its strength. He laughed and said he understood” [3]. Stimson was concerned that the wanton destruction of Japanese cities would disrupt plans for the use of the atom bomb because there would be no “fair background,” that is, a suitably populated and intact urban center. The conversation also demonstrates that at this point the United States completely dominated Japan militarily, able to destroy its cities virtually at will.

The use of the bomb as a terrorist weapon—that is, as a means of instilling mass terror among the Japanese population—was underscored in a meeting of the Interim Committee on May 31, 1945. The Interim Committee consisted of those directly involved in the Manhattan Project, such as Robert Oppenheimer and other scientists, as well as Truman administration officials, including Secretary of State James Byrnes and Secretary of War Stimson. It was set up to discuss the use of the atomic bomb, propose targets and consider related issues. According to a transcript of that meeting, “After much discussion concerning various types of targets and the effects to be produced, the Secretary [of War Stimson] expressed the conclusion, on which there was general agreement, that we could not give the Japanese any warning; that we could not concentrate on a civilian area; but that we should seek to make a profound psychological impression on as many of the inhabitants as possible. At the suggestion of Dr. [James] Conant, the Secretary agreed that the most desirable target would be a vital war plant employing a large number of workers and closely surrounded by workers’ houses

the historian Gabriel Jackson remarked, “In the specific circumstances of August 1945, the use of the atom bomb showed that a psychologically very normal and democratically elected chief executive could use the weapon just as the Nazi dictator would have used it. In this way, the United States—for anyone concerned with moral distinctions in the different types of government—blurred the difference between fascism and democracy”

Have you any more questions , mate?

#8

Them drop it and then USA save alot of life…

And if them dont drop it them will not stop the war. The day after the Japans give up. 14 August the V-J day the Japans give upp. But the them sign on a leter then 1 setemper.

If them did not drop just think what will happend then? The war will keep going alot more days even alot more people will death.

#9

Them were bad were them?

#10

Who was bad? USA save lifes.

#11

Hello guys!

I agree with Chevan, the A-bombs were mainly dropped to impress/scarry USSR.
USA knew that Japan would capitulate if USSR joined the war and yet they did it. Twice!
Since then USA has been the only country in the whole world that actually used the damned thing. Yes, the greatest country in the world, not Saddam (he actually did not have one!).

Hiroshima and Nagasaki served the same purpose as Dresden - to show the might of the A-bomb and long range bombers respectively.

Correct me if I am wrong, but as I know americans cracked the japaneese communication code in the very start of the war.
I just mean that they knew about the decission in the Japaneese gov. about the capitulation if USSR joins the war.

Stalin of course had his own agenda. And he of course wanted to get the peice of the cake. But formaly he had obligation to help USA as it was agreed during big 3 meeting.

P.S: By the way, here is another cherry for your brain. Do you know that when the big heads design the A-bomb the were not sure that once started the nuclear reaction of fission would not stop but would spread to the other matter around, i.e. everything: air, earth, ect. So that everything would just disintegrate. Remember that before the test they were not sure about the outcome. And yet they pushed the red button. Just try for a second imaging your self taking a desicion like that. I think those people bear moral grate guilt because when the pressed the red button they actually mentaly were ready pay the ultimate price. But this is OFF topic…

Best regards
Igor Korenev

#12

While I do agree with you and Chevan there I also believe that the U.S. used the a-bomb as a means of ending the war faster and saving more of their troops. The other option was an invasion of japan which had projected casualties in the ten thousands and their lowest.

#13

Make that two of us who agree Tiger.

#14

Whether the bombs were dropped to save lives on both sides, to warn the USSR what the US now had in its arsenal or simply to save Allied lives alone is irrelevant.

The US had been attacked by Japan and as far as I am concerned had every right to do whatever it felt necessary to end the war ASAP and on its own terms.

My understanding is that when the bombs were dropped nothing was known about the effect of radiation etc so in affect when the decision was made to use the bomb it was a case of using a single weapon to do the job where previously thousands were required.

As has been mentioned before, history should be judged in the context of its own time and not with the help of hindsight. I believe the fact they were used and the actual effects of this type of weapon discovered helped ensure no other nuclear weapon has been used by anybody since.

#15

This is a good point. I wouldnt say they didnt know anything about radiation but I dont think radiation and health was well understood. In fact German scientists made thallium (radioactive) toothpaste for home use. :shock:

#16

to Town3173:

Whether the bombs were dropped to save lives on both sides, to warn the USSR what the US now had in its arsenal or simply to save Allied lives alone is irrelevant.

Well, many many people this it is relevant. And with this logic ones would go to other means: Biological, chemical and flying large airplanes into large buildings. Do you like that?

That is what we are dicussing in here, IMHO. Is it relevant or not.

Regards
Igor

#17

I voted yes. Because Japan did not surrender after many of warnings. I believe they could have been avoided.

#18

I agree with SS Tiger it was a war crime by definition, but the bombs was a path to end the war.

#19

I probably over simplified my point but I believe an aggressor has no right to complain over what treatment it receives once it has decided to attack another Country.

I take the point on some of your suggestions such as biological, chemical weapons but I made it clear my view was based on the US at the time knowing very little about the consequences of radiation on people or its after effects. Simply put they were using one bomb to do the job of thousands. Unfortunately civilians had become fare game during WW11 so America’s decision to bomb a whole City was not very radical if you put it into the context of the time.

Rob

#20

town3173

I do not think that the responsible people were evil as such. But does not most of the terrible crimes happened for name of grater good (measured, of course, by the pepetrator)?

That is the problem for me in this issue, that they bombed on purpose a target that had civil population. They did not want to chose strictly military target ( http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html ). They needed to make big impressive effect on Japanese people (and USSR).

And I am sure other countries would used it too. Stalin said that he hoped that US will find good use for it in the war with Japan. Hitler would used it for sure too.
But it all does not take away the responsibility of each side in particular.