Author Topic: Atomic Bomb dropped on Hiroshima  (Read 4113 times)

Offline Slash27

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12792
Atomic Bomb dropped on Hiroshima
« Reply #60 on: August 06, 2006, 11:32:37 PM »

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13901
Atomic Bomb dropped on Hiroshima
« Reply #61 on: August 06, 2006, 11:34:48 PM »
Rolex,

The quotes with neither context of time nor subject renders them rather suspect. My question was specific to the timing and dates of the quotes. It's quite easy, several years after the war with considerably more data from the enemy as to the actual condition of their thinking towards surrender or not, to make a statement that would have been foolish at best while still engaged in the conflict.

I ask again, and I do not want you to think I am sniping you, when were the quotes actually made? A link to the speech they were originally found in would be nice as well.
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22408
Atomic Bomb dropped on Hiroshima
« Reply #62 on: August 06, 2006, 11:45:18 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lukster
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.


My grandfather fought on Okinawa after Guam.  He supported the dropping of the bomb.   I do too, even though he passed away in 1998, I never would have known him because he was to land in Yokohama Bay in November, 1945 had the Japanese not surrendered.   Wait he was in China until January 1946 killing the Japanese that "had surrendered".   They had no intentions of "surrendering".   He went from 7th gunner (carrying extra ammo) to 1st gunner a couple of times in WWII.    

I'm glad I was his Grandson for 25 years.   If I can be 1% of the man he was, I'll be proud.
-=Most Wanted=-

FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline Rolex

  • AH Training Corps
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
Atomic Bomb dropped on Hiroshima
« Reply #63 on: August 06, 2006, 11:48:50 PM »
Suspect? Oh for heaven's sake. That is disappointing to read. I'm not going to be sucked into this quicksand.

Please just disregard it all. It's easier that way.

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13901
Atomic Bomb dropped on Hiroshima
« Reply #64 on: August 07, 2006, 12:31:34 AM »
All I asked was for you to supply additional information to support your post. I did not make any accusation nor personal atacks. If you read more than that you inferred something that was not there.

I just wanted to read the text where those quotes came from and the time they were made.
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline Vulcan

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9853
Atomic Bomb dropped on Hiroshima
« Reply #65 on: August 07, 2006, 01:01:00 AM »
Uhh Rolex: "Curtis LeMay defended their use, commenting: "We scorched and boiled and baked to death more people in Tokyo on that night of March 9-10 than went up in vapor at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.""

Offline Rolex

  • AH Training Corps
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
Atomic Bomb dropped on Hiroshima
« Reply #66 on: August 07, 2006, 02:28:33 AM »
Hi Mav,

I know you didn't attack me, but I don't think you're looking at this with curiosity. You're already looking to defend your beliefs, or can't you see that in your post?

Below is some reading material you will find them (and others) in:

Dwight Eisenhower, The White House Years: Mandate for Change

William Leahy, I Was There

Richard Norton Smith, An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover

William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power

Barton Bernstein, ed.,The Atomic Bomb

James Reston, Deadline

Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed, 1987 edition

Len Giovannitti and Fred Freed, The Decision To Drop the Bomb

Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost

------
[added] LeMay was bragging, not supporting, because he was a sick man. He constantly bragged about killing more humans in less time than any other time in history as if it were a game. The object of bombing is to destroy military and industrial capability. The crews of the firebombing of Tokyo and Yokohama had to wear oxygen masks (altitude was below 1,000' AGL for most) because of the smell of burning flesh and red mist from the blood and smoke filling their aircraft. The civilians found an escape route to a river from the fires, but the pilots were ordered to cut them off with more incendiary bombs to entrap them in the incineration.

He also developed and pushed a plan to use the entire US nuclear arsenal in 1946 to strike every major Russian city in a surprise attack. The purpose was to beat his old record of killing people. He specifically said the plan was to reduce the Russian population as much as possible. Luckily, everyone in Washington knew he was nuts. You should know that also.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2006, 02:50:52 AM by Rolex »

Offline Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Atomic Bomb dropped on Hiroshima
« Reply #67 on: August 07, 2006, 03:26:14 AM »
I wonder why it was necessary to invade Japan in the first place? Maybe it would have been enough to take a commitee near a desolate island and show the explosion and they would probably sign the peace treaty right away, but I don't think that would have been enough for the winning side.  

Technically it was an interesting experiment of bomb effects on population and I guess some people were more interested in scientific aspects and they felt that they were on the verge of something big. Well they were right, in a way, as was seen during the cold war. The beginning of the atomic age WAS a big thing back then and some countries still fight off the effects of atomic hangover.

