Should the atomic bombs been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[Haiman]

Oh, and Hirosima and Nagasaki are probably the only reason why Stalin didn't take the rest of Europe.

The other reason being the Soviet union's unwillingness to wage war. Why do the west always see the Soviet Union as a warmonger? This is definitely the legacy of too much cold war propaganda. The SU was much more peace loving than the USA, as can be seen from the Korean war, Cuban crisis, U2 incident, and interventions in Africa and S America.

Stalin was quite willing to conquer Poland with his buddy Hitler. He was quite willing to attack finland and occupy baltic states. Who do you think piloted migs that shut down countles american planes in Korea? Considoring that I'm russian and am living in one of the former countries of USSR, I don't think propaganda is an issue here.

P.S. Lets not hijack the thread any further though.

 

[Virus017]

1) Geneva convention. There are rules about treating non-combatant and prisoners of war and the US knows about this. It has signed the protocol.

The Geneva convention did not exist during world war 2 (not literally, but I'm pretty sure you can find war crimes a plenty by both the axis and allies, why cant the US have its crazy moments?).

 

[goodman528]

Seriously, every Japanese war movies portray them as such.

Having watched many Hollywood movies, I do not understand why people think obesity is such an issue in America!

 

[Imat]

I'm sure there are servicemen and whomen who are perfectly nice people. They just have rifles and the authority to use them whenever and wherever they please. I get a bit leery of that is all.

Not even true. When was the last time you saw an American soldier run into the middle of the mall and shoot his/her gun into the air (Note that they aren't attempting to kill anyone, just firing for the sake of proving my point). They have rules/laws/regulations, just like anybody else. You're basically comparing them to gun-toting, completely unregulated criminals (Not that most criminals are regulated in any way, shape, or form mind you). Not only that, but you don't give them enough credit to be humane or merciful or even intelligent. Again, you're taking a couple examples (if even) of wrongdoing by those in the military and assuming the entire military is exactly the same. There's no reason to be afraid of our own military, martial law is completely impractical and the ones in charge know it. Unless you decide to arm yourself and try to overthrow the ones in charge, then you may want to fear our own military.

 

[Do4600]

It was a war crime if you ask me.

So no it shouldn't have.

You mean besides the fact that we fire bombed hundreds of cities until only 30-50% of it was standing? No the atomic bombs were just the icing on the cake as far as bombing Japan went.

The Japanese were victims of their own hubris, they didn't even surrender after all the firebombing, the cutting of their supply lines, the loss of their navy and air force; not even after the first "bomb" was dropped, something their scientists thought was unfeasible at the time. The emperor was a horrible ruler for not surrendering sooner and just letting his people die when they basically had no way to effectively combat the people they were fighting against. Religion is more deadly than most perceive it to be, this a good example.

 

[Sindaine]

I'm plenty proud of our military; I'm just scared of them, and the power they have. I was told that gun laws don't apply to them; they just have to claim that they were 'responding to a credible threat' and they can shoot whoever they want to. Was I wrong?

 

[yankeefan19]

I just wonder why people wonder this. it's already happened, theres no changing it.

 

[Giovanto]

Before I begin, let me just let everyone know that in Japanese language, there is no word for surrender. Therefore even though it was the only Rational thing to do, they could not give in. I believe this has to do with culture, such as the Samurai who would sooner die for their master then fail. They were the only ones willing to kill themselves.

Anyway, I say no. It was not necessary, it seldom is. Nuclear weapons should never have been created. Nor should they ever be used.

One more thing I should mention is that technically we are still at war with Japan. They never signed a surrender agreement, therefore we never officially ended our war with them.

 

[bookboy]

I don't trust our military as far as I can throw them....

Now, that's just a worthless comment. First of all, you can't throw the military, don't think that you can. And if you fully realized that, you are terrible at this whole "nation" thing aren't you. Tell you what, go out and form your own country, but be sure not to give it a military. See how long you last. Make a science experiment out of it. Without some larger country coming to your aid you'll be integrated into another nation by the end of the day. Think real hard about which nation is the most expansionist right now, that may change your decision to split.

costa rica seems to be doing perfectly fine without a military.

 

[bookboy]

1) Geneva convention. There are rules about treating non-combatant and prisoners of war and the US knows about this. It has signed the protocol.

