Was The Bombing of Hiroshima Necessary?

[Feuer Frei!]

I was listening to Radio National today and they had a piece on the Bombing of Hiroshima and they were discussing the possible reasons behind this.
It prompted me to post this following article, to invite discussion:

Being a U.S. war criminal means never having to say sorry. Paul Tibbets, the man who flew the Enola Gay and destroyed Hiroshima, lived to the impressive age of 92 without publicly expressing guilt for what he had done. He had even reenacted his infamous mission at a 1976 Texas air show, complete with a mushroom cloud, and later said he never meant this to be offensive. In contrast, he called it a "damn big insult" when the Smithsonian planned an exhibit in 1995 showing some of the damage the bombing caused.
We might understand a man not coming to terms with his most important contribution to human history being such a destructive act. But what about the rest of the country?

It’s sickening that Americans even debate the atomic bombings, as they do every year in early August. Polls in recent years reveal overwhelming majorities of the American public accepting the acts as necessary.
Conservatives are much worse on this topic, although liberals surely don’t give it the weight it deserves. Trent Lott was taken to the woodshed for his comments in late 2002 about how Strom Thurmond would have been a better president than Truman. Lott and Thurmond both represent ugly strains in American politics, but no one dared question the assumption that Thurmond was obviously a less defensible candidate than Truman. Zora Neale Hurston, heroic author of the Harlem Renaissance, might have had a different take, as she astutely called Truman "a monster" and "the butcher of Asia." Governmental segregation is terrible, but why is murdering hundreds of thousands of foreign civilians with as much thought as one would give to eradicating silverfish treated as simply a controversial policy decision in comparison?




Perhaps it is the appeal to necessity. We hear that the United States would have otherwise had to invade the Japanese mainland and so the bombings saved American lives. But saving U.S. soldiers wouldn’t justify killing Japanese children any more than saving Taliban soldiers would justify dropping bombs on American children. Targeting civilians to manipulate their government is the very definition of terrorism. Everyone was properly horrified by Anders Behring Breivik’s murder spree in Norway last month – killing innocents to alter diplomacy. Truman murdered a thousand times as many innocents on August 6, 1945, then again on August 9.
It doesn’t matter if Japan "started it," either. Only individuals have rights, not nations. Unless you can prove that every single Japanese snuffed out at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was involved in the Pearl Harbor attack, the murderousness of the bombings is indisputable. Even the official history should doom Truman to a status of permanent condemnation. Besides being atrocious in themselves, the U.S. creation and deployment of the first nuclear weapons ushered in the seemingly endless era of global fear over nuclear war.
However, as it so happens, the official history is a lie. The U.S. provoked the Japanese to fire the first shot (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/11836.html), as more and more historians have acknowledged. Although the attack on Pearl Harbor, a military base, was wrong, it was far less indefensible than the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki's civilian populations.
As for the utilitarian calculus of "saving American lives," historian Ralph Raico (http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico22.html) explains:
[T]he rationale for the atomic bombings has come to rest on a single colossal fabrication, which has gained surprising currency: that they were necessary in order to save a half-million or more American lives. These, supposedly, are the lives that would have been lost in the planned invasion of Kyushu in December, then in the all-out invasion of Honshu the next year, if that was needed. But the worst-case scenario for a full-scale invasion of the Japanese home islands was forty-six thousand American lives lost.


The propaganda that the atomic bombings saved lives was nothing but a public relations pitch contrived in retrospect. These were just gratuitous acts of mass terrorism. By August 1945, the Japanese were completely defeated, blockaded, starving. They were desperate to surrender. All they wanted was to keep their emperor, which was ultimately allowed anyway. The U.S. was insisting upon unconditional surrender, a purely despotic demand. Given what the Allies had done to the Central Powers, especially Germany, after the conditional surrender of World War I, it’s understandable that the Japanese resisted the totalitarian demand for unconditional surrender.


A 1946 U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey determined the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nukings were not decisive in ending the war. Most of the political and military brass agreed. (http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm) "The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing," said Dwight Eisenhower in a 1963 interview with Newsweek.
Another excuse we hear is the specter of Hitler getting the bomb first. This is a non sequitur. By the time the U.S. dropped the bombs, Germany was defeated and its nuclear program was revealed to be nothing in comparison to America’s. The U.S. had 180,000 people working for several years on the Manhattan Project. The Germans had a small group led by a few elite scientists, most of whom were (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory61.html) flabbergasted on August 6, as they had doubted such bombs were even possible. Even if the Nazis had gotten the bomb – which they were very far from getting – it wouldn’t in any way justify killing innocent Japanese.
For more evidence suggesting that the Truman administration was out to draw Japanese blood for its own sake, or as a show of force for reasons of Realpolitik, consider the United States’s one-thousand-plane bombing of Tokyo on August 14 (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance180.html), the largest bombing raid of the Pacific war, after Hirohito agreed to surrender and the Japanese state made it clear it wanted peace. The bombing of Nagasaki should be enough to know it was not all about genuinely stopping the war as painlessly as possible – why not wait more than three days for the surrender to come? But to strategically bomb Japan five days after the destruction Nagasaki, as Japan was in the process of waving the white flag? It’s hard to imagine a greater atrocity, or clearer evidence that the U.S. government was not out to secure peace, but instead to slaughter as many Japanese as it could before consolidating its power for the next global conflict.
The U.S. had, by the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, destroyed 67 Japanese cities by firebombing, in addition to helping the British destroy over a hundred cities in Germany. In this dramatic footage from The Fog of War (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0001L3LUE?ie=UTF8&tag=lewrockwell&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=B0001L3LUE), Robert McNamara describes the horror he helped unleash alongside General Curtis LeMay, with images of the destroyed Japanese cities and an indication of what it would have meant for comparably sized cities in the United States:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOCYcgOnWUM&feature=player_embedded




"Killing fifty to ninety percent of the people in 67 Japanese cities and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional – in the minds of some people – to the objectives we were trying to achieve," McNamara casually says. Indeed, this was clearly murderous, and Americans are probably the most resistant of all peoples to the truths of their government’s historical atrocities. It doesn’t hurt that the U.S. government has suppressed for years (http://www.thenation.com/blog/162412/white-house-cover-when-harry-truman-censored-first-hollywood-movie-atomic-bomb) evidence such as film footage (http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2005/08/01_mitchell_hiroshima-cover-up-exposed.htm) shot after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yet even based on what has long been uncontroversial historical fact, we should all be disgusted and horrified by what the U.S. government did.

How would it have been if all those Germans and Japanese, instead of being burned to death from the sky, were corralled into camps and shot or gassed? Materially, it would have been the same. But Americans refuse to think of bombings as even in the same ballpark as other technologically expedient ways of exterminating people by the tens and hundreds of thousands. Why? Because the U.S. government has essentially monopolized terror bombing for nearly a century. No one wants to confront the reality of America’s crimes against humanity.
It would be one thing if Americans were in wide agreement that their government, like that of the Axis governments of World War II, had acted in a completely indefensible manner. But they’re not. The Allies were the white hats. Ignore the fact that the biggest belligerent on America’s side was Stalin’s Russia, whom the FDR and Truman administrations helped round up a million or two refugees to enslave and murder in the notorious undertaking known as Operation Keelhaul (http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495a.asp). We’re not supposed to think about that. World War II began with Pearl Harbor and it ended with D-Day and American sailors returning home to kiss their sweethearts who had kept America strong by working on assembly lines.



In the Korean war, another Truman project, the U.S. policy of shameful mass murder continued. According to historian Bruce Cumings, professor at the University of Chicago, millions of North Korean civilians were slaughtered by U.S. fire-bombings, chemical weapons and newly developed ordnance, some of which weighed in at 12,000 pounds. Eighteen out of 22 major cities were at least half destroyed. For a period in 1950, the US dropped about 800 tons of bombs on North Korea every day. Developed at the end of World War II, napalm got its real start in Korea. The US government also targeted civilian dams, causing massive flooding.