What about civilians, or more like people working in factories participating in war efforts, and by that definition they are nearly the same as military? The line is blurry today but maybe it was not back then when the enemy was dehumanized and they were to be defeated in any means available.

Maybe they (US) thought that according to Japanese mentality surrender was the same as death so the formal surrender was totally out of question and invasion would have indeed cost dearly to US. After all the surrendering option was more viable than the US would have probably though.

All in all a tragic event which was a result of excess use of force as we know now but how would they have known back then?

-C+
"When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a giant meteor hurtling to the earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much screwed no matter what you wish for. Unless of course, it's death by meteorite."

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Atomic Bomb dropped on Hiroshima
« Reply #68 on: August 07, 2006, 04:14:59 AM »
I think this demonstrates how "ready" the Japs were to surrender:
"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."

A TIE!!!! After being nuked TWICE and having the USSR as an active enemy, as well as both the USA and the UK exclusively.

The statistics I've seen are different. The estimated conquest of Japan was to cost some 1.5 million allied lives, and 4-5 million Japanese lives. It was built on the combat experiences at Iwo and Okinawa.

The only really bothering theory I've ever seen is the one Charge mentioned. That one:
"I wonder why it was necessary to invade Japan in the first place? Maybe it would have been enough to take a commitee near a desolate island and show the explosion and they would probably sign the peace treaty right away, but I don't think that would have been enough for the winning side. "
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Atomic Bomb dropped on Hiroshima
« Reply #69 on: August 07, 2006, 04:42:21 AM »
Angus, how do 1.5M casualties happen to a population of 0.55M?
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Atomic Bomb dropped on Hiroshima
« Reply #70 on: August 07, 2006, 04:52:15 AM »
I would like to see a source that the Allies planned to take Japan with a force of 550.000 men.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Atomic Bomb dropped on Hiroshima
« Reply #71 on: August 07, 2006, 04:58:32 AM »
Here's the casualty calculus if it may help....

Estimated casualties for Downfall
Given the Japanese predilection for fanatical resistance, the fact that Japanese civilians were being encouraged to become suicide attackers, and the large number of Japanese troops to be faced, high casualties were seen to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several people made estimates but they varied widely in numbers, assumptions, and purposes—which included advocating for and against the invasion—afterwards, they were reused to argue for and against the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Everybody based their estimates on the experience of the preceding campaigns, but they could draw different lessons:

In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.

A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study done by Gen. MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. When these figures were questioned by Gen. Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.

In a conference with President Truman on 18 June, Marshall, taking Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties). Adm. Leahy, more impressed by Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000). Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.

Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though in the Battle of Okinawa kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot, and the troop transports off Kyushu would be much more exposed.

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.

Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000–1,000,000 fatalities, and were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."

For context, the Battle of Normandy had cost 63,000 casualties in the first 48 days. The Battle of Okinawa caused 72,000 casualties, of whom 18,900 were killed or missing over about 82 days. Several thousand soldiers who died indirectly whether because of wounds or other causes at a later date are not included. The entire war cost the United States a total of just over a million casualties, with 400,000 fatalities.

Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. As of 2005, all the American military casualties of the following sixty years—including the Korean and Vietnam Wars—have not exhausted that stockpile. [1] This is somewhat misleading, however, as it suggests that Purple Hearts being issued currently are those minted in the closing days of World War II. In actual fact, the design of the medal and it's corresponding service ribbon have been updated since the end of the Korean war, so the surplus ones represent an obsolete design that is no longer awarded.

It is important to remember that the casualty estimates are just that, and that they do not take into account the demoralizing effect the incessant air attacks had on the Japanese population. For example, in early August Fifth Air Force fighter pilots came back from low altitude missions over Kyushu to report that white flags were flying in towns and villages all over the island. Post-war interrogations revealed that almost 70% of the Japanese population had reached the point that they felt they were unable to endure one more day of war.

Linkie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline lukster

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2581
Atomic Bomb dropped on Hiroshima
« Reply #72 on: August 07, 2006, 08:38:41 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Rolex
Hi Mav,

I know you didn't attack me, but I don't think you're looking at this with curiosity. You're already looking to defend your beliefs, or can't you see that in your post?


You were/are obviously defending yours. Before Mav I asked for a source to your quotes. When one quotes another it's not unreasonable to ask for a source. If you don't want to get "sucked into this quicksand" then don't make such a strong point without backing it up.

Offline Rolex

  • AH Training Corps
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
Atomic Bomb dropped on Hiroshima
« Reply #73 on: August 07, 2006, 10:08:27 AM »
The generals and admirals were making a point, not me. Here's some friendly advice you might want to put on a 3x5 card and think about, lukster:

If you disagree with someone, or would like to get some information from them, starting out with a smarmy dig about their credibility might not be the most effective technique.

