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

World War II General WWII Discussion
#81

Exactly.

One can analyse events from what was known at the time and or from what was known subsequently.

One can judge the ‘rightness’ of past actions only from the knowledge which the actors had at the time.

Bad historical judgments occur when people confuse what was known by the actors at the time with what is known subsequently.

A brilliant example of confusing past and present knowledge to produce outstandingly bad, indeed ridiculous, historical judgments comes from the Principal Historian at the Australian War memorial in a tenuous paper, which includes gems such as this about the Australian Prime Minister, John Curtin believing that Australia was still at risk of invasion during all of 1942:

What explains Curtin’s anxiety? Australian and Allied leaders in Australia
knew of the Japanese decision not to invade within a month of the debates
between staff officers in Tokyo in March 1942. In early April “Magic”
intercepts reached Australia which confirmed that no invasion was
contemplated. An actual danger of invasion had never existed and the
likelihood diminished through 1942 as Allied victories eroded Japan’s
offensive capability. Curtin was told as much by London and Washington,
and MacArthur, Curtin’s principal strategic adviser, consistently advised that
it was improbable. Why did Curtin continue to bang the invasion drum?
http://www.awm.gov.au/events/conference/2002/stanley_paper.pdf p.8

How was Curtin to know whether or not the Magic intercept was accurate, or even enemy disinformation?

All the evidence from 7 December 1941 to April 1942, including Japan’s repeated demands for Australia’s surrender and its steady advance towards Australia, was that it intended to invade.

All the evidence in the second half of 1942, from the Battle of the Coral Sea to the advance over Kokoda and the rest of the Papuan campaign to the Guadalcanal campaign, was that Japan was aiming to invade Australia.

We know now that that was not the case.

Nonethless, the Principal Historian at the AWM maintains that Curtin should have relied upon an isolated Magic intercept and assurances from others that Japan wasn’t going to invade when everything he could see at the time screamed exactly the opposite.

Coming back to Japan’s surrender, we know now that Japan was putting out peace feelers for a few months before it caved in, and that America was intercepting Japanese coded traffic that confirmed it was inclined to look for a negotiated peace. So? In October-December 1941 Japan was, apparently, negotiating with America to avoid a war despite having decided in July 1941 to go to war if it couldn’t get what it wanted by negotiation. It then launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, Malaya, the Philippines etc. Why would anyone with that recent knowledge put any trust in Japan’s purported attempts to negotiate peace while it refused to adopt the simple course of accepting unconditional surrender?

Why would anyone who had experience of Japan’s ferocious defence on the islands nearing Japan infer anything other than that it would get worse rather than better the nearer they got to the Japanese heartland?

People can only act on what they know at the time, even if it might cause a tragedy which could have been avoided if they had been fully aware of all relevant factors.

There was no reason on what was known at the time not to drop the atomic bombs. On what was known at the time, there was every reason to drop them.

#82

Exactly! That is why when a court takes place they make sure that the Judge is neutral person, and not related to the given case in any way.

I hope my point is clear? :wink:

#83

How was Curtin to know whether or not the Magic intercept was accurate, or even enemy disinformation?

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Americans cracked the Japanese code even BEFORE Pearl Harbour. That is why the “Magic” intercepts came.

#84

Yes, they were reading the Japanese diplomatic code as events unfolded before Pearl Harbour.

My point in relation to Curtin was that while the Americans could read the code, it didn’t follow that what was being transmitted was an accurate representation of Japanese intentions. There was always the risk that one side realised the other side had broken its code and was transmitting intentionally deceptive messages.

#85

You’ll get no flak from me on that.

#86

There were many Japanese codes, so it depends which one you’re talking about. Apparently the diplomatic code was well and truly borken and the Imperial Japanese Navy’s codes were not all or fully broken. Thus it became necessary to send out fake messages from places like Midway in order to ferret out what the Japanese designation for the island was, thus permitting, only 6 months after the war began, the US to inflict a mortal wound on the Japanese. Even the Germans could never bring themselves to believe that their precious Enigma machine was being duplicated at Bletchley Park by the Turing Engine (computer).