The Geneva convention did not exist during world war 2 (not literally, but I'm pretty sure you can find war crimes a plenty by both the axis and allies, why cant the US have its crazy moments?).

actually, the Geneva protocol was in effect, but the U.S.A. violated it in retaliation to constant violations by the Japanese and the German SS division, as well as the Luftwaffe.

 

[bookboy]

GUESS WHAT, they SHOULD'VE killed the Germans, but since many, many Americans had relatives that were in Germany, and Germany never directly attacked the U.S. It seems that Japan became the more imminent threat

How do you figure THIS? That is B.S. Germany hadn't even secured Europe yet, and it was a fact that they had submersibles collecting intel on the US right off our shores. If they had taken Europe, the continental U.S. would have been next.

I was being sarcastic, but your point is still valid, although I'm not sure why they didn't attack Germany... perhaps there was some sort of lack of judgment during world war 2

they didn't drop the bombs on Germany because Germany had surrendered in May... the bombs were dropped in August.

 

[Imat]

I don't trust our military as far as I can throw them....

Now, that's just a worthless comment. First of all, you can't throw the military, don't think that you can. And if you fully realized that, you are terrible at this whole "nation" thing aren't you. Tell you what, go out and form your own country, but be sure not to give it a military. See how long you last. Make a science experiment out of it. Without some larger country coming to your aid you'll be integrated into another nation by the end of the day. Think real hard about which nation is the most expansionist right now, that may change your decision to split.

costa rica seems to be doing perfectly fine without a military.

Costa Rica is a fledgling "New World" nation and is therefore under the "protection" of the US military. We may not have said Costa Rica specifically, but we have issued a blanket declaration of protection over such nations. Lucky them, paying off a military is hard work.

 

[Hallow'sEve]

about that... [http://www.flippeh.de/funPics/toLazyToRename/nukes.jpg]

 

[Kelethor]

Jeez, this ones a toughie...on the one hand, Hojo might have fought too, literally, the very last man killing both american soldiers, who have already been both economically and morally drained by the war with the Third reich. on the other hand, the bombs killed millions of both innocent children and puppys, and who knows that kind of effects bombs would have on generations too come. Im not sure if Japan would have surrendered, I dont know if Stalin would have taken over, and I don't know, maybe Japan would have just held the lines? the fact of the matter is, this happended, and we cant change it. an old line, but a goodie "no use crying over spilt milk". we cant change what happened at Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and we cant change what happended at Nanking. but the important thing too do, is too learn from it. The lesson here? Nuclear weapons are an absolute last resort.

 

[TheGame613]

I think we should have since we were bombed first.

 

[Sparkiesmakemesmile]

...I like pie

 

[Shinny_Explosions]

...I like pie

Me too, expecially cherry!

 

[oralloy]

First of all, sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I've been under the weather.

My computer's been out of commission for awhile anyway. Power supply went kaput, and I chose the cheap shipping speed when I ordered a new one.

Actually, the National Archives in Washington contain documents reporting our rejection of Japanese peace attempts going back to 1943.

That's very unlikely, since Japan did not make any peace attempts until after both A-bombs.

Your argument here "I'm right, because you're not right" is not inspiring, but seems quite indicative of everything you've been putting forward.

Up until August 10, the war faction was blocking any peace offer because they wanted to first slaughter Americans on Japan's beaches. (And even then, their idea of "peace" didn't involve surrendering.)

It was only when Hirohito ordered them that the military faction allowed any peace offers to be sent to us, and Hirohito didn't take such an action until after both A-bombs.

Do you have any sort of reputable cite for that?

Yes! Unfortunately it's a footnote in the book I'm quoting from to a newspaper article from the mid-nineties. They don't have articles I can link to. The Internet didn't exist back then. I'm trying to find anything I can on that, unfortunately all I'm getting are other articles talking about it.

I hope it isn't an Alperovitz book. He has a tendency to selectively quote things in a way that leads people who don't know better to jump to erroneous conclusions.

I might be able to track whatever it is down if you told me what exactly you were looking for. I've probably heard every claim ever made on this issue, both correct and incorrect.

