Atomic Bomb dropped on Hiroshima

[lukster]

Originally posted by Vulcan
There is no question the atomic bombs being dropped saved lives: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa

Over 150000 civilians died, many at the hands of the Japanese army or even their own hands. If you close your eyes to this truth then you're lieing to yourself.

I lived in Okinawa for 6 years and visited "suicide cliffs" several times. It was there that over 2,000 civilians lept to their deaths to avoid being tortured by the monstrous Americans as they were assured they would by the Japanese military.

[Neubob]

Originally posted by Gh0stFT
sorry, but we didnt drop the bomb.

I suppose your ovens and gas chambers were used exclusively against military objectives.

Your 'but at least we didn't' line of reasoning, when applied to WWII, is laughable. Whatever it is that 'you didn't', you only didn't because either you didn't have enough time, or enough troops.

[Trikky]

Wasn't the 2nd one dropped partly to give Stalin pause for thought i.e. dont get any ideas about expanding the USSR to the Atlantic?

Not sure where I heard that, plus its probably pretty far down the list of reasons.

[lukster]

Originally posted by Trikky
Wasn't the 2nd one dropped partly to give Stalin pause for thought i.e. dont get any ideas about expanding the USSR to the Atlantic?

Not sure where I heard that, plus its probably pretty far down the list of reasons.

Some have suggested that but other reasons like the fact that the Japanese didn't surrender after the first and it was needed to prove to them it wasn't a one time deal seems more likely to me. They certainly wasted no time unconditionally surrendering after the second.

[FiLtH]

We are the only ones to have ever used it in combat...in a war we were winning. I wonder if our enemies ever wonder how we would handle a war we were losing?

[Neubob]

Originally posted by FiLtH
We are the only ones to have ever used it in combat...in a war we were winning. I wonder if our enemies ever wonder how we would handle a war we were losing?

Somehow I doubt that our enemies care about the things that can be destroyed by nuclear weapons. Civilian lives included.

[Angus]

Originally posted by Gh0stFT
could be they worked?

watch the daily news, we are far more closer to use this weapon again
then before.
This days we have discussions here about civilians got hit (ie: Lebanon/Israel).
Now i'm ask why do they dont drop the Bomb over Lebanon,
of course they would hit civilians too, but mainly they would destroy the enemy.
Thats Hiroshima ? right.

The NUKE was something in the neighbourhood of a 20.000 lbs bomb.
Single-blast. Not like what was poured over Tokyo, - possibly more deaths there than Hiroshima. (Incendiaries)
The Tokyo bombing didn't stop the war. But Hiroshima, - and/or Nagasaki DID.
Would Hiroshima alone have done the job? Questionable. The Japanese military counsel had a meeting after Hiroshima and decided that the enemy could only have had one of these weapons, and therefore Japan would continue fighting.
Nagasaki changed that view, as well as the information about the might of the blast which was pouring in.
It would probably have been enough to blow up just about anything for that sake for the demonstration of the power, and such a suggestion was actually put to words inside the USA control system.
(Why not NUKE a little island near Tokyo or something like that)
However, the suggestion was overruled and Hiroshima was on the list.
And Ghost, FYI:
The USA is not at war with Lebanon, - nor is Israel.
Japan was not directly at war with the Philippines population either, yet some 100.000 Philippine civilians were slain by the Japanese at the fall of Manilla. Similar butchery as Nanking.
Well, along with some 15.000.000 dead Chinese, I guess that's ok because they got hacked to death instead of Nuked.
Bottom line: Japan went way over the limit, and the cost of a continued war outweighted the loss of lives in a flash in order to stop the thing once and for all.
BTW, WW2 was more like 55 million war dead AFAIK.

[Rolex]

The revisionist view of Hiroshoma and Nagasaki continue to be entrenched in each generation after the war.

A. "The War would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the War at all."

B. "The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."

C. "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace.the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan."

D. "Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary."

E. "The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell because the Japanese had lost control of their own air."

F. "Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945 (the earliest possible planned U.S. invasion of the Japanese main islands), Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped."

These quotes are not the revisionist version, they are the original version by these men:

A. Major General Curtis LeMay

B. Admiral William D. Leahy

C. Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz

D. General Dwight D. Eisenhower

E. General Henry (Hap) Arnold

F. U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey


The revisionist version is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved millions of lives. You don't need it. Just accept that it was political and not militarily necessary.