#87

The code in this (Curtin’s) case was the Japanese diplomatic code, known as PURPLE.

You’re right about the IJN codes.

America and the Allies were lucky that the IJN didn’t change its codes after the post-Midway publicity about how it had broken the code.

For those who don’t know the story.

The classic blunder of inadvertence making the case for censorship occurred in 1942 when the Chicago Tribune reported the Battle of Midway in a way that could have prolonged the war with Japan. The story has been much garbled over 50 years, so it is worth setting the record right, with acknowledgements to the interviews by Richard Norton Smith for his 1997 biography of Tribune publisher Robert McCormick (“The Colonel”). One of the closest kept secrets of World War II was that the U.S. Navy had broken much of the Japanese naval code. It was foreknowledge of the Japanese fleet movements that enabled Adm. Chester Nimitz to ignore a feint and concentrate his carriers near Midway to win a decisive victory.

No American correspondents were at Midway, but a colorful Tribune reporter, Stanley Johnston, was with the carrier Lexington when it was sunk in the preceding Battle of the Coral Sea. Johnston was a giant Australian, a champion sculler and a World War I hero. He had been recommended for a Victoria Cross for his valor at Gallipoli and in France. When the Lexington was hit, he made heroic efforts to rescue badly burned sailors from the ship’s hold. He was very popular when transferred to another ship for transport back to the United States, and spent much of the time in the quarters occupied by the Lexington’s executive officer, Cmdr. Mort Seligman.

Johnston, writing his account of Coral Sea while in Seligman’s cabin, noticed a blue-lined paper that had the names of Japanese warships in an order of battle. He copied the list and later took this “dope” with him into the Tribune offices. His editor, Pat Maloney, was interested mainly in the Coral Sea account, but he accepted a sidebar on the Japanese order of battle at Midway, which Johnston hurriedly wrote. Johnston wouldn’t reveal his source, but assured Maloney he had checked the list against the authoritative reference, “Jane’s Fighting Ships.” Maloney rewrote the first two “muddy” paragraphs, then wrote a headline that was not justified by Johnston’s text:

NAVY HAD WORD OF JAP PLAN TO STRIKE AT SEA

Maloney did not clear the story with censors, convincing himself that there was nothing in the guidelines to suppress news about the movement of hostile ships. And then, to protect Johnston’s real source, Maloney attributed the story to “reliable sources in naval intelligence” and put on it a fake Washington, D.C., dateline.

The Navy was appalled. The Japanese had only to read the Tribune to realize that such knowledge could only mean that their codes had been compromised. President Franklin D. Roosevelt — a bitter enemy of McCormick — initially was disposed toward sending Marines in to shut down Tribune Tower. He was talked out of that, then considered trying McCormick for treason, which carried a death penalty in wartime. It ended up with the attorney general taking the Tribune men to a grand jury. But there was no cooperation from the Navy, which rightly was concerned that a trial would mean disclosing the code-breaking. The grand jury refused to indict. The Japanese missed the Tribune blunder — as they also missed the false charge by columnist and broadcaster Walter Winchell that the Tribune knowingly had based its story on a decoded Japanese message.

http://www.newseum.org/warstories/essay/secrecy.htm

The failure by Japan to note the Tribune article suggests that the Japanese spy network wasn’t operating too widely in the US during the war. If they had been aware of it the code would have been changed and, among other things, Admiral Yamamoto wouldn’t have been shot down.

The IJN code that was broken was JN-25, which was the main general code but just one of a number of IJN codes.

As far as I’m aware the IJA codes were not broken during the war, but Australian troops captured code books in New Guinea early in 1944 that allowed the Allies to read IJA code for a few months until the codes were altered.

#88

Trials happen only after a war, no matter how fair or unfair the trials may be.

During a war decisions are made by each side according to their own partial assessments and aims.

Wars might be conducted very differently if there were umpires on the field with power to suspend players. But, given that umpires would stand in the way of what nations want to do, the umpires would be the first target. Not unlike the UN post taken out by the Israelis in last year’s war in Lebanon.

