Hiroshima & Nagasaki - On the 65th Anniversary of Nagasaki

[dre]

Its interesting to note that the first thing that happened once the war was over, was the rejection by most of the world that targeting civilians should be part of war, championed by the US and its western allies.

The rational you guys are using could be used by ANY SIDE in ANY WAR as an excuse for the wholesale slaughter of civilians.

"If we kill a lot of civilians really fast and scare the other side into surrendering then the war will end quickly and the total civilian deaths will be lower".

[bush_cheney2004]

Its interesting to note that the first thing that happened once the war was over, was the rejection by most of the world that targeting civilians should be part of war, championed by the US and its western allies.

Sure...just ask the PLO! LOL!

The rational you guys are using could be used by ANY SIDE in ANY WAR as an excuse for the wholesale slaughter of civilians.

So what? Civilians will be slaughtered as casualties of war....intentional or not.

Edited August 9, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[dre]

Sure...just ask the PLO! LOL!

So what? Civilians will be slaughtered as casualties of war....intentional or not.

Alright, have it your way. Lets go back to firebombing cities full of civilians to settle our disputes.

[DogOnPorch]

Seeing that there are still plans afoot to detonate large Hydrogen Bombs over every major city in result of WW3, I'd say most countries' militaries still view civilians as targets.

[ToadBrother]

Its interesting to note that the first thing that happened once the war was over, was the rejection by most of the world that targeting civilians should be part of war, championed by the US and its western allies.

The rational you guys are using could be used by ANY SIDE in ANY WAR as an excuse for the wholesale slaughter of civilians.

"If we kill a lot of civilians really fast and scare the other side into surrendering then the war will end quickly and the total civilian deaths will be lower".

You didn't answer my question, which makes me think you don't really have an answer.

I have detailed, I think, with reasonable accuracy the dilemma which Truman faced in the dying days of the war. There were a whole host of options, even really awful ones like bombing Japan back into the stone age, with the intent of crushing the Japanese absolutely, reviewed.

But this idea that somehow I approve of wholesale slaughter of civilians is unfair, and misses (deliberately, I suspect) the larger point. The larger point is this:

1. A conventional bombing campaign would most certainly have had a far larger number of civilian losses.

2. Stalin was breathing down the US's neck over Japan, and most certainly the Soviets would have been crossing the Sea of Japan in short order.

3. A land invasion would have had incredibly high body count on both sides, and wouldn't solve problem #2.

To answer your red herring, no I do not approve as a general rule of the large-scale bombing of civilians, but in war, as in most things, there are hard decisions to be made, and in my opinion, none of the alternatives available would have had the desired end result, which was a peaceful, productive, united Japanese nation. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the best of a bunch of very bad options. Of course, if Japan had not declared war on the US, none of this would likely have happened, so let's remember to spare a few tears not just for the American victims of Japanese aggression but for the victims throughout East and South Asia.

[jbg]

To answer your red herring, no I do not approve as a general rule of the large-scale bombing of civilians, but in war, as in most things, there are hard decisions to be made, and in my opinion, none of the alternatives available would have had the desired end result, which was a peaceful, productive, united Japanese nation. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the best of a bunch of very bad options. Of course, if Japan had not declared war on the US, none of this would likely have happened, so let's remember to spare a few tears not just for the American victims of Japanese aggression but for the victims throughout East and South Asia.

Another factor that I forgot to mention was that Truman was advised that the U.S. was on the verge of being shut out of credit markets as a result of war deficits. Great Britain and Canada likewise were broke.

The fiscal reality was that the war had to end, and right then.

[bush_cheney2004]

Point of order....Hiroshima and Nagasaki were victims of their own "success" in avoiding previous strategic bombing. The Americans wanted to get BDA for an unbombed city, and there were very few of those by August of 1945. Hell, Nagasaki was just unlucky because of bad weather over the primary target (Kokura).

Edited August 9, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

Those here with a sketchy understanding of the War in the Pacific would do well to watch certain episodes of 'World at War'. Heck...watch the whole thing and you'll know more about WW2 than 95% of the folks out there.

For example...

[DogOnPorch]

Point of order....Hiroshima and Nagasaki were victims of there own "success" in avoiding previous strategic bombing. The Americans wanted to get BDA for an unbombed city, and there were very few of those by August of 1945. Hell, Nagasaki was just unlucky because of bad weather over the primary target (Kokura).

Good point and one that's often forgotten.

[ToadBrother]

Point of order....Hiroshima and Nagasaki were victims of there own "success" in avoiding previous strategic bombing. The Americans wanted to get BDA for an unbombed city, and there were very few of those by August of 1945. Hell, Nagasaki was just unlucky because of bad weather over the primary target (Kokura).

Even luckier than that. There were advocates for bombing Kyoto.

[bush_cheney2004]

Those here with a sketchy understanding of the War in the Pacific would do well to watch certain episodes of 'World at War'. Heck...watch the whole thing and you'll know more about WW2 than 95% of the folks out there.

Damn right...there is no better television production available even to this day. I can still hear Sir Laurence's depressing narration.

[TimG]

Even luckier than that. There were advocates for bombing Kyoto.

The fact that Kyoto was considered and eliminated as a target illustrates how the ethical dimension of the decision was considered by the powers that be even if some disagree with their ethical view today. Edited August 9, 2010 by TimG

[DogOnPorch]

Damn right...there is no better television production available even to this day. I can still hear Sir Laurence's depressing narration.

He IS the voice of WW2! The show itself had all those common soldiers/sailors/airmen/nurses/POWs/Jews...etc...plus numerous big players who were still alive circa the mid-70s.