Actually, in July, the Japanese government sent requests to Moscow, requesting Soviet help in establishing a peace. They hoped their ambassador would impress upon the Russians "the sincerity of our desire to end the war [and] have them understand that we are trying to end hostilities by asking for very reasonable terms in order to secure and maintain our national existence and honor." That's not a ceasefire. That's an end. We didn't have to wait for Russia to tell us this either. That quote is from an intercepted Japanese transmission to Russia.

Those Japanese transmissions did not indicate what exact terms they wanted, but they made it clear that the Japanese government wanted a lot more than just a guarantee for the Emperor.

No, they did not make it clear what terms they were looking for, but, again to quote the intercepted transmissions: "Since the situation is clearly recognized to be hopeless, large sections of the Japanese armed forces would not regard with disfavor an American request for capitulation even if the terms were hard."

The intercepted transmissions were entitled: "Japan seeking Soviet good offices to surrender"

The "large sections" there would be the Japanese Navy, which we had pretty much already sunk.

The Japanese Army, who were the ones we'd actually have to fight in an invasion, still had no interest in surrendering.

And now that we have, in hindsight, records indicating the terms that Japan actually was trying to secure (Japanese army return home without surrendering or being disarmed, no occupation of Japan, no war crimes trials, etc) it is pretty clear that a ceasefire is exactly what Japan was aiming for.

I see, oralloy. You're willing to concede that we knew Japan was attempting to surrender.

No. First, we didn't know the exact terms until after the war.

Second, those terms are not a surrender. They are a ceasefire.

We knew at the time that they "would not regard with disfavor an American request for capitulation even if the terms were hard," but because we also know that their initial bargaining position would not have been complete capitulation, which is never the case in surrender, you're terming it a ceasefire. You say, that seems "pretty clear" to you. So, you're changing the rules of what I'm supposed to argue with you on?

Actually, we knew they would regard a request for capitulation with extreme disfavor, because we had made such a request, the Potsdam Proclamation, and Japan rejected it with a fair degree of scorn.

The ceasefire they wanted was not an "initial bargaining position" that they planned to move away from as negotiations progressed. That ceasefire was what the war faction actually intended to make us agree to after we had been demoralized from having hundreds of thousands of Americans die on Japan's beaches.

Actually, according the official Survey I linked to, shortly before the bombs were dropped, there was a meeting between the Emperor and the leaders of the Japanese military. All the leaders pressed on him their desire to surrender. Now, that's the government's official position. Should I trust you, or the official position. Think I'm going to stick to the official position.

"All" the leaders did not press the Emperor to surrender at this meeting. Some of them advocated conditional surrender, and others advocated holding out so that millions of Japanese soldiers could repel our invasion in a massive bloody battle after which Japan would request a ceasefire.

Do you have a reputable cite for that? Because it's not in the Survey. Survey says half want surrender unconditionally, the other half wanted surrender with conditions. That is what is listed in the report. So if you've got a cite that contradicts it, by all means.

The side you are referring to as wanting "unconditional surrender" had a condition they were demanding: a guarantee that Hirohito would remain in power.

The side you are referring to as "surrender with conditions" are the guys who wanted Japan's military to just pack up and go home, with no war crimes trials or occupation of Japan. Those are indeed conditions. But that's not a surrender; it's a ceasefire.

For an online cite, there is this transcript (books are better than anything that is online though):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pacific/filmmore/pt.html

"Foreign Minister Togo led the peace faction urging acceptance with one condition preserving the Emperor although stripped of his powers."

and

"Yet Anami and the militarists, still confident in Ketsu-Go, favored adding three additional conditions: there would be no occupation, the Japanese military would disarm itself and the military would try its own war criminals."


There are a number of books I can recommend:

For the best view of what Japan was doing, I recommend "Japan's Decision to Surrender" by Robert J.C. Butow. It is a comprehensive look at the position of the Japanese government in the last months of the war.

"Japan's Longest Day" by The Pacific War Research Society is another good look at what Japan's government was doing at the end of the war. It is focused mostly on the period after the A-bombs were dropped, which is after the period we are looking at. But it is still a good look at Japan's position at the time (and it is written by Japanese historians).