#89

Does anyone know why the unconditional surrender of North Korea was not insisted upon in the Korean war?

#90

I beliave that the the bomb was necessary to end the war. My mothers family experienced many hardships under jappanies occupation in the dutch east Indies.

#91

Just to add to my point they should have been dropped!

  1. It was nothing that the allied forces could not have done anyway with incendiary bombs or other types of bombing. Would have taken longer. With all of the Allied bombers being redeployed to the Pacific it would have made things go quicker. Look up the figures of Allied bombing before the bombs.

  2. It wasnt anything that the Japanese werent already used to…just on a quicker scale. Again the destruction caused by these 2 bombs were much less than previous bombing.

  3. The only difference besides the power of one blast was the fallout. Which in retrospect…Chernobyl was far worse (WRT radiation release) than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Example:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_compared_to_other_radioactivity_releases#Chernobyl_compared_to_Hiroshima

  4. I will admit that it was somewhat political decision but with the above factors it was a win-win situation for the US. As I said before the USSR or any other nation for that matter would have done the same thing.

Edited to add: If you consider bombing Japan a war crime then yes the nukes were as well!

#92

That’s right Gen the initual effect of a-bombing was much less then for instance the firebombing of Tokio in march of 1945 - then at least died much more peoples for the first day.
So this is only proves the point the japanes indeed do not considered a-bombing as the really worstest thing ( i.e they do not think they need to capitulate to prevent it). If they calmly suffer the firebombing - they will suffer the a-bombing.
Thus the reason of the capitulation was the pure hopeless war situation for the Japane in august of 1945 after the USSR joining to the war.
The some historical documents and memours of Japanes tells as the Japane intelligence was waiting the soviet attack in Manchjuria no early then the sunner of 1946 i/e/ they hoped they will have at least one year for the defence of home islands.
For this long time they hope the relations of USSR and UK/US could reach the critical point and the war should began. in this case the Japane get the chance to survive in coalition with the USSR coz the inevitable attack of Western Europe by the Red Army would force the USA send a most of allies troop to the European front.
they were “unpleasant wondered” when the in 8 august of 1945 the soviets declared the war.

  1. The only difference besides the power of one blast was the fallout. Which in retrospect…Chernobyl was far worse (WRT radiation release) than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Example:

That right the radiation fallout of Chernobyl was much worst.
But…Chernobyl was an accident - the Hirosima was a planned attack.
See the difference.
True , in the 1945 the scientists knew a nothing about danger of radiation - but in this way Why they USA politics had sanctioned the testing of a-bomb in alive peoples - even if they were an enemy people.
We know about disgusting japanes experiences of vivisections of alive peoples - but could we ignore the fact thet the WHOLE two Japanes cities were the GIANT TESTING laboratory for the USA politicans and crasy scientists who wish to check the effect on alive peoples?
What do you think about the japanes feels of the tragedy of Hiroshima- could they request the forgiveness for the “world” for own war crimes - if the “world” justify the own “a-bombing ladoratory experiments” above a handrets thousands of japanes as for the “saving of lives of american soldiers and japanes civilians”.
This is a criuel insolent cynicism - nothing more.
And Japanes are not so stupid to ignore this relation - therefore we will never hear the apologies from them.

  1. I will admit that it was somewhat political decision but with the above factors it was a win-win situation for the US. As I said before the USSR or any other nation for that matter would have done the same thing.

You know i/m always was wondered the logic like that - if the Hitler or Stalin had a a-bomb - they inevitably drop it too.Therefore they are bastards.
This is a wery funny point to justify the a-bombing by a such argument;)
Indeed i could admit the USSR ( or the any other state) could drop this bomb in the critical situation when the threat of the existence of state was a real - this is the right of any state.
But i could not imagine - what was the criticaly danger for the US army in the aug 1945 when the Japanes froces were fully crushed?
And what was the reason of hurry for the droping the bomb that was not enough studied even.
It seem it was a political “critical” point for the US gov - for the own interests to drop the bomb as soon as it was possible.