In Indochina, the U.S. slaughtered millions in a similar fashion. Millions of tons of explosives were dropped on Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. These ghastly weapons are literally still killing people – tens of thousands have died since the war ended, and three farmers were killed just last week (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/vietnam-war-era-artillery-shell-explodes-in-central-vietnam-killing-3-farmers/2011/07/31/gIQAl1QSmI_print.html). Among the horrible effects of the bombing was the rise of Pol Pot’s regime, probably the worst in history on a per capita basis.

The U.S. has committed mass terrorism since, although not on quite the scale as in past generations. Back in the day the U.S. would drop tons of explosives, knowing that thousands would die in an instant. In today’s wars, it drops explosives and then pretends it didn’t mean to kill the many civilians who predictably die in such acts of violence. Only fifteen hundred bombs were used to attack Baghdad in March 2003. That’s what passes as progress. The naked murderousness of U.S. foreign policy, however, is still apparent. The bombings of water treatment facilities and sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s deliberately targeted the vulnerable Iraqi people. Once the type of atrocities the U.S. committed in World War II have been accepted as at the worst debatable tactics in diplomacy, anything goes.
American politicians would have us worry about Iran, a nation that hasn’t attacked another country in centuries, one day getting the bomb. There is no evidence (http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0917/Reality-check-Iran-is-not-a-nuclear-threat) that the Iranians are even seeking nuclear weapons. But even if they were, the U.S. has a much worse record in both warmongering and nuclear terror than Iran or any other country in modern times. It is more than hypocritical for the U.S. to pose as the leader of global peace and nuclear disarmament.
The hypocrisy and moral degeneracy in the mouths of America’s celebrated leaders should frighten us more than anything coming out of Iran or North Korea, especially given America’s capacity to kill and willingness to do it. Upon dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, President Truman called the bomb the "greatest achievement of organized science in history" and wondered aloud how "atomic power can become a powerful and forceful influence toward the maintenance of world peace." Nothing inverts good and evil, progress and regress, as much as the imperial state. In describing the perversion of morality in the history of U.S. wars, Orwell’s "war is peace" doesn’t cut it. "Exterminating civilians by the millions is the highest of all virtues" is perhaps a better tagline for the U.S. terror state.



SOURCE (http://lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory232.html)


BTW, I am not posting this because I dislike the US, far from it.

[Castout]

It was necessary to end the war quickly. As simple as that.

The Japanese population pretty much supported their Empire ambitious invasions of South Asia to create a greater Asia as much as the German population supported Hitler.

Though each side paid a dear cost in war, it is only natural to accept that the losing side to pay more dearly, not by design but by the mechanism of war. It's just how it is. One side would only surrender when that side has lost all will to fight. That means diminishing their hope of a victory or in simple words deteriorating their war effort directly and indirectly through the destruction of their war infrastructure and the destruction of other things that sustain their fighting will.

[Betonov]

If Japan wanted to continue the fight, then the bombs saved not only allied, but also Japaneese lives. Nothing to be sorry about.

If the Japaneese were willing to negotiate a ceasefire before the bombings, like there's a lot of claims, then the bombings were a war crime.

[Tribesman]

The piece goes off on a false tangent right from the start. Plus of course you cannot try and bundle up post WW2 actions and lump them all together like he does.
So just another Rockwell piece where ideology trumps reason.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Well, regardless of the rightness of bombing Hiroshima, that this Tibbets shows absolutely no guilt or remorse for his action is frankly rather chilling.

[Feuer Frei!]

Well, regardless of the rightness of bombing Hiroshima, that this Tibbets shows absolutely no guilt or remorse for his action is frankly rather chilling.
Yea, he must be a special breed, i'm sure he sleeps comfortably at night too!

[Castout]

Well, regardless of the rightness of bombing Hiroshima, that this Tibbets shows absolutely no guilt or remorse for his action is frankly rather chilling.


Not at all. He was a military bomber pilot. He might have witnessed Pearl Harbor directly or indirectly through the media.

He might have family members fighting the Japanese in other branches of the military.

He might have lost a few friends as casualties of war to the Japanese.

He certainly knew that his fellow Americans were shedding blood in war against the Japanese empire.

So thus it is only understandable given his circumstances that he might not have a regret on delivering the A bomb.
This doesn't mean he's not sorry for the loss of innocent lives in the city but there was simply nothing he could do and it was part of his duty to his country. He didn't regret delivering the bomb but he is probably sorry for the innocent lives lost because of it. It was wartime, he was a bomber pilot instructed to bomb a city.

The same thing when people didn't mind invading Afghanistan. This was even bigger than 9/11.

[Tribesman]

Well, regardless of the rightness of bombing Hiroshima, that this Tibbets shows absolutely no guilt or remorse for his action is frankly rather chilling.

Why should he feel guilty or remorseful?
He did his job which was fully within the laws of the time, if however he had been torturing PoWs, using prisoners for medical experimentation or enslaving men, women and kids to work them to death then it would be chilling if he showed no guilt or remorse.....but he wasn't.

[Feuer Frei!]

Why should he feel guilty or remorseful?
He did his job which was fully within the laws of the time, if however he had been torturing PoWs, using prisoners for medical experimentation or enslaving men, women and kids to work them to death then it would be chilling if he showed no guilt or remorse.....but he wasn't.
I guess it's what you do with the part you played in something like that in the future, that determines how someone will be judged.

[Castout]

I guess it's what you do with the part you played in something like that in the future, that determines how someone will be judged.


There is a big chance that the pilot didn't even know the full capability of the A-bomb.

[BossMark]

Why should he feel guilty or remorseful?
He did his job which was fully within the laws of the time, if however he had been torturing PoWs, using prisoners for medical experimentation or enslaving men, women and kids to work them to death then it would be chilling if he showed no guilt or remorse.....but he wasn't.
I agree, not only that it probably did save 10000s of 1000s Allies lives as well

[BossMark]

There is a big chance that the pilot didn't even know the full capability of the A-bomb.
I dont think anyone knew at the time what this bomb was capable of

[mookiemookie]

I agree, not only that it probably did save 10000s of 1000s Allies lives as well

He certainly saved the lives of every allied POW the Japanese had. They were all to be killed if the U.S. invaded the home islands.

As horrific as the bombs were, they were the lesser of two evils.

[Catfish]

I dont think anyone knew at the time what this bomb was capable of

And this is why it was done. Twice.
I am sure coming generations will think differently about the necessity, however - it seems conservatives never die out. Or maybe they only realize some things when they are too old to be heard :03:

Greetings,
Catfish

[AVGWarhawk]

What the piece fails to mention is Japans attempt to bomb the shores of the USA. Bomb balloons that did make it to US soil. Large submarines with cannon and aircraft that did make it to the shores of the US. The question is, would Japan use the A bomb on US soil if they had it and the means to deliver it.

[MH]

Another piece of self guilt false logic ideological philosophical bull****.

[Hakahura]

I think that Sir Arthur Harris said it best, when refering to one of the other Axis powers of the time...

" They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind"

[breadcatcher101]

Would Germany or Japan have used it had they had it? I would think so.

Hell, it was war. The bombs were the reason the Japanese came to terms, and it took two of them to do that. The third bomb, if needed, was intended for Tokyo.

[Hakahura]

As an aside to my previous post the Atomic bombing of Japan saved many Allied and Japanese lives by ending the war and preventing an invasion.

A little historical what if for you all as well. What if Little Boy and Fat Man were not dropped? World War 2 against Japan drags on for many more months, hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides are lost. How many Subsimmers think the othed Allied power, USSR would have sat and watched? I believe we would have been looking at a jointly occuppied Japanese Home Islands in 1946.

Imagine the joys a defeated Northern Japan would have endured under the Soviets.

Imagine the Berlin Wall stretching accross Japan, even a Korea MK2.

[MH]

Would Germany or Japan have used it had they had it? I would think so.

.

Definitely yes.
Just add to this the ingenious ballistic missile program they Germans had.
London got its share of v1 and v2.
A bomb was originally developed with Germany in mind.