The revisionism that 1 million US casualities were averted is the easiest to cast off. The entire proposed invasion force of mainland Japan was 550,000 men. How could they possibly suffer 1 million casualties?

The result of the Yalta conference was that Russia would enter the Pacific War 90 days after the end of the war in Europe. May 8 + 90 days = August 8th. After the first test was successful in July, a race with the calendar was on to deny Russia territory in Asia as had occured in post-war Europe. It really is that simple.

There is no dishonor in that truth. It does not change the fact that the decade of Japanese colonization was over at the cost millions of lives. It also does not change the fact that Japan is now the most steadfast and important ally of the United States.

I went to Hiroshima about 15 years ago with a group of O-6s and an admiral, all with Vietnam experience, and I will tell you this: it was a very sobering thing. All, to a man, were shaken by it and found it gruesome and disturbing.

Americans have never witnessed mass destruction of its cities or mass killing of its civilians. You have no concept of seeing hundreds of thousands of American civilians slaughtered like cattle. Some see images of people who don't look like them and say things like,"They don't value their lives like we do," a common thing said during WWII, Korea and Vietnam.

Well, old men, young men, women and children everywhere are just trying to live, like you. They are powerless in the politics that kills them or their families. You lose your humanity if you de-humanize them and accept revisionism of the 'necessity' of their deaths, and the unbearable pain the survivors endure.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Well, Rolex, none of those men were going to have to storm the beaches of Japan if they DIDN'T surrender. Nothing personal, but my Dad was a veteran of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and would have had to take part in the invasion of mainland Japan. My best friend's father was a veteran of about FIVE naval landings on islands occupied by Japan, and as a Marine, he too would have had to invade mainland Japan. Well, we're both pretty well satisfied that dropping those two bombs was a good thing. And my best friends mother was a native of Japan as well. So, I guess we're not too biased.

[Black Sheep]

As a side note, Paul and the Enola crew mighta been singin 'Drop It Like It's Hot' if ole Snoop wuz around the hizzouse back then.

Anyways, there is sufficient enough evidence to support that more lives were saved in the long run than lost by dropping those two bombs. Japan certainly was still capable of waging a major war late July '45. Allbeit on defense in thier homeland. And they weren't importing too many weapons. So where were they built? huh?

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Well, Rolex, none of those men were going to have to storm the beaches of Japan if they DIDN'T surrender. Nothing personal, but my Dad was a veteran of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and would have had to take part in the invasion of mainland Japan. My best friend's father was a veteran of about FIVE naval landings on islands occupied by Japan, and as a Marine, he too would have had to invade mainland Japan. Well, we're both pretty well satisfied that dropping those two bombs was a good thing. And my best friends mother was a native of Japan as well. So, I guess we're not too biased.

My grandfather wasn't necessarily a landing force, but was with the army national guard artillery units on several island hops.  I'm definately glad they dropped both of them.

[Maverick]

Rolex,

Those are nice quotes. Now I have a question. Are those quotes based on the information available in July 1945 or based on information well after hostilities ended, perhaps years after?

Second question how does the prediction of surrender of the Japanese mesh with the attempt by the military heirarchy to sever any communications by the Emperor as well as the bias against accepting unconditional surrender?

[lukster]

I suspect you may have the quotes right Rolex but you've been wrong before on your "facts". Can you link these with the purported quoter?

[Rolex]

Hi Mav,

There are plenty of other quotes by the rest of the senior military and civilian leadership saying the same thing as these distinguished men. The only 5-star ranked officer holding the minority view was Marshall.

Since most had no knowledge of the existence of the program prior to Hiroshima, they were all made after that, of course.

As far as question two, I don't know how it meshes. The same conditions applied after surrender were the same conditions offered in surrender earlier. Gen MacArthur was adament that those surrender terms should have been accepted and he was occupation commander because of his knowledge and experience in Japan and of its culture.

I smell cynicism in your first line, Maverick. Is that the case? It's hard to read cynicism in just text. If so, I was vilified years before for posting many more quotations, so I'm not going to go through it again. I'm sure it will begin in earnest again and I'll be burned in effigy soon.

I am not interested in changing your mind. If your questions are framed to set me up to prove you are the winner, rather honestly discuss where the the truth is, I won't engage in it. If that is not the case, then I apologize. You can't blame me considering the history and culture of the O'Club...