Cheers

#93

Japanese forces were not fully crushed! On japan they had ~2500 planes. If they had good pilots or not it doesnt take long to train someone to be a kamakazi. Kids were being trained to use bamboo spears if needed. If you look at Iwo Jima and Okinawa an allied invasion would have been costly. Advancement by the Allied nations would have succeeded but been quite costly for all allied nations.

I think the USSR would find out that maybe they arent as well armed as the Germans but far more fanatical than the what they were used too! One more thing and no offense but the Soviets/Russians dont seem to fight near as hard when they arent pissed. :wink: Would been quite a different war for the Soviets.

Well one thing that everybody learned in this war was time it very important. Another was that we werent sure what was going to happen. Some scientist believed it could start some kind of chain reaction that would destroy the planet. We were happy enough just getting one to work. Only after the devastating effects were realized that major exploratory testing was done.

Remember we did not get a complete unconditional surrender from the Japanese even after the bombs. Many were very upset about the surrender. The Emperor meet alot of resistance to capitulation. Some of the JA tried to stop the surrender anouncement. I do think the USSR’s declaration of war helped much. They knew that they would be facing overwhelming odds and the possible complete destruction of Japan.

The US were already starting to loose support for the war now that Germany had been defeated. People were tired of war and now the Govt was asking them to take part in an invasion that could have horrible losses. The US did not want to a partitioned Japan like that of the European countries. Stalins plans for the post world were starting to come clear.

Also remember that the Japanese could have refused to surrender after the bombs. This would have been devastating for everybody. Coz now your are still at war and against an enemy that does not care about its own destruction. Its one thing to destroy towns its another to wipe a civilization off the map.

Lastly it was a way to scare others around the world. USSR mainly.

So again its a win win situation from our side.

But like I said if you consider the bombing of Japan as war crimes then really the dropping of the bombs play a quite smaller role. War is very complex and almost beyond the capability for man to understand all the factors and hence mistakes are going to be made.

I said something like this before but again…I wish the bombs were never dropped but I can understand why. In an odd way I still feel it was the perfect ending to the most horrible war in human history. I think we still have much to learn from it. Einstein was right when he said something to the extent “It has become appallingly clear that our technology has surpassed our humanity!”

#94

A nation has a 100 lb conventional explosive bomb.

It develops a 1,000lb conventional explosive bomb.

Should it use it, or stick to the little ones?

It’s a no brainer.

Same with the atom bomb.

The scale of death and suffering inflicted by a weapon is irrelevant, as are the consequences. What would you rather have? Radiation sickness from a nuke or no legs and being blind with a colostomy bag and all your skin burnt off from any number of conventional aerial, artillery, armoured and infantry weapons? It’s just different types of misery.

I cannot understand why people get so wound up about the use of nuclear weapons, especially as more damage could be and was done with conventional weapons.

If you’re one of the poor bastards on the ground, does it matter whether it’s a single or thousand bomber raid that wipes out your house, suburb, and large slabs of your city? Not to mention your family?

#95

Agree Gen
But from the other hand the Allies had nothing simular like the soviet-gerrmans firght for the survival in the Europe.
The soviets had no a great combats coz the already 15 aug the Japane had capitulated ( but not whole the Kwantung army obeyed) and the combatans actions continie untill the sept of 1945.

Well one thing that everybody learned in this war was time it very important. Another was that we werent sure what was going to happen. Some scientist believed it could start some kind of chain reaction that would destroy the planet. We were happy enough just getting one to work. Only after the devastating effects were realized that major exploratory testing was done.

Yea i heared about it.
May be you know the simular fear had the scientists when the record soviet hydrogen bomb were tested (60 Megatonns!!) in 1961 in “New land” .
But this just proved the unmorals positions of whom decided to test the bomb on the alive peoples.

Remember we did not get a complete unconditional surrender from the Japanese even after the bombs. Many were very upset about the surrender. The Emperor meet alot of resistance to capitulation. Some of the JA tried to stop the surrender anouncement. I do think the USSR’s declaration of war helped much. They knew that they would be facing overwhelming odds and the possible complete destruction of Japan.