[Oberon]

Shortly before the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US forces made landfall on Okinawa.
They landed 183,000 soldiers against the Japanese garrison of 117,000.
At the end of the fighting, 95,000 Japanese soldiers were dead, 12,513 Allied soldiers were dead, 38,916 US soldiers were wounded, and 33,096 were lost through non-combat causes. Only 7,000-10,000 Japanese soldiers were captured, and between 42,000 and 150,000 civilians were killed during the fighting.

Okinawa measures 1,201km squared, so in terms of fatalities per km squared, that's about 169 (that is using a number of civilian casualties which is in the middle of the 42k to 150k estimate)...and in terms of casualties (that's fatalities and wounded) somewhere in the region of 229 per square kilometer.

So, if one was to scale that up to the size of Japan itself, you're looking at a fatality count of 63,872,536 and a casualty rate of 86,549,176.

Obviously this number is crazy high...so, let's take about, say twenty five percent off, and that still gets you about fifteen million dead.

However, when one looks at the plans for Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan, you will note that the expected casualties for the Allied forces alone were in the region of half a million, which is why that number of Purple Hearts were manufactured...in fact the US is still using the Purple Heart medals which were made for Operation Downfall in Iraq and Afghanistan, that is the kind of casualty rate we're talking about here.

Furthermore, you think two bombs were bad? Operation Downfall called for seven atomic bombs to be made available to be dropped on defending forces, and for the use of chemical weapons to flush the Japanese out of their hiding places in cave networks.

There would have been no safe place for civilians for the civilians would be the front line, the Volunteer Fighting Corps meant that every single man, woman and child would be given a weapon, even if it was just a knife and told to kill at least one American soldier before dying. The Japanese high command wanted to make the invasion of Japan so bloody that the American forces would be forced to sign an armistice, and they would use every single life on Japanese soil to do that if they could.

From the air kamikazes would have had a devastating effect on cargo and transport ships, the High Command had learnt their lesson from Okinawa and were instructing the new wave of Kamikaze pilots to hit the transports, not the warships. Imagine a boat load of marines being hit by a kamikaze or two, that's going to be a lot of casualties right there.

So, when the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they killed some 246,000 civilians at first (that's using the maximum of the estimate) and let's say another 200,000 from side effects like cancer. So that's about 446,000 civilian fatalities. The invasion of Japan would have caused far...far...far...far...far more than that, I mean it was estimated in the Volunteer fighting corps that there was 28,000,000 men, women and children 'combat ready' by the time Operation Downfall was ready to go, maybe more...so even at a fifty percent fatality rate you're looking at a much much higher death toll than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

So, when Paul Tibbets and Charles Sweeney dropped their payloads, they actually saved lives (Charles Sweeney even more so because he didn't drop Fat Man directly on target). This is perhaps little comfort to the victims of the atomic attacks...however if they had not died through the atomic bombs they would most likely have died during the fighting to take Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

So, TLDR? Yes, the bombing was necessary because if Operation Downfall had gone ahead the bloodbath would have been...unbelievable. :nope:

[ZeeWolf]

Thank you Feuer Frei! for the very interesting article.
This act of mass murder on the civilian population of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki will forever be a blight on the
history of the U.S. Government. There is a vital fact
that is so often left out when the false claim was made
"It was necessary to end the war" and that is the Soviet
Union's invasion of China. This invasion of China holds
the key when you learn how fast the Red Army defeat the
Armies of Japan in China where Japan had it's vast
majority of armed forces.
But there is another area of this evil act that needs to
be understood. Ant that goes back to who were the one's
who convinced President Roosevelt the need for the atomic
bomb. You will find if you study, that the intent and hope of
those who convinced Roosevelt was that their bomb be used
on Germany.

ZeeWolf

[Feuer Frei!]

And before we get too carried away with the "It had to be done's":


"Stettinius called the meeting to order to discuss an urgent matter; the Japanese were already privately suing for peace, which presented a grave crisis. The atomic bomb would not be ready for several more months. "We have already lost Germany," Stettinius said. "If Japan bows out, we will not have a live population on which to test the bomb."
"But, Mr. Secretary," said Alger Hiss, "no one can ignore the terrible power of this weapon." "Nevertheless," said Stettinius, "our entire postwar program depends on terrifying the world with the atomic bomb." "To accomplish that goal," said John Foster Dulles, "you will need a very good tally. I should say a million." "Yes," replied Stettinius, "we are hoping for a million tally in Japan. But if they surrender, we won't have anything." "Then you have to keep them in the war until the bomb is ready," said John Foster Dulles. "That is no problem. Unconditional surrender." "They won't agree to that," said Stettinius. "They are sworn to protect the Emperor." "Exactly," said John Foster Dulles. "Keep Japan in the war another three months, and we can use the bomb on their cities; we will end this war with the naked fear of all the peoples of the world, who will then bow to our will."

"Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson first told Eisenhower of the bomb's existence. Eisenhower was engulfed by "a feeling of depression'. When Stimson said the United States proposed to use the bomb against Japan, Eisenhower voiced 'my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use (of atomic weapons).' Stimson was upset by Eisenhower's attitude 'almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick conclusion'. Three days later, Eisenhower flew to Berlin, where he met with Truman (http://www.whale.to/c/harry_truman.html) and his principal advisors. Again Eisenhower recommended against using the bomb, and again was ignored.



SOURCE (http://beforeitsnews.com/story/884/504/The_Secret_History_Of_The_Atomic_Bomb_Why_Hiroshim a_Was_Destroyed.html)

[Torplexed]

Seems like every year at this time we have this same discussion. :doh:

I recall reading an article where a former Japanese Army officer was asked what he thought of the idea of a demonstration. Exploding the bomb on some deserted offshore island with a delegation of Imperial Japanese officers and scientists observing to witness the power of the bomb in the hope of inducing surrender. He said given the crazy bushido mentality running military affairs the time, such a demonstration would have been seen as a sign of weakness on the other side. The implication being the Americans were so terrified of a land invasion of Japan that they were hoping to induce Japanese to surrender by coercion. We were already destroying their cities anyway by firebombing. If anything it likely would have steeled the Japanese resolve to resist.

The irony is that despite the Emperor's radio broadcast of August 15 of an Imperial Rescript ending the war--he never used the term surrender-- senior officers overseas initially refused to comply. The Emperor issued a second Rescript on August 17 to bring these commanders to heel--with which they complied reluctantly.

[STEED]

Japan would not surrender after Hiroshima and I believe another conventional bombing took place before Nagasaki and still they would not until the second bomb.

[Lord Justice]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BtDeKWfL1c I think this thread topic, question be more apt should it be put upon the families of the men whom fought at that time!! It is in my view not just, to lay it before me, for my considerations or opinions. :O:

[breadcatcher101]

Oh come on ZeeWolf, mass murder by the United States??

What a bunch of hogwash.

Ever hear of the good deeds the Japanese did in China plus scores of other places?

They killed many in Manila, I know some one who was there when they arrived and spent years living under their rule.

As for the first post, it refers to the Korean war as "Truman's Project". It makes it sound like he was painting his house or something.

IIRC the North invaded the South with tanks with no warning, so if it was anyones "project" it was the North Korean's.

I feel no remorse at all in us using the bomb. It is proven that it saved countless lives in the upcoming invasion--both allied and Japanese.

[mookiemookie]

And before we get too carried away with the "It had to be done's":







SOURCE (http://beforeitsnews.com/story/884/504/The_Secret_History_Of_The_Atomic_Bomb_Why_Hiroshim a_Was_Destroyed.html)

It had to be done. As Torplexed pointed out, the militarists were in control of the decision making and they were not going to surrender. Their attempts at surrender were conditional, and they knew we wouldn't accept them. MAGIC intercept, July 25th, 1945; The Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs (Togo) to the Japanese Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Sato): "The difficult point is the attitude of the enemy, who continues to insist on the formality of unconditional surrender. Should the United States and Great Britain remain insistent on formality, there is no solution to this situation other than for us to hold out until complete collapse because of this one point alone."

All the while they were in the midst of enacting plan Ketsu-Go. 18,000 kamikaze pilots and 13,000 planes were stockpiled along with fuel, ammunition and other supplies. It had to be done.

