70th anniversary of atomic bombing of Hiroshima

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

Tokyo wasn't particularly suitable as a target; much of it was burned to the ground over-night several months before in a firebombing raid that killed more people than either atomic bomb.

I guess the direction of war is never a task for the squeamish and it's easy to pontificate 70 years later, when you're not caught up in the pressure of events. The U.S. had already participated in a massive bombing campaign which had killed about three-quarters of a million German and Japanese civilians, and to which public opinion had raised few objections. It is much easier to justify the the decision to drop the atomic bombs than the continued fire-raising offensive of the Twentieth Air Force in Japan. The preoccupation of debate with the necessity of using using the bombs had meant that it always gets judged strategically against the looming invasion of the Home Islands, rather than the actual air bombardment underway at the time and with which it was unavoidably linked in the minds of the policy-makers at the time.

Cold as it may seem, General Curtis LeMay regarded the Hiroshima and Nagasaki raids as merely an addition ( and a redundant and unwelcome addition) to a campaign he felt his B-29s had already decisively won. If anything he was annoyed that they diminished the credit given his conventional bombers for flattening Japan.

[Oberon]

I always find it...amusing is perhaps the word, that Le May would receive the Japanese Order of the Rising Sun after the war, perhaps for his services in city redesigning?

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I always find it...amusing is perhaps the word, that Le May would receive the Japanese Order of the Rising Sun after the war, perhaps for his services in city redesigning?

Yeah, that's kind of like enshrining General Tecumseh Sherman on Stone Mountain, Georgia for burning Atlanta.

[Aktungbby]

that I wouldn't be posting at if not for the bomb

Originally Posted by Catfish

From what you can read, there was no careful waging of how much japanese civilians would die by a blockade, versus numbers of an invasion and own GIs killed, versus dropping the bomb.
It is all about justification.

Quite the contrary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

Originally Posted by Wolferz

It wasn't until the Japanese were overtly informed that Tokyo would be next in line that they finally saw the light.

In Nipponese that's "Saw the Right" They can't say L...

[Oberon]

Of course, that's not forgetting the possibility that the Allied invasion force would have been scattered to the four winds by Typhoon Louise which smashed into Okinawa as a Cat. 3 (185kmh/115mph winds) around about the time that the invasion was due to begin. This in turn would have given extra support to the Japanese who would have seen it as a sign from the Shinto gods in the same manner that the Mongolian fleets were scattered by the 'Kami-kaze' at Koan and Bun'ei. Their resistance would have increased even more.

[Torplexed]

One of the great fears of the Joint Chiefs was that historically no Japanese government had ever surrendered or, even if one did, that Japan's armed forces would comply with that surrender. Had Downfall gone ahead, the emperor might at some point been spirited away for "his safety" possibly squelching the only spark of hope for any sort of organized capitulation. If there was no organized surrender, the Joint Chiefs warned in a policy paper that they foresaw "no alternative to annihilation" of the between four and five million Japanese combatants in the home islands, on the Asian continent, and across the Pacific.

So, you have naval blockade that might result in starvation and disease for the millions on Japan with maybe millions more dying in China, the Netherlands East Indies and other Japanese occupied areas as the protracted conflict drags on.

You have a costly invasion pending that could take months if not years, might even entail the tactical use of atomic weapons and would reduce what was left of Japan to cinders.

And then you have the dropping of the two atomic bombs, which along with the Soviet invasion of Manchuria just might shock someone in authority in Japan into surrender.

The atomic bombs were awful. The alternatives seem much worse.

[Commander Wallace]

Having read all the posts here , it's seems clear everyone is saying basically the same thing. War, especially in a nuclear context is an ugly thing and maybe that's a good thing.

Hopefully that ugliness will make war something to be avoided. We have more important things to consider such as environmental and climate issues anyhow. I think it will take the collective intelligence of all people in the world to work that one out.

[danasan]

I was born post WWII, but not that far after WWII. My parents had witnessed WWII. My father was officer in the Waffen SS and proud of that.

From what I've learned during all my years about history, when it comes to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the possibility of bombing Germany with nukes, Robert Oppenheimer comes to mind:

"We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita; Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." I suppose we all thought that, one way or another."

Let's just hope NEVER again.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Torplexed

It is much easier to justify the the decision to drop the atomic bombs

99 !


And yesterday, the West commemorated the Nagasaki bombing.

A plutonium bomb delivered from the skies, leaving 74.000 people dead in a fraction of a second - not counting wounded people, most of whom did not survive.



Hm... Well, fair enough !