----------
A demonstration shot of an atomic bomb was ruled out for the simple reason that it may not have worked properly and the precious fissile material lost or scattered.

And Angus, 550,000 men was the inital plan, with another 200,000 being transferred from Europe later. You can find it easily.

I think most of you misunderstand the purpose of quoting some of the leading military people of that time about their thoughts on using weapons of mass destruction. They came from an era of soldiers and sailors who were taught that war was between soldiers and sailors. Even General Marshall had reservations, saying that killing women and children was not what a Christian nation did. They likened it to chemical weapons they knew from WWI. They were aghast at the destruction and human toll after the effects became known. We should also.

To discount their words or say that they didn't care about the men under their command since they would not be on the beaches is disgraceful and slanderous. No one here that I know of compares to what those men were like and the responsibility they bore.

I said a few post up that I thought the bombs did shorten the war. I think reading about the uneasiness these great leaders of men had about it teaches us much about their character. None of them started their careers as generals or admirals, yet after all they had seen and been through, killing women and children was not something they rationalized as easily as people seem to do now. What does that tell us about us? They struggled with it.

Marshall was pushing for tactical use of the new weapons during the invasion and had already allocated a number to each location. The problem with that plan (not known at the time) was radiation effects. US troops would have suffered significant casualties from those effects as they advanced through the areas. The full measure of those effects was not know until quite some time after Hiroshoma and Nagasaki.

Was the imminent entry of Russia a factor to using it? I would say so. I don't think it was as much of a factor to Japan's surrender, though.

Was Japan near it's breaking point? I have no doubt of that.

Did the bombings affect the Emperor's emergence into clarity and decisiveness? I would say so. It's interesting to note that Adolf Hitler took the easy way out. The Emperor accepted surrender and the fate it would bring him, thinking it would cost him his life in a humiliating trial and execution. He addressed the nation and told them that he, and they, must bear the unbearable. Accept the surrender as he would.

That was pretty gutsy for a pampered and cloistered young man who had been manipulated during most of his reign.

From the moment the Emperor told the population that they must bear the unbearable, they did. They surrendered. Those who could not, or would not accept it committed suicide. Hundreds of cadets at the military academy jumped off a cliff. They didn't fight to the death.

You don't find reports of fanatical resistance or organized attacks on occupying soldiers by civilians with spears after the surrender. There were isolated cases and a few soldiers who didn't know the war was over, but that's about all.

Did the population have to bear the unbearable? Well, there was a taste of the unbearable. The entire occupation of Japan came to grinding halt after just 2 months. A complete stand down and restriction to bases for all US troops while every field commander in Japan under MacArthur was ordered to report to Tokyo. Not because of a Japanese insurrection, though.

Murder, rape and looting by US troops was so widespread, MacArthur had to take drastic measures to avert an insurrection from occuring because of it. You can look it up in the National Archives. It's de-classified now.

War makes animals of men. Men like MacArthur and Eisenhower and their peers who strove to maintain character and a sense of humanity after the war and concern for the welfare of civilians should be heralded. Their humanity should not be challenged by little men who belittle them for it, or those who flippantly say things today like,"Hey, stuff happens."

Offline mars01

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4148
Atomic Bomb dropped on Hiroshima
« Reply #74 on: August 07, 2006, 10:15:44 AM »
Quote
Considering Japan was arming all citizens to fight (albeit with sharpened stick)..... How many lives were actually saved by dropping the atomic bombs.
By some estimates as many as 10 million Japanese casualties, if the US had invaded the mainland. Probably most would be those civilians with the sticks.

Quote
Bronk, this is all based on what, your imagination?


No Ghost, you couldn't be more wrong or misguided,

Find the documentary called Hiroshima.  It does a good job on both sides.  In it, it shows actual footage of young girls and boys, they couldnt be older then 12 and looked as young as 8 or 9 that were being trained to fight with sharpened sticks.

Japan was a culture the didn't have a word for surrender.  To land troops on that island would have made the whole war in the Pacific look like childs play.  You ask the American mothers and fathers that had sons fighting in the Pacific if they thought it was worth it...  I guess it is easy for you to sit there and pontificate on others lives without context.

Quote
Two of the prominent critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard,
who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly written
letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Szilard, who had gone on afterwards to
play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued: "If the Germans had dropped
atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic
bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were
guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them."


You talk as if we started WWII - go back to your history books, we just finished it.:aok

Was it a terrible thing, yes, was it better than killing Americans instead to stop a war we did not start - Absophucinglutely!
« Last Edit: August 07, 2006, 10:19:53 AM by mars01 »