[Onkel Neal]

It must be due to the novelty and efficiency of the nuclear bomb that people object to its use. Conventional weapons are pretty awful too. How many millions died from firebombing? Dresden, Tokyo, Berlin, London? And if one questions the tactic of bombing civilian population centers, then I have to ask, how do you limit war to simply the battlefield, and why should you? Why should soldiers have to bear all the sacrifice and danger, when the society has most of the responsibility?

[Torplexed]

It had to be done. As Torplexed pointed out, the militarists were in control of the decision making and they were not going to surrender. MGIC intercept, July 25th, 1945: "'The difficult point is the attitude of the enemy, who continues to insist on the formality of unconditional surrender." Tojo said there was no recourse 'other than for us to hold out until complete collapse because of this point alone." They were in the midst of enacting plan Ketsu-Go. 18,000 kamikaze pilots and 13,000 planes were stockpiled along with fuel, ammunition and other supplies. It had to be done.

Indeed. the whole premise of Ketsu-Go (Operation Decisive) was that American morale was brittle, and could be broken by inflicting enormous bloodletting in the initial invasion of Japan. Even if that invasion succeeded, Japanese leaders believed that American politicians would recoil from the vast effusion of blood needed to continue the conquest of Japan. The Japanese also knew where this invasion must take place. Kyushu, as it was the only area of Japan in range of fighter support from Okinawa.

The Japanese assessment of US morale wasn't far from the mark. Many war-weary families in the US weren't anxious to see realtives who had fought and survived the war in Europe transferred to another fight for Japan.

[MH]

And before we get too carried away with the "It had to be done's":







SOURCE (http://beforeitsnews.com/story/884/504/The_Secret_History_Of_The_Atomic_Bomb_Why_Hiroshim a_Was_Destroyed.html)


Very interesting...
It is possible that some individuals saw an opportunities in dropping the A bomb while some objected it.

A lot about this article is a judgment and picking after the fact with speculation based on knowledge which not necessarily was evident during the war.
From what i have red about planned invasion of mainland Japan and how Japanese military prepared for it the outcome could be much worse.
A bloodbath on much larger scale than the a bomb.
Of course it would pass to history as heroic battle in which possibly millions would have died:nope:.
One big Iwo Jima-a fair fight to the last soldier and civilian.
Civilians.... it was Okinawa...

[Feuer Frei!]

One thing that I find astounding is that Truman stated, and I quote: ""The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians."
A military base? :haha: Pearl Harbor was a Military Base.
Hiroshima was a city. It contained military elements, but to state that it was a military BASE is absurd.
On other occasions Truman has stated that it was bombed because it was an industrial centre.
As per the US Strategic Bombing Survey, all the major factories were on the outskirts of the city. Next.
Oh, and he didn't realise what kind of victims they were going to be? Wrong!

And i quote: "The thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible," he said; he didn't like the idea of killing "all those kids."
(source: Barton J. Bernstein, "Understanding the Atomic Bomb and the Japanese Surrender: Missed Opportunities, Little-Known Near Disasters, and Modern Memory," Diplomatic History 19, no. 2 (Spring 1995): 257. General Carl Spaatz, commander of U.S. strategic bombing operations in the Pacific, was so shaken by the destruction at Hiroshima that he telephoned his superiors in Washington, proposing that the next bomb be dropped on a less populated area, so that it "would not be as devastating to the city and the people." His suggestion was rejected. Ronald Schaffer, Wings of Judgment: American Bombing in World War II (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), pp. 147-48.)
Next, Hiroshima never figured in Bomber Command's list of the 33 Primary targets.
This is true also of Nagasaki.

[Platapus]

Thanks for the citations. It helps elevate what is otherwise an emotionally charged discussion.

[Pisces]

I probably owe my existence to the droppings of those two bombs. Had the Japs not surrendered so quickly, but the occupation of the Dutch East Indies been allowed to continue for months more or even years, my father would most likely have perished as a baby in a concentration camp in Bandung, Java. He had been on the verge of death multiple times already. So, I cannot regret what happened then. Doing so I would negate myself. I just hope it was once (twice) in the history of mankind that it was used, and that it may never happen again. It's a horrible device. But so are my dad's and his family's memories. I've felt the fallout of that.

[MH]

But Marshall probably did not think the atomic bombs would end the war. After a talk with Marshall about the atomic bomb on June 12, 1947, Atomic Energy Commission Chairman David Lilienthal quoted Marshall in his diary as saying:

"There is one point that was missed, and that, frankly, we missed in making our plans. That was the effect the bomb would have in so shocking the Japanese that they could surrender without losing face. ...we didn't realize its value to give the Japanese such a shock that they could surrender without complete loss of face." (David E. Lilienthal, The Journals of David E. Lilienthal, Volume Two: The Atomic Energy Years, 1945-1950, pg. 198).
Though the a-bomb might not end the war quickly, Marshall felt the atomic bomb could be useful in his primary area of responsibility, the proposed invasion of the Japanese mainland.
On Aug. 13, after two a-bombings had failed to bring surrender from Japan, one of Marshall's assistants, Lt. Gen. John Hull, telephoned one of Gen. Groves' assistants, Col. L.E. Seeman. Hull said Marshall felt we should consider holding off on further atomic bombings so as to save the a-bombs for tactical use as part of the November invasion. (Marc Gallicchio, After Nagasaki: General Marshall's Plan for Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Japan, Prologue, Winter 1991).

In 1957, Marshall gave some details of his invasion plans for the atomic bomb:

"There were three corps to come in there [to invade Japan], as I recall. ...there were to be three bombs for each corps that was landing. One or two, but probably one, as a preliminary, then this landing, then another one further inland against the immediate supports, and then the third against any troops that might try to come through the mountains from up on the Inland Sea. That was the rough idea in our minds." (Bland, George C. Marshall: Interviews and Reminiscences for Forrest C. Pogue, pg. 424).
It was characteristic of Marshall that while others were celebrating the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Gen. Groves recalled that "General Marshall expressed his feeling that we should guard against too much gratification over our success, because it undoubtedly involved a large number of Japanese casualties." (Leslie Groves, Now It Can Be Told, pg. 324).


......

[Takeda Shingen]

Not this again.

[Oberon]

Not this again.


SSDY :03:

[Torplexed]

Not this again.

Every year at this time. :03: Second-guess theater.

[Feuer Frei!]

Not this again.
I wasn't here the other times this has been discussed.
Otherwise i wouldn't have bothered posting it.
And is it such a drag, this being posted?
Seems a few of you think so.
EDIT: seems after reading my post, i may have come across a bit rude, sorry, i'll remember next year :salute:
Just thought it may invite some interesting discussions, t'was my only motif.

[danasan]

Was the bombing necessary? I can't tell, because I was not in the situation to decide that. Afterwards it seems easy to judge about it.

Was the second bomb (that on Nagasaki) avoidable? History shows that Japan did not surrender after the first bomb. So maybe it was not avoidable. The alternatives they had are well-known.

The first atomic bomb was detonated on July 16, 1945 as a test. What they all did not expect was the grade of destruction and the consequences the bombs caused. They even sent scientists to the ground zero after a couple of weeks to investigate. Without any protection against radiation etc. They simply had no idea.

People like Robert Oppenheimer condemned the bomb afterwards, as they learned about the results.

What I like to point out is, that IMHO these two bombs prevented the world from being a - bombed in any other war so far.

[mobucks]

yes it was.

Japan was ready to fight on their home island to the last man, woman, and child.
Had we not ended the war with the A-Bomb, the war would have cost us a few more years and probably millions more lives on both sides.

People forget that we killed more civilians in the strategic bombing campaign in the European Front with regular bombs. Dresdin for example. Bombing civilians on a mass scale certainly did not start with the drop of the A-bomb.

[Hottentot]

And is it such a drag, this being posted?

It's one of those eternal historical what if questions that pop up on many forums multiple times, including here. And usually the same things are being said time after time. And it can become heated.

