Was The Bombing of Hiroshima Necessary?

[Platapus]

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

[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]

Originally Posted by Hottentot

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]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

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!]

Originally Posted by Randomizer

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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!]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

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]

Originally Posted by Armistead

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]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

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.

@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]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

....

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

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

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]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

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?

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