I don't feel I should justify or qualify their statements, Mav. I am not a historian. I am just a guy who changed his mind in his forties from what he learned as a child in school. That was a hard thing to do and didn't happen easily or quickly.

Did the war end faster? Of course.
Was it a military necessity to kill 200,000 civilian in those two days? I don't think so.
Did it save more lives than it cost? I don't think that is true either.

Black Sheep said, "Anyways, there is sufficient enough evidence to support that more lives were saved in the long run than lost by dropping those two bombs."

What is that sufficient evidence? The only 'evidence' is a statement by Truman that a million US lives were saved by it, which he pulled out of his hat, at a time some press and Congress were questioning the decision soon after the event.

Was it more about Russia than Japan? I think so.

Well, let the hanging begin.

[soda72]

Originally posted by Rolex
Was it more about Russia than Japan? I think so.

Well, let the hanging begin.

It was most likely a combination of things..

 http://www.mbe.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/surrender.htm

   

JAPAN SURRENDERS
(August 10-15, 1945)
Events: Dawn of the Atomic Era, 1945

Prior to the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, elements existed within the Japanese government that were trying to find a way to end the war.  In June and July 1945, Japan attempted to enlist the help of the Soviet Union to serve as an intermediary in negotiations.  No direct communication occurred with the United States about peace talks, but American leaders knew of these maneuvers because the United States for a long time had been intercepting and decoding many internal Japanese diplomatic communications.  From these intercepts, the United States learned that some within the Japanese government advocated outright surrender.  A few diplomats overseas cabled home to urge just that.  

From the replies these diplomats received from Tokyo, the United States learned that anything Japan might agree to would not be a surrender so much as a "negotiated peace" involving numerous conditions.  These conditions probably would require, at a minimum, that the Japanese home islands remain unoccupied by foreign forces and even allow Japan to retain some of its wartime conquests in East Asia.  Many within the Japanese government were extremely reluctant to discuss any concessions, which would mean that a "negotiated peace" to them would only amount to little more than a truce where the Allies agreed to stop attacking Japan.  After twelve years of Japanese military aggression against China and over three and one-half years of war with the United States (begun with the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor), American leaders were reluctant to accept anything less than a complete Japanese surrender.  

The one possible exception to this was the personal status of the emperor himself.  Although the Allies had long been publicly demanding "unconditional surrender," in private there had been some discussion of exempting the emperor from war trials and allowing him to remain as ceremonial head of state.  In the end, at Potsdam, the Allies (right) went with both a "carrot and a stick," trying to encourage those in Tokyo who advocated peace with assurances that Japan eventually would be allowed to form its own government, while combining these assurances with vague warnings of "prompt and utter destruction" if Japan did not surrender immediately.  No explicit mention was made of the emperor possibly remaining as ceremonial head of state.  Japan publicly rejected the Potsdam Declaration, and on July 25, 1945, President Harry S. Truman gave the order to commence atomic attacks on Japan as soon as possible.  

Following the bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 (right), the Japanese government met to consider what to do next.  The emperor had been urging since June that Japan find some way to end the war, but the Japanese Minister of War and the heads of both the Army and the Navy held to their position that Japan should wait and see if arbitration via the Soviet Union might still produce something less than a surrender.  Military leaders also hoped that if they could hold out until the ground invasion of Japan began, they would be able to inflict so many casualties on the Allies that Japan still might win some sort of negotiated settlement.  Next came the virtually simultaneous arrival of news of the Soviet declaration of war on Japan of August 8, 1945, and the atomic bombing of Nagasaki of the following day.  Another Imperial Council was held the night of August 9-10, and this time the vote on surrender was a tie, 3-to-3.  For the first time in a generation, the emperor (right) stepped forward from his normally ceremonial-only role and personally broke the tie, ordering Japan to surrender.  On August 10, 1945, Japan offered to surrender to the Allies, the only condition being that the emperor be allowed to remain the nominal head of state.  

Planning for the use of additional nuclear weapons continued even as these deliberations were ongoing.  On August 10, Leslie Groves reported to the War Department that the next bomb, another plutonium weapon, would be "ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or 18 August."  Following the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, only two targets remained from the original list: Kokura Arsenal and the city of Niigata.

   

to say the atomic bombs did not play a role in Japans surrendering is miss leading and wrong...