I for one enjoy reading this, while can't say enough about the subject to really participate. But I can also see why it's "this again".

[Ducimus]

Was The Bombing of Hiroshima Necessary?

http://troll.me/images/grandma-finds-the-internet/old-news-who-cares.jpg

http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/who_caresStill.jpg

[Randomizer]

Ah, the annual August 6th Hiroshima bash America guilt trip.

Yawn.

Short answer. Yes, it was the correct action to take, for many reasons enumerated here and some that have been omitted.

Yes it was fully in line with the strategic air power doctrines in effect at the time and so did and does not meet the criteria as a war crime under the legal framework established at Nuremberg and late repeated in Japan.

Yes Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military target cities by the usages of war in effect in 1945.

It matters not a whit whether Japan was on the ropes, the ability to end the war was solely in the hands of the Japanese junta. They chose not to do so.

So while I believe the evidence shows that the bombing was legally, militarily, politically and strategically correct I also think that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria (starting midnight local time 8 August 1945) was the truly decisive blow against Japan. Such were the conditions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki that it was not until after the Emperor's radio broadcast that the scope of the twin atomic disasters became evident to the central Government. On the other hand, the total collapse and defeat of the Kwantung Army was being broadcast to the General Staff in almost hourly situation reports and pleas for reinforcements.

Does anybody not think that the examples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki helped prevent first use later in the Cold War when bombs had become immeasurably bigger? The images of those two ruined cities was burned into the minds of the people who had to implement nuclear policy and manage crisis (as opposed to talking heads running off about "winnable nuclear wars") exercised a moderating hand on the trigger after 1945.

After Nagasaki, Truman saw enough was enough, the third atomic raid scheduled for 19 August against Kokura Arsenal was cancelled and the plutonium core remained in the USA (creating the myth that there was no more bombs*; it would be modified and expended at Bikini in 1946) which casts the theory that the attacks were aimed at giving Stalin a warning into doubt.

To quote Gene Hackman from Crimson Tide. "... drop that sucker. Twice"

*For debunking the "No More Bombs" myth, see Richard Rhodes The Making of the Atomic Bomb.

See you all back here this time next year, same forum, same topic, new thread.

[mookiemookie]

What's really scary is that they were going to use the bombs as a prelude to invasion. They were going to send troops into irradiated areas unprotected. How many of our boys would have died of radiation poisoning in the event of an invasion?

[Platapus]

You are gonna get Steve after you!!!!!:D

[Feuer Frei!]

Who ****ing cares?
Maybe the people who want to discuss it? Not the people who are going to post pics or the people who retort" Not this again".
Obviously not.

[Platapus]

It's one of those eternal historical what if questions that pop up on many forums multiple times, including here. And usually the same things are being said time after time. And it can become heated.

I for one enjoy reading this, while can't say enough about the subject to really participate. But I can also see why it's "this again".


I agree. If there was new information to add to the discussion it is worth bringing up. But usually it is just a re-hash of the old information that did not sway anyone the last time, and probably won't this time.

Since alternative history is not a science, there is really no way to accurately predict what would happened if......

There are so many external factors involved in history, it makes such discussions difficult.

[Torplexed]

I wasn't here the other times this has been discussed.
Otherwise i wouldn't have bothered posting it.
And is it such a drag, this being posted?
Seems a few of you think so.

I think it's important to consider the events in the landscape in which it happened. Not just from the lofty post of 66 years of hindsight later. To grasp the context in which the commitment to bomb Hiroshima was made, it seems necessary to acknowledge the chaos amidst which all were involved, the political and military leaders of the Allies were men in their fifties and sixties, weary after years of perpetual crisis such as a world war imposes. In the case of Roosevelt literally dying.

Europe was in ruins and chaos, with the Western Allies striving to contend with Stalin's ruthlessness and greed, Britain's bankruptcy, the starvation of millions. Each day brought to the desks of Truman, Stimson and Marshall projections relating to the invasion of the Japanese homeland. The US found itself obliged to arbitrate upon the future of half of the world, while being implored to save as much as possible of the other half from the Soviets, as even as war with Japan continued and mankind recoiled from from newsreel films of Hitler's death camps. What could be done about Poland, about millions of displaced Jews and peoples? About escaping Nazi war criminals and the civil war in Greece? Could power in China be shared? Might the rise of the communists in France and Italy be checked? Japan's beleaguered Pacific garrisons continued to resist even though the Allies initiated no major offensive operation after combat on Okinawa ceased in June 1945. The British were preparing to land in Malaya. Almost every day Curtis LeMays' Super-fortresses set forth from Guam and Saipan to incinerate more Japanese. Carrier aircraft strafed and bombed the home islands. Causality lists broadcast grief to homes all over the US and Britain. In judging the the behavior of those responsible for for ordering the atomic attacks, it seems necessary to acknowledge this since so many of these events have been forgotten or downplayed since. The bomb was only the foremost of many big issues of the time which these mortal men strove to grapple. Without the atomic bombs, it is by no means clear that the Emperor would have intervened to provide the first essential steps in the process of an organized capitulation of Japan's government and armed forces. Without an organized capitulation, it is not clear whether the final end of the war would have come in months or years, The atomic bombs were awful, but the alternatives could have been worse.

[Feuer Frei!]

Ah, the annual August 6th Hiroshima bash America guilt trip.

Sure why not.
But i won't be the one to start it. With the posting of this thread.

Yes it was fully in line with the strategic air power doctrines in effect at the time and so did and does not meet the criteria as a war crime under the legal framework established at Nuremberg and late repeated in Japan.You didn't read post # 32 then did you?

Yes Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military target cities by the usages of war in effect in 1945.See above. Re post # 32.

After Nagasaki, Truman saw enough was enough Yea, he must have been a schizo. See post # 32.

[QUOTE]To quote Gene Hackman from Crimson Tide. "... drop that sucker. Twice"Yea, maybe if they dropped the third one, we could then have said : " drop that sucker thrice"! Ah, what a missed opportunity that was. What were you thinking?

See you all back here this time next year, same forum, same topic, new thread.I may be here next year but not with this post since it seems that people either don't give a **** or are absolutely not interested in discussions and go onto the defensive about the US and can't be even slightly open-minded about this.
Ah, i'll save the rest for next year. Wait, errm...

EDIT: @ Torplexed, just saw your post.
I certainly do not mean any disrespect nor do I attempt to diminish in any way shape or form the events that took place.
The context of the event can be lost in discussions like this, agreed.
But, not if it is mature and open-minded discussion, and with no desire to sway or dissuade people from their long-held beliefes about subject matter of this calibre.
I am mature enough and open-minded enough to realise that.
I get disappointed when people scream US Bashing or immaturity when topics like this come up. It is history. It is in the past. History is there for discussion. Yes, you (in general) say, but we do this every year on this forum. Well, some of us, or even a few of us weren't here then, or the year before then.
So it has been posted again this year, with, might i add the most innocent and non-discriminating motifs in place.
Yes, it's a touchy, sensitive subject.
But, what good is history if we cannot as mature human beings discuss history in it's fullest, in context and with some semblance of reality and non-partisan feelings.

[Ducimus]

Who ****ing cares?
Maybe the people who want to discuss it? Not the people who are going to post pics or the people who retort" Not this again".
Obviously not.



You know what. It's the same ****ing thing every god damn year. "OMG, US are ware criminals!" Every god damn year, its the same pathetic excuse to go slap happy on the US. OH Poor japan, poor this, poor that, they didn't deserve it, it wasn't merited, wasn't neccessary, big bad evil US, yada yada yada yada etc etc ad nauseum.

Every year it's the same damn European instigated circle jerk, debating the morality of an event that happened over half a century ago, in a part of the war that few to none of your fore fathers ever fought in, let alone set foot in, nor fully understand. That's just pathetic. Yes I get it, you hate us. Fine, screw you too, i don't give a rats ass. Enjoy your annual circle jerk. Try not to jizz all over yourself.

[Armistead]

Lemay was doing much more damage to property and life with fire bombing.