Agree…
the most danger enemy is that - who has nothin to lose.
But i/m not think the japanes were too silly to continie the war- true they had a problems of inner militarists ( amny of them made siucide after the capitulation).
But the nation must go far in the future so the cool heads won.

The US were already starting to loose support for the war now that Germany had been defeated. People were tired of war and now the Govt was asking them to take part in an invasion that could have horrible losses. The US did not want to a partitioned Japan like that of the European countries. Stalins plans for the post world were starting to come clear.

And why do you think the plans to devide the post-war Europe come from the Stalin?
It was the common decision of allies in the confirences. Moreover the UK/US widle used it in its own interest when they installed the sumpatised gov in the Western Europe and simply ignored the communists who were most strong part of European resistence ( for instance in France )

Also remember that the Japanese could have refused to surrender after the bombs. This would have been devastating for everybody. Coz now your are still at war and against an enemy that does not care about its own destruction. Its one thing to destroy towns its another to wipe a civilization off the map.

Lastly it was a way to scare others around the world. USSR mainly.

[quote]
That’t right to scare others ( exactly communists state) it was the main goal of the bombing.

[quote]
So again its a win win situation from our side.

But like I said if you consider the bombing of Japan as war crimes then really the dropping of the bombs play a quite smaller role. War is very complex and almost beyond the capability for man to understand all the factors and hence mistakes are going to be made.

True Gen
But was it a mistake? I do not hear it from the USA leaders- instead we hear only it was a " saving of life"- do not a better way to recognise it as a mistake.

I said something like this before but again…I wish the bombs were never dropped but I can understand why. In an odd way I still feel it was the perfect ending to the most horrible war in human history. I think we still have much to learn from it. Einstein was right when he said something to the extent “It has become appallingly clear that our technology has surpassed our humanity!”

Well Gen i have to say you a right in here.And your point is the most responsible in comparition with other ameriacans- may be the Europe make you to be softer?:wink:

#96

[QUOTE=Chevan;103314]
the most danger enemy is that - who has nothin to lose.
But i/m not think the japanes were too silly to continie the war- true they had a problems of inner militarists ( amny of them made siucide after the capitulation).
But the nation must go far in the future so the cool heads won.

Also remember that the Japanese could have refused to surrender after the bombs. This would have been devastating for everybody. Coz now your are still at war and against an enemy that does not care about its own destruction. Its one thing to destroy towns its another to wipe a civilization off the map.
Lastly it was a way to scare others around the world. USSR mainly.

But was it a mistake? I do not hear it from the USA leaders- instead we hear only it was a " saving of life"- do not a better way to recognise it as a mistake.
Well Gen i have to say you a right in here.And your point is the most responsible in comparition with other ameriacans- may be the Europe make you to be softer?:wink:

Chevan, what is the essential difference between firebombing Japan and dropping an atomic bomb on Japan? Is it more moral to have a 1,000 bombers drop thousands of incendiaries than a single bomber dropping a single bomb? If you think there’s a difference between these two, then perhaps you can also explain the difference between “tweedledum” and “tweedledee”.

What is difference between fire bombing a city full of civilians with industry distributed among families in residential neighborhoods, and 2,000 Russian artillery firing point blank into the city of Berlin? If the Germans had had the atomic bomb and could have mounted it on top of a V-2 rocket, is there anyone in this forum who doubts that they would have nuked London? If there is, I have a free pass for a week’s intensive logic therapy in the Colarado mountains for you.

If we can all agree on the essential lunacy of all wars, then we should also be able to agree that the best thing to do with a war is to end it as quickly as possible. If the Russians had had the atomic bomb at their disposal before the fall of Berlin, I can guarantee you that it would have been dropped on the city without so much as a “by your leave” from Comrade Stalin.

No American commander in his right mind when faced with the possibility of 1 million American casualties resulting from landings on the mainland of Japan compared to ZERO American casualties resulting from the dropping of atomic bombs would have hesitated for a second. I submit that neither would you.