[ToadBrother]

The fact that Kyoto was considered and eliminated as a target illustrates how the ethical dimension of the decision was considered by the powers that be even if some disagree with their ethical view today.

To be honest with you, I can find no fault with the logic. The war had to stop, and it had to stop before the Soviets managed any kind of beach head on the main islands. There simply wasn't time, and in reality, there was no energy for extending the war until Japan's spirit could be broken by conventional means. There was certainly no quarter for the Germans either. Look at the destruction unleashed on Dresden and Berlin. But also look what happened even as the War in the Pacific went on, as the Soviet divisions sat themselves down, and their erstwhile Allies saw their worst fears coming to fruition. If Japan was to be saved, it had to be saved as a Western ally, post-war strategy absolutely depended on it.

[bush_cheney2004]

He IS the voice of WW2! The show itself had all those common soldiers/sailors/airmen/nurses/POWs/Jews...etc...plus numerous big players who were still alive circa the mid-70s.

Booyah! I spotted the entire series on VHS tape (unopened) in a bookstore clearance bin for $10. Nine tapes of pure hell in shrink-wrap. Even scarier on a big flat screen TV!

[DogOnPorch]

Booyah! I spotted the entire series on VHS tape (unopened) in a bookstore clearance bin for $10. Nine tapes of pure hell in shrink-wrap. Even scarier on a big flat screen TV!

Dang...I think I have a set on ol' VHS around here, too. Where else are you going to get a full hour of detailed information on the War in Burma? Or you name it... Sure isn't Canada's so-called History Channel. I understand yours is somewhat more serious than ours. Our HC shows crap like Da Vinci Code Conspiracy Theories and movies like Young Guns.

[bush_cheney2004]

Dang...I think I have a set on ol' VHS around here, too. Where else are you going to get a full hour of detailed information on the War in Burma? Or you name it... Sure isn't Canada's so-called History Channel. I understand yours is somewhat more serious than ours. Our HC shows crap like Da Vinci Code Conspiracy Theories and movies like Young Guns.

I like this definitive series specifically because it is not "Americanized" (like Victory at Sea). I recall it being a Thames (British) production and like you say, very, very comprehensive. My copy was licensed to Pearson Education / Home Box Office.

[DogOnPorch]

Yes...Thames...plus those hauntingly memorable opening credits with the burning faces all set the stage.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes...Thames...plus those hauntingly memorable opening credits with the burning faces all set the stage.

Yea...like the opening to Bonanza only far more sinister. Plus like you say, many of the prinicipals and primary sources were still alive for interviews...no fake voice-overs.

"The Bomb" dedicates an entire hour segment to the A-bomb and Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

[DogOnPorch]

That it does...

[TimG]

To be honest with you, I can find no fault with the logic.

Neither do I. But many others like to paint the US leaders as psychopaths who cared nothing for harms inflicted on the Japanese. I look at the conscious choice to exclude Kyoto because of its culture significance as evidence of a leadership who was honestly looking for the best way to end the war and set the stage for a lasting peace.

[jbg]

Neither do I. But many others like to paint the US leaders as psychopaths who cared nothing for harms inflicted on the Japanese.

Those are the same people who find nothing wrong with anything done by Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ahmejenejad/Khamemeni, Hamas, Castro or Chavez.

[Shwa]

No actually that's precisely what Japan didn't do and one of the reasons why it became so successful in the aftermath. Rather than wallowing in self-pity, the Japanese, and the Germans too, set about rebuilding their respective countries. That is of course in stark contrast to losing parties of some more recent wars...

Japanese War Crimes - Debate in Japan

As the consensus of Japanese jurists is that Japanese forces did not technically commit violations of international law, many right wing elements in Japan have taken this to mean that war crimes trials were examples of victor's justice. They see those convicted of war crimes as "Martyrs of Shōwa" (昭和殉難者, Shōwa Junnansha?), Shōwa being the name given to the rule of Hirohito. This interpretation is vigorously contested by Japanese peace groups and the political left. In the past, these groups have tended to argue that the trials hold some validity, either under the Geneva Convention (even though Japan hadn't signed it), or under an undefined concept of international law or consensus. Alternatively, they have argued that, although the trials may not have been technically valid, they were still just, somewhat in line with popular opinion in the West and in the rest of Asia.

My apologies. I was referring to the revisionism going on seemingly in conjunction with the "Modern apologetic commentary..." as per the OP.

[August1991]

You didn't answer my question, which makes me think you don't really have an answer.

I have detailed, I think, with reasonable accuracy the dilemma which Truman faced in the dying days of the war. There were a whole host of options, even really awful ones like bombing Japan back into the stone age, with the intent of crushing the Japanese absolutely, reviewed.

TB, you didn't consider that Truman was an inveterate card player. He loved poker. Truman understood the presidency unlike most men. He arrived in the Oval Office by chance.

When Truman approved dropping the bomb on Hiroshima, he knew that he was ending the war quickly and saving the lives of American soldiers. But why a second bomb on Nagasaki?

Truman knew that he was putting a strong card in the poker hands of all future US presidents: The US is not afraid to use this weapon of mass destruction. "We did it not once but twice. Make no mistake."

----

Harry Truman was a Democrat, and a true American. He spoke plainly.

Because of Truman, Obama is a better more effective president. Around the world, leaders know that the US president is not afraid to drop the Bomb because Truman did it - twice.

Edited August 10, 2010 by August1991

[DogOnPorch]

Elements of the IJN and IJA airforces fought on after the dropping of the second A-Bomb. Famous fighter pilot Saburo Sakai being one of them.