The stupid thing I don't understand is this "we had to invade" theory. To me any thought of invading Japan by land was stupid in all aspects and the bomb prevented that and the loss of a million soldiers lives. Bomb or no bomb invading should've never been considered, let them rot on the vine and attack with sea and airpower.

[Takeda Shingen]

Who ****ing cares?
Maybe the people who want to discuss it? Not the people who are going to post pics or the people who retort" Not this again".
Obviously not.

This is the 11th time that this discussion has gone around. You can come after me as much as you like, but the Hiroshima topic is much like the American Civil War topic that comes up now and then. It is a discussion that ruffles feathers on all sides, changes no minds, decides nothing and ultimately goes nowhere.

[Feuer Frei!]

Every year it's the same damn European instigated circle jerk, debating the morality of an event that happened over half a century ago, in a part of the war that few to none of your fore fathers ever fought in, let alone set foot in, nor fully understand. That's just pathetic. Yes I get it, you hate us. Fine, screw you too, i don't give a rats ass. Enjoy your annual circle jerk. Try not to jizz all over yourself.
Too late, premature.
So i hate the US do i? Wow, who are you? Do you know me? No? Ah ok.
If you don't give a rat's, why friggin post in this thread then?
And as for you putting words in my mouth and insinuating BS theories about me hating the US, and my apparent self-pleasureing at your obvious lack of maturity, that's just wrong.

[Platapus]

The stupid thing I don't understand is this "we had to invade" theory.

That is one of the more common limitations on such discussions. The two alternatives commonly considered

1. Nuclear weapons

2. Landing on Honshu, either directly or indirectly through Kyushu or Shikoku.

These were not the only options available.

[Torplexed]

EDIT: @ Torplexed, just saw your post.
I certainly do not mean any disrespect nor do I attempt to diminish in any way shape or form the events that took place.
The context of the event can be lost in discussions like this, agreed.
But, not if it is mature and open-minded discussion, and with no desire to sway or dissuade people from their long-held beliefes about subject matter of this calibre.
I am mature enough and open-minded enough to realise that.
I get disappointed when people scream US Bashing or immaturity when topics like this come up. It is history. It is in the past. History is there for discussion. Yes, you (in general) say, but we do this every year on this forum. Well, some of us, or even a few of us weren't here then, or the year before then.
So it has been posted again this year, with, might i add the most innocent and non-discriminating motifs in place.Yes, it's a touchy, sensitive subject.
But, what good is history if we cannot as mature human beings discuss history in it's fullest, in context and with some semblance of reality and non-partisan feelings.

I do think it's still possible to discuss this in a level -headed manner. But as Takeda noted not many minds will be changed.

One last historical factor to throw in the mix. Why did the emperor decide the halt the war? He himself consistently gave three reasons when asked about his decision. One was his loss of faith in the Imperial Army and Ketsu-Go. He apparently finally came to the conclusion that they had been feeding manure to him all these years. A second was his deep fear that that Japan's neat civil order would crack under blockade and bombardment, and possibly destroy the imperial institution from within. He also specifically cited the atomic bomb.

Also, without the atomic bombs, the Soviets would have gone ahead with their plan to invade the northernmost major Japanese island of Hokkaido. On the Asian mainland the Soviets seized about 2.7 million Japanese nationals, only one third military personnel. Of this total some 340,000 to 370,000 perished in Soviet hands. Taking this as a yardstick the human cost of a Soviet occupation of Hokkaido means another 400,000 Japanese noncombatants would have likely have died. Not to mention the possibility of a new flashpoint in a Cold War world with a divided Germany, Korea and Japan.

[Randomizer]

@Feuer Frei

I did read post #32, and have read Bernstein and Schaffer and dozens of others you have probably never heard of on both sides of the argument. The difference is, rather than just regurgitate other peoples ideas I try to critically analyze what's written for and against and form my own conclusions. If I am schizo you must be a parrot.

Spaatz was a big proponent of precision daylight bombing to minimize civilian deaths, a laudable philosophy but one that had no military applicability to the bomber barons in the strategic air war against Japan. A number of 8th Air Force types were initially against the Bomb since it validated the RAF area bombing doctrine and rejected their beloved precision bombing doctrine.

Even in victory the atomic attacks evoked wide differences of opinions across the US armed forces. The people that had to make the decision thought it necessary at the time and got paid the big bucks to make it happen. Agonize and cast ex post facto judgments about it all you like...

[MH]

....

Have look here and draw your own conclusion.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm

[AVGWarhawk]

I do think it's still possible to discuss this in a level -headed manner. But as Takeda noted not many minds will be changed.

One last historical factor to throw in the mix. Why did the emperor decide the halt the war? He himself consistently gave three reasons when asked about his decision. One was his loss of faith in the Imperial Army and Ketsu-Go. He apparently finally came to the conclusion that they had been feeding manure to him all these years. A second was his deep fear that that Japan's neat civil order would crack under blockade and bombardment, and possibly destroy the imperial institution from within. He also specifically cited the atomic bomb.

Also, without the atomic bombs, the Soviets would have gone ahead with their plan to invade the northernmost major Japanese island of Hokkaido. On the Asian mainland the Soviets seized about 2.7 million Japanese nationals, only one third military personnel. Of this total some 340,000 to 370,000 perished in Soviet hands. Taking this as a yardstick the human cost of a Soviet occupation of Hokkaido means another 400,000 Japanese noncombatants would have likely have died. Not to mention the possibility of a new flashpoint in a Cold War world with a divided Germany, Korea and Japan.


I have to agree here. The outcome without using the A bomb would have been drastically different and much worse. Let's look at this way, say we did invade along with the Soviets. The death rate would be been much much greater than what the A bomb created. Today, there would have been this question: "Why didn't the USA drop the A bomb instead of invading? The loss of life by the Japanese, Soviets and USA would have been greatly reduced? No matter the scenario the USA was damned if they did and damned if they didn't.


It is a discussion that ruffles feathers on all sides, changes no minds, decides nothing and ultimately goes nowhere.

I agree with this as well. I have not witnessed a mind changed when discussing this part of WW2 history.

Furthermore, I believe if Japan possessed such a weapon as the A bomb it would have been used on US soil. Again, attempts were made with indiscriminate bombing of towns in the US with balloon bombs. Submarines with cannon and aircraft attacked the shores along the west coast.

The argument that the US are mass murderers as a result of the A bomb is flawed beyond belief when those that argue it was wrong completely and utterly forget what the Japanese were up too in countries such as China and Korea. They did not provide a picnic for the locals.

R. J. Rummel, a professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, states that between 1937 and 1945, the Japanese military murdered from nearly 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most likely 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war.

Wiki..RJ Rummel.

Was the A bomb a tit for tat? Perhaps. Either way my aunt and uncle returned from the PTO in one piece. So, yes, I believe the A bomb was the best means to an end.

[Oberon]

Every year it's the same damn European instigated circle jerk,

I dunno, we get a self-imposed circle jerk whenever Dresden gets brought up...and I wonder who brought up the Dresden thread from this year? :hmmm:

War is war and people die. How many Chinese civilians did the Japanese kill?

[Torplexed]

War is war and people die. How many Chinese civilians did the Japanese kill?

Chinese suffering during the war is almost indescribable. A recent careful estimate based on Chinese archives suggests a figure of four million military and eighteen million civilian dead. Another 95 million Chinese are estimated to have become refugees. Pretty comparable to the misery that went on in the Soviet Union during the German invasion.

[Madox58]

Hind sight is so GREAT!
Just think if we could stop all the really bad things done in the past!
Jesus would still be alive,
(Well, I guess he is if you look at the Mexican names)
We in the U.S.A. would still be British,
(No nasty new type Warfare allowed)
Those pesky Upsidedowners would still be prisoners in Australia.
And Hitler would have been shot dead in WWI.
But it don't work that way!
We do what is decided to be best at the worst of times.
Then live with the results!
Japan started the crap.
Japan got far less then should have been delivered!
They, along with Germany were working towards the A-Bomb!
Both would have used it to a much greater extent them the U.S.A. did.
So I feel no remorse that it was used as it was.
I only think maybe it should have been used in a wider context.