Another good book is "Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire" by Richard B Frank. The book is actually an attempt to argue that the A-bombs were the cause of Japan's surrender (a position I don't think they prove, but they provide a lot of good data in the process of trying to prove it). It provides a comprehensive overview of the MAGIC and ULTRA intercepts, and shows that those intercepts did not give much indication that Japan was interested in surrender. It also shows just how bad the invasion would have been had Japan not surrendered.

"Strategic Surrender: The Politics of Victory and Defeat" by Paul Kecskemeti actually looks at four WWII surrenders (France surrendering to Germany, Italy surrendering to the Allies, Germany surrendering to the Allies, and Japan surrendering to the US). The part that focuses on Japan provides a decent analysis of the position of both the Japanese and US governments in the last months of the war.

"Fighting to a Finish: The Politics of War Termination in the United States and Japan, 1945" by Leon Sigal looks at the conflicting goals of various services and agencies within the US and Japanese governments as the war drew to an end.

"Weapons for Victory: The Hiroshima Decision Fifty Years Later" by Robert James Maddox is a thinly veiled rebuttal of everything written by Gar Alperovitz. It is essential for countering his misleading books.

The notion that the USSBS is "the official version" is a little silly. It was an Air Force propaganda piece designed to promote the idea that conventional air power is all that is needed to win wars. The main goal was to maximize the Air Force's portion of the defense budget after the war when congress was dramatically ramping down defense spending.

If that's the case, then all the stranger that it would take the stance that it does. So, oralloy, are you able to challenge the research presented there in, or are you now attacking source materiel because you don't like what it has to say.

I think their conclusion that conventional bombing "would have" brought about surrender even without the A-bombs and the Soviets is a bit thin.

It certainly is plausible that it could have happened, but it is by no means definite that things would have turned out that way.

By and large though, I don't fault the report too much, so long as it is remembered that the report is based on things we only knew in hindsight.

I just think it is a little silly to place the report on a pedestal as if it were some grand unimpeachable source of information.

And the plane that was trying to drop the second A-bomb on Kokura Arsenal was chased off by Japanese fighter planes.

Cite please. I've seen nothing that says that we had not obliterated Japan's air force by this point. If any planes managed to survive, I'd like to know about it.

"Two more passes over the target still produced no sightings of the aiming point. As an aircraft crewman, Jacob Beser, later recalled, Japanese fighters and bursts of antiaircraft fire were by this time starting to make things "a little hairy." Kokura no longer appeared to be an option, and there was only enough fuel on board to return to the secondary airfield on Okinawa, making one hurried pass as they went over their secondary target, the city of Nagasaki."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/ops/nagasaki.htm


"Sweeney and his crew were under orders to only bomb visually. When they got to Kokura they found the haze and smoke obscuring the city as well as the large ammunition arsenal that was the reason for targeting the city. They made three unsuccessful passes, wasting more fuel, while anti-aircraft fire zeroed in on them and Japanese fighter planes began to climb toward them. The B-29s broke off and headed for Nagasaki. The phrase Kokura's Luck was coined in Japan to describe escaping a terrible occurrence without being aware of the danger."

http://www.hiroshima-remembered.com/history/nagasaki/page3.html

And besides that, there were thousands of kamikaze planes in position to sink US troop transports when we invaded.

Kamikaze!? There weren't kamikaze planes nor pilots left by that point!

Japan had thousands of kamikaze planes ready to attack troop transport ships as our invasion approached shore.

And besides we knew they were surrendering. You want to arbitrarily call it a ceasefire, that's fine. The fact that they were clawing and scratching to try to get to peace table is a fact you can't ignore.

That ceasefire offer wasn't even close to a proper surrender. And the faction that was pressing for a ceasefire wanted to wait and negotiate after the invasion had killed hundreds of thousands of Americans, so that we would be demoralized enough to agree to end the war with a ceasefire.

We didn't have any such knowledge "at the time".

And you can't ignore the fact that while the USSBS was supported by hindsight evidence it was largely a culmination of facts we knew at the time.

No, the USSBS had a lot of evidence as to Japan's intent that the US government had no access to during the war.

One last quote from Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson: "No effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb."

That's an odd statement.

The reason we were trying to achieve surrender is because we were trying to conquer Japan.

It is rather a given that our reason for seeking surrender wasn't "to avoid using the bombs".