Raising another matter now. According to the official version of the event - which I'll admit to be true for now -, what happened on June 10, 1944 in Oradour ?
Waffen SS destroyed a village and massacred its inhabitants to make an example out of it. Their goal ? People say it was to terrorize the population so that the resistance stops harassing german troops going northward on their way up to la Normandie. So, the SS is said to have acted that way at Oradour in order to put an end to the kleinkrieg, the resistance's war - that was indeed supposed to allow members of the resistance to avoid more difficulties and disasters, as well as to save many lives.



Ah ? And can you enlighten me on what basis it is any different, please ?
Both wanted to put an end to a war, didn't they ?

Look carefully, dig a bit deeper into the subject.
The final excuse will always be the same : "Allies were fighting for civilization, while Germans for their part were fighting for the bad side : the cause of criminal nazism".
I'll respond to that through some answer from Hjalmar Schacht. Acquitted at the end of the Nuremberg trials, during the hearing he said :

[...]
From the proceedings in this Court so far, I have not gained the impression that the opinion of the Prosecution concerning the criminal character of the Party program is a uniform one. I am unable to see in the Party program, as such, any sign of criminal intentions.

Federation of all Germans, which always plays a great role, is always claimed, only on the basis of the right for self-determination. A position for Germany in foreign politics is demanded as constituting equality of the German nation with the other nations; that this involved the abolition of the discriminations which were imposed upon the German people by the Versailles Treaty is quite clear.

Land and soil was demanded for the nutrition of our people, and the settlement of our excess population. I cannot see any crime in that, because after land and soil was expressly added, in brackets, the word "colonies." I have always considered that as a demand for colonies, which I myself supported a long time before National Socialism came into existence. Rather strange and, in my opinion, going somewhat beyond the limits, were the points concerning the exclusion of Jews from civil rights but, on the other hand, it was reassuring that the Jews were to be under the protection of the Aliens’ Law, that is, subject to the same laws which applied to foreigners in Germany. I would have wished, and always demanded, that this legal protection should under all circumstances be given to the Jews. Unfortunately, they were not given that protection. For the rest it was emphasized that all citizens should have equal rights and duties. Promotion of popular education was stressed as being beneficial, and also gymnastics and sports were demanded for the improvement of public health. The fight against deliberate political lies was demanded, which Goebbels afterwards conducted very energetically. And, above all, demand was made for the freedom of all religious denominations, and for the principle of positive Christianity.

That is, in essence, the content of the National Socialist Party program, and I cannot see anything criminal in it. It would, indeed, have been quite peculiar if, had this been a criminal Party program, the world had maintained continuous political and cultural contact with Germany for two decades, and with the National Socialists for one decade. [...]

Let's remind you that the british ambassador in Germany Sir Nevile Henderson, in his april 20th 1939 report, admitted :

Many of Herr Hitler's social reforms, in spite of their complete disregard for personal liberty of thought, word and deed, were on highly advanced democratic lines.
The 'Strength through Joy' movement, the care of the physical fitness of the nation, and above all, the organization of the labour camps, are typical examples of a benevolent dictatorship. [...] Much of its legislation in this respect will survive in a new and better world.

It is indeed interesting to take note that, in order to persuade the German People of the criminal nature of the national-socialist ideology, winners of this war showed them photos taken at the liberation of concentration camps, saying things like "Here lies what Nazism led to".
However, that propaganda was quickly refuted - on march, 11th 1946, Rudolf Höss, once inspector of concentration camps, basically said :

The catastrophic situation. at the end of the war was due to the fact that, as a result of the destruction of the railway network and of the continuous bombing of the industrial plants, care for these masses--I am thinking of Auschwitz with its 140,000 internees--could no longer be assured. Improvised measures, truck columns, and everything else tried by the commanders to improve the situation were of little or no avail ; it was no longer possible. The number of the sick became immense. There were next to no medical supplies; epidemics raged everywhere. Internees who were capable of work were used over and over again. By order of the Reichsfáhrer, even half-sick people had to be used wherever possible in industry. As a result every bit of space in the concentration camps which could possibly be used for lodging was overcrowded with sick and dying prisoners.

So, in fact, in order to demonstrate the allegedly criminal aspects of national-socialism, the Allies did nothing less than relying on a situation in Germany they were themselves largely responsible for - when it comes to cynicism, you can't do better than that.

As soon as 1948, Maurice Bardèche clearly posed the problem :

What proves to us that National-Socialism was not also the truth ? What proves to us that we did not take for its essence what were just contingencies, inevitable accidents of combat [...] And what if National-Socialism had actually been truth and progress or, at least, a form of truth and of progress ?