[Jimbuna]

Hind sight is so GREAT!


Amen

[Oberon]

Hind sight is so GREAT!

http://www.patricksaviation.com/files/photos/full/20026_14691.jpg

:yep:

[Madox58]

I for one refuse to use hind sight to judge anything I may have done in the past.
I did what I did in many cases based on REAL TIME events and results!
I can see everyone I terminated as if it was just a few moments ago.
I will NEVER feel sorry I put a bullet through them!
I feel sorrow for thier families but not them.
I'd do it all again in the wink of an eye!
You want a fight?
Be ready for a fight!
Death in all it's horror awaits in such a situation!
To use todays bleeding heart feelings means nothing to those who died in the '40's!
I can see many here who would change thier outlooks very quickly should the same situations appear today.

You'll say you would not.
But I know better!

When your Wife or your Children or your Mothers or Fathers are at risk?
You will become a killer of extreme skills!
That is our nature.
And for a very good reason!

[yubba]

Very well said.

[Tribesman]

This is the 11th time that this discussion has gone around. You can come after me as much as you like, but the Hiroshima topic is much like the American Civil War topic that comes up now and then. It is a discussion that ruffles feathers on all sides, changes no minds, decides nothing and ultimately goes nowhere
Takeda, you are wrong.
Do not judge looking at an issue solely on the minds of those that will not even really look at an issue.
For example on air bombardments it was good to see the holocaust denier Zeewolf popping his head in, I used to share similar views on Dresden as he still holds .....but when you further explore the issue and take in lots more information then you do realise that commonly held shallow views do lead to bollox conclusions.

[Castout]

http://www.patricksaviation.com/files/photos/full/20026_14691.jpg

:yep:

Is that DCS new flight sim? :DL

Look at the cockpit and scenery textures!!! Simply awesome.

[MothBalls]

Was The Bombing of Pearl Harbor Necessary?

[MH]

Was The Bombing of Pearl Harbor Necessary?

Best argument so far:haha:

[Raptor1]

Is that DCS new flight sim? :DL

Look at the cockpit and scenery textures!!! Simply awesome.

Meh, it's not that good... :O:

[NeonSamurai]

Was The Bombing of Pearl Harbor Necessary?

Military target vs civilian target. Also just because the enemy does something, it doesn't justify you doing it in return (or worse).

[Feuer Frei!]

@Feuer Frei
If I am schizo you must be a parrot.
I never called you schizo. Truman, I was referring to. Being quoted as saying one thing, at one time, then quoted as saying another. Hypocritical would have been apt as well, perhaps. With Truman.

The people that had to make the decision thought it necessary at the time and got paid the big bucks to make it happen. Agonize and cast ex post facto judgments about it all you like...
Yea, well, just because people get paid the Big Bucks doesn't mean we can't question their decisions, nor does it mean that they were necessarily right either.

[Subnuts]

Thank God August 6th is over in two hours, so we can go back to not thinking about Hiroshima for the other 364 days of the year.

[Randomizer]

I never called you schizo. Truman, I was referring to. Being quoted as saying one thing, at one time, then quoted as saying another. Hypocritical would have been apt as well, perhaps. With Truman.


Yea, well, just because people get paid the Big Bucks doesn't mean we can't question their decisions, nor does it mean that they were necessarily right either.
Apologies, my error.

Truman wasn't schizo however, just an ethical man forced by situations beyond his control to act in a way seen by some here as criminal. Richard Rhodes quotes him after Nagasaki as saying he "can't stand killing all those kids." when he ordered the third atomic mission cancelled and the 'pit' to remain at Los Alamos. Perhaps he feared if it was sent to Tinian the attack would happen anyway. Or not.

Until next year then...

[Takeda Shingen]

Your cat is adorable, Subnuts. :up:

[Feuer Frei!]

I've got a better idea.
How about i admit that the posting of this thread was a bad idea and we all start from square one again?
I'll make sure I don't ever post any WW2 matters, where either the US or Germany are involved, that way I can't be considered a European Circle Jerk, or people insinuating that i am a US hater or that i deliberately post these topics to stir up people's feelings.
A few of you have thrown one of those insinuations against me.
Most of you subtly, 1 person not so. Which i won't forget.
Once again, i am not a US hater, nor am i a PRO European, that thinks Europe rules over everything.
I understand it may be hard to analyze and to understand why a person posts a particular subject matter online, because you being online you can not gauge the poster's true motifs via face to face discussions beforehand, nor do you know the person in real life for a good, accepted amount of time to know what political, religious, or otherwise worldly beliefs he/she holds.
In closing, the nay-sayers about me couldn't be further from the mark, with what they have said about me.
And why do we fall continuously back on the "yea but it won't change people's minds" argument?
No-one is trying to change people's minds here, as i expressed earlier in this thread.
I think sometimes the 'rules of forums' go out the window, when a subject matter is posted on a forum and if it is to your liking, or you share interest in that topic, ie have valid opinions on that topic, you enter the thread and make some contributions, which can be gauged as mature and responsible.
Whereas in this thread, and the Dresden one, the rule, if you will, of people who don't give a flying rat's @&& or who think that the OP is just a hater of a country which he/she is posting about seems to be not upheld.
Shame that.
Let me ask the nay-sayers of me, a question:
How many times do I venture into a thread that I don't have any interest in and post pics in it which advertise my displeasure in a way which is almost certain to incite a strong dislike from the OP, especially if that poster insinuates things which are far-fetched and can be taken personal?
How many times have i entered a thread which i don't find interesting and insinuate personal judgment on the OP, which might i add is unfair?
I'll leave it at that. Make of this comment what you will.
I hope you read it with a open mind and a non-defensive attitude.

[Feuer Frei!]

Apologies, my error.
Not a problem :salute:

Until next year then...Not likely, see post # 77 :O:

[Sailor Steve]

You are gonna get Steve after you!!!!!:D
:yep:

@ Ducimus and Feuer Frei: I don't care who cares, but I care that you care so little for Neal that you once again choose to ignore his rules on language.

[breadcatcher101]

I've no problem with this post. Aug. 6th was the day. Other dates have meaning which we have brought up here to go over, so no big deal. If anyone doesn't like it they don't have to even open the thread if they prefer.

Til next time...

[Feuer Frei!]

:yep:

@ Ducimus and Feuer Frei: I don't care who cares, but I care that you care so little for Neal that you once again choose to ignore his rules on language.
I have PM'd Neal.

[Onkel Neal]

I do think it's still possible to discuss this in a level -headed manner. But as Takeda noted not many minds will be changed.



:yep: It always amazes me that people who were not alive 50 years after the fact get so emotionally charged they cannot discuss this without coming unglued.

It's history, people.

[Hottentot]

It's history, people.

Quoted, reprinted in big, bold, flaming gold letters, framed and nailed on the wall.

[Thomen]

I'll make sure I don't ever post any WW2 matters, where either the US or Germany are involved, that way I can't be considered a European Circle Jerk, or people insinuating that i am a US hater or that i deliberately post these topics to stir up people's feelings.

Some of the responses here reminded me why more often than not any kind of discussion about a historical topic is a pointless exercise.

Since we Europeans are 2nd class members (at least some here seem to think so), just make sure to show reverence and compassion for the US and its people on December 7th, September the 11th, July the 4th, June the 6th, July the 21st and whatever important date there may be. :03:

In regards to some of the posts:
IMHO, discussions like this are not there to change minds. Often they are being posted to gain access to new or more views and opinions from a lot of sources and very often knowledgeable people. Where else would one ask a question like that, but in an environment (Forum) where one is comfortable and know that there are a lot of people with some views and insight into the topic in question.

(Even Tribesman stayed on topic.. Props for that. At least I think he did.. :03:)

The same question was asked before, but really.. is that so bad that it came up again?
But guess what, next year it is bound to be posted again. One of the obvious reasons are new members who weren't here when it came down this time around. One solution would be that the mods could post a list with "Forbidden Topics" if this is so offensive and to avoid further occurrences.