#97

I dont know about softer but I have been exposed to a much broader range of ideas and opinions. I think everyone should leave there home country … even if its just for a bit. The longer you stay abroad … the more you start to see your home country in a new light. Im proud to be an American but also proud that I got outta there for awhile. :smiley:

#98

For a clear, concise and comprehensive treatment of the issues raised in this thread, read J. Samuel Walker’s Prompt & Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan, University of North Carolina Press, 1997.

Walker’s thoroughly researched book uses both American and Japanese sources and scholarship. It challenges some of the confidently expressed opinions in this thread, with better evidence.

Here’s a review summarising the main themes in the book, although it doesn’t always agree with my reading of the book.
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.cgi?path=276944155221

#99

Oh really there is no difference?.:wink: What’s nice
And what about Radiation royal?
Do you know only 20% of victims died from a exposion and fire - the rest form the consequences of radiation ( Rays-illness)
To total victims of the a-bombing totay is about 500 000 ( this figure include the peoples who died after the war from a ray-ilness) . Where did you see the such firebombing?

Is it more moral to have a 1,000 bombers drop thousands of incendiaries than a single bomber dropping a single bomb? If you think there’s a difference between these two, then perhaps you can also explain the difference between “tweedledum” and “tweedledee”.

You right this is not more moral then the 1000 bombers.The firebonbing of cities is also a worst think- crime against humanity.
But in case of a-bombing when the USA politicans sunctioned to drop the bomb that was still not fully studied - as the resault the victims were much more that is planned.

What is difference between fire bombing a city full of civilians with industry distributed among families in residential neighborhoods, and 2,000 Russian artillery firing point blank into the city of Berlin? If the Germans had had the atomic bomb and could have mounted it on top of a V-2 rocket, is there anyone in this forum who doubts that they would have nuked London? If there is, I have a free pass for a week’s intensive logic therapy in the Colarado mountains for you.

The firebombing is not a artillery, V-2 or something like this dear royls.
And do not compare this things.
For the all time of appliccation of V-1/2 (about 2 years) in Britain were killed about 6000 of peoples.
For the comparition - ONLY for the 13 hours of firebombing ogf Dreden were killed at least 25 000 -30 000 of peoples according the British datas ( and i suspect this is strongly reduced datas).
For the two years of effective firebombing og Germany at least 600 000 of peoples ( moslty women and children) were killed. For the comparition for the whole war Britains lost 60 000 of killed civiliance. And USA lost Zero thousands civiliance.
And you suggestion about Hitlers bombing of A-bomb is controversial- why even in the critical period of war when the Germans were in collaps the Hitled did not order to use a simular Mass-destraction wearpon for instane the chemical wearpon?
Coz he afreaided the consequences ( both politicl and military).
So i/m really doubt if the Germany and USA would get the a-bomb simultaneously - Hitler drop it in London first.
Coz the inevitaible revenge is a worst think, right And Hitler was not a finished idiot to bury the German nation fully

If we can all agree on the essential lunacy of all wars, then we should also be able to agree that the best thing to do with a war is to end it as quickly as possible. If the Russians had had the atomic bomb at their disposal before the fall of Berlin, I can guarantee you that it would have been dropped on the city without so much as a “by your leave” from Comrade Stalin.

You can speculate as much as you wish but in the 1949-1953 when the Stalin already had the nukes he did not drop it. Coz he was not an idiot.
This iwas a very inportian factor - the mutual nuclear destruction.

No American commander in his right mind when faced with the possibility of 1 million American casualties resulting from landings on the mainland of Japan compared to ZERO American casualties resulting from the dropping of atomic bombs would have hesitated for a second. I submit that neither would you.

You make a mistake if you think that the american hight command unconditionally supported the decision to drop a-bomb
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
List of whom disagreed with a-bombing.

#100

If forgot who said it but somebody asked Truman what he would tell congress at his impeachment hearing! If we had it and didnt use can you imagine what reaction that would have ensued when we found out that (General Public). Talk about a hurry to cover it up. Plus the Soviets would have kept on their development. So what do we do then…uh oh yea we just completed ours too. :roll:

I strongly believe that if we didnt use it 1st someone would have later.

Some interesting quotes there…however I dont know how many time ive heard a military commander (even the great ones) completely underestimate the situation or odds.