Today, however, converging repressive laws and significant social pressure prevent all free and open debate and discussion around this question. Disregarding laws and breaking the taboo about this subject actually can be a threat to anyone. And what if National-Socialism had actually been truth and progress or, at least, a form of truth and of progress ?..

Authorities don't want anyone to ask this question to himself, since only the negative response is allowed. But what lies ahead, behind that will to prevent open discussion related to the subject ?

The answer to that question especially can be found at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, among other places. Thousands of dead people in a fraction of a second, as well as horrendously mutilated people...

[Oberon]

Did he just defend Hitler?

August, I believe you have an Indiana Jones picture to post...

[Bilge_Rat]

interesting discussion.

I read in "Wages of Destruction", that by early 1942, both Speer and Friedrich Fromm (of Valkyrie fame, but at that time chief of Army Armament) had both been briefed by German scientists and well understood the potential of the atomic bomb, but both came to the conclusion that Germany could not afford to spend billions on a weapon that would take years to develop.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

interesting discussion.

I read in "Wages of Destruction", that by early 1942, both Speer and Friedrich Fromm (of Valkyrie fame, but at that time chief of Army Armament) had both been briefed by German scientists and well understood the potential of the atomic bomb, but both came to the conclusion that Germany could not afford to spend billions on a weapon that would take years to develop.

One documentary I saw once, when Discovery was still about documentaries, was that they found out after the war, that the Germans went about building the bomb completely wrong and would never had worked.


@Alex: you realise that the Nazi eguenics principle would not let you live ??
Jews, gypsies and Slavs were not the only ones on the list. Mental cases were also on the kill list.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Alex

Originally Posted by Oberon

Did he just defend Hitler?

August, I believe you have an Indiana Jones picture to post...

...but the firebombing campaign against Japan, directed by LeMay between March 1945 and the Japanese surrender in August 1945, may have killed more than 500,000 Japanese civilians and left five million homeless. Official estimates from theUnited States Strategic Bombing Survey put the figures at 220,000 people killed. Some 40% of the built-up areas of 66 cities were destroyed, including much of Japan's war industry. The remaining Alliedprisoners of war in Japan who had survived imprisonment to that time were frequently subjected to additional reprisals and torture after an air raid. The massive bombing also hit a number of prisons and directly killed a number of Allied war prisoners LeMay was aware of the implication of his orders. The New York Times reported at the time, "Maj. Gen. Curtis E. LeMay, commander of the B-29s of the entire Marianas area, declared that if the war is shortened by a single day, the attack will have served its purpose."The argument was that it was his duty to carry out the attacks in order to end the war as quickly as possible, sparing further loss of life. He also remarked that had the U.S. lost the war, he fully expected to be tried for war crimes.. [wiki]
A "LeMay Bombing Leaflet" from the war, which warned Japanese civilians that "Unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives." after the war Lemay received the Order of the Rising Sun Grand Cordon...go figure! "PoRitics as usuar" including what really happened to aircrews imprisoned at Hiroshima and Nagasski...http://www.us-japandialogueonpows.org/HoroshimaPOW.htm

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

interesting discussion.

I read in "Wages of Destruction", that by early 1942, both Speer and Friedrich Fromm (of Valkyrie fame, but at that time chief of Army Armament) had both been briefed by German scientists and well understood the potential of the atomic bomb, but both came to the conclusion that Germany could not afford to spend billions on a weapon that would take years to develop.

Originally Posted by Betonov

One documentary I saw once, when Discovery was still about documentaries, was that they found out after the war, that the Germans went about building the bomb completely wrong and would never had worked.

Fortunately time ran out on the Nazi Nuke but something sure happened at Rügen in the Baltic... http://english.pravda.ru/history/10-05-2011/117849-atomic_bomb-0/ http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/the-third-reich-how-close-was-hitler-to-the-a-bomb-a-346293.html Better 'us badguys' than 'Them badguys'

[Oberon]

Careful we don't stray into Wolfenstein territory here, especially if we start talking about 'Die Glocke'

In regards to the Nazi bomb, IIRC their first major project was to build a reactor, like the Allies 'Tube Alloys' and 'Manhatten' but IIRC the reactor, if indeed it was ever built, suffered a problem and was shut down.
What didn't help was that whenever the Allies got wind of anything that could be used in the making of a nuclear bomb or reactor by Germany they sent a load of Lancasters or B-17s over to bomb it into the dirt.
That being said, I wouldn't have been surprised if they were close to creating at the very least a dirty bomb.