:shifty:

[MH]

:yep: It always amazes me that people who were not alive 50 years after the fact get so emotionally charged they cannot discuss this without coming unglued.



It's history, people.

I think the problem is the article that was chosen and the context in it.

[Feuer Frei!]

Some of the responses here reminded me why more often than not any kind of discussion about a historical topic is a pointless exercise.

Since we Europeans are 2nd class members (at least some here seem to think so), just make sure to show reverence and compassion for the US and its people on December 7th, September the 11th, July the 4th, July the 6th, July the 21st and whatever important date there may be. :03:

In regards to some of the posts:
IMHO, discussions like this are not there to change minds. Often they are being posted to gain access to new or more views and opinions from a lot of sources and very often knowledgeable people. Where else would one ask a question like that, but in an environment (Forum) where one is comfortable and know that there are a lot of people with some views and insight into the topic in question.

(Even Tribesman stayed on topic.. Props for that. At least I think he did.. :03:)

The same question was asked before, but really.. is that so bad that it came up again?
But guess what, next year it is bound to be posted again. One of the obvious reasons are new members who weren't here when it came down this time around. One solution would be that the mods could post a list with "Forbidden Topics" if this is so offensive and to avoid further occurrences.

:shifty:
Indeed. All pretty good points to note for us Europeans.

I think the problem is the article that was chosen and the context in it.
The article 'chosen' was an article that i actually happened to stumble across whilst browsing said subject matter, due to driving in the car and listening to the national broadcast service.
I didn't hand-pick it to show members what 'we' as in the people that attempt to discuss ALL sides of history that we hate the US, and have a desire to stir up trouble on the forum.
Like i said before, that is not the goal of this thread.
And yes, the article doesn't agree fully with the pro US members here, so what? Does everything that is written about the US have to be agreed upon by US citizens?
Or any other country for that matter.
Heck, look at Germany. How many articles have been written about that country, it's involvement in WW2 and other global events. Do i agree with every single thing written about that country? Hell no.
Do i get my back up about things that have been written about that country? Hell yes.
But would that stop me from attempting to have a mature and respectful discussion, in the circumstances? Without resorting to personal attacks or spamming crap in the thread? Nope.
The article posted here, and i agree, poses some serious questions and it may be easy for the defenses to come up and people getting rather irate about the way it was written, and the content of the article.
It's all good and well people having opinions and not sharing the same beliefs as others. But when the attempt to discuss matters in a mature and open-minded way fall, then that becomes an issue.
On a side note, there have been, i admit attempts made to discuss this in a mature and sensible manner.

[Sailor Steve]

@ Feuer Frei: I don't get the attacks on you either. Other things aside, I never thought you were supporting the article or its author, and it looks to me like your questions were honest.

[em2nought]

Here we go again, descendants of evil axis powers trying to spin the USA as their diobolical equivalent. LMFAO Sorry we just wanted to bring a war to an end, didn't get caught up in exterminating entire races or peoples. Frankly, we should have done the same thing about ten years ago. :D

[Randomizer]

The biggest problem with the annual discussion of the Hiroshima bombing is that it is essentially sterile. There is no new scholarship on the attacks, no newly revealed documentation, no new balanced assessment of the options and no new perspectives. Rather just a rehash of the same tired mythologies, out of context quotes, hand wringing, exaggeration and 20/20 hindsight.

The article in the OP is chock full of anti-American cant and works overtime to place the attacks in the context of postwar alleged US military excesses and even throws out accusations of war crimes and mass murder. That, and placing an historical event into a contemporary ethical frame of reference. Hardly an objective foundation for rational and balanced discussion.

The atomic attacks are most certainly of historical importance but on the Internet the subject is flogged to death annually about this time. The same arguments on both sides showcasing the same evidence with vast amounts of acrimony and more than a little BS thrown in to make the desired case.

I would gladly sit down one on one to rationally and reasonably debate the subject; it is worthy of discussion but not on an Internet forum where comprehension is typically lacking, mindsets are fixed, hyperbole rules and Wikipedia is often held to represent the suppository of all knowledge.

[Highbury]

Why should the Americans feel guilty?

Sure it was the US Government/Military that ultimately made the call to use it, and the planes had a US crews and stars on the wings but the bombs inside had uranium from Canada and South America as well as the US. Plutonium for the Nagasaki bomb came in part from Canada as well. Besides the US based research teams, research also came from Chalk River Laboratories in Ontario, and Tube Alloys in the UK. In the labs in all these countries actually making the bombs there were people of practically every nationality in Europe.

Think whatever you want about the ethical argument, but making it out as a case of "mass murdering Americans" is just ridiculous. It is about time this thread died for the year, so maybe we can make the argument more civil in 2012, huh? :up:

[Feuer Frei!]

@ Feuer Frei: I don't get the attacks on you either. Other things aside, I never thought you were supporting the article or its author, and it looks to me like your questions were honest.
Thanks Steve, indeed it is true, i don't support the article. My aim was to post it and go from there. I think with this sort of topic though it will invariably stir up a Hornet's nest. Will keep that in mind in future.



I would gladly sit down one on one to rationally and reasonably debate the subject; it is worthy of discussion but not on an Internet forum where comprehension is typically lacking, mindsets are fixed, hyperbole rules
Agree there.

[Lord Justice]

I placed my lot in post 26 and keep to it. I am just glad I did not get bound up in such utterance. No disrespect to you Pete I just feel the question should not be put to us. We must remember that some are quite a patriotic lot and will defend any post to the last if it may mark or serve to place a stain on the use of such power, but you are due your right to say it. For me though the true right goes to the generation of that era, on both sides. :yep:

[Schöneboom]

Well put, LJ. I've stayed out of the debate myself, though I might be closer to the issue than many of the more active posters, i.e., both my parents were on opposite sides in WW2, simply by accident of birth. No one consulted my mother about Pearl Harbor, no one asked my father's opinion about Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

They weren't born to be enemies, they were along for the ride, like most people in every war. My parents were lucky, in a manner of speaking: my mother survived the fire-bombing of Tokyo, and my father survived being a POW of the Japanese (something he never spoke about).

In more recent years I've done considerable research on the Spanish Civil War, which for Spaniards is as touchy a subject as the American version is for some of us. In general, those who argue loudly for one side or another weren't there. Those who were there would rather not talk about it.

Among the conclusions I've reached thus far:

1) Every war is a descent into the abyss for all parties. St. Augustine made a good case for the Just War, but in actual practice even "good guys" take part in ghastly, inhuman deeds, then hope that their honorable motives and moral calculus (killing x no. of enemy resulted in x no. of lives saved, etc.) will help them sleep at night. It doesn't always work.

2) All wars could have been prevented or ended sooner, if only people had been wiser. But they weren't. Or more to the point, their leaders weren't. And how often do decent people rise up and overthrow their psychopathic leaders in wartime? If you manage to pull it off, then you can judge those who didn't.

3) The term "we", when used to refer to one side in a war, is over-identification with a government that really doesn't care about you at all, except insofar as you are useful to it. Commoners do not take part in the key decisions, though we might be forced to carry out those decisions; we (esp. the descendants of civilians) are not collectively culpable. But rarely are the ones most responsible ever called to account unless they're on the losing side.

As for the atomic bombings of Japan, I cannot view them as moral actions. Suppose you were to view all people as if they were members of your own family? Suppose you were to view every human life as uniquely precious and sacred? Then taking part in any war, by any means, for any reason, would be deeply traumatic. You might survive it, but you would be damaged, possibly for the rest of your life.

Were there other paths to victory without a-bombs? Of course, and those were also beyond the scope of morality:

1) Total blockade and continued conventional bombardment of Japan from air & sea, possibly for months; minimal Allied losses, but mass starvation, disease, and violent death for Japanese civilians.

2) Invasion of the home islands, as described in earlier posts. Also horrific results, but with higher Allied losses, to no obvious benefit.

In any event, the people who knew of the A-bomb at the time didn't take a poll -- they didn't ask the American people, not that their opinions would have mattered anyway. They certainly didn't ask us.