Hiroshima & Nagasaki - On the 65th Anniversary of Nagasaki

[BubberMiley]

You can read all about this at my new B-29 Museum in Nagasaki!

You have your own museum? The accomplishments of guys who never leave this website are endless!

[bloodyminded]

Wait for what? A couple million people to starve to death or rot away from lack of food and medicine? Or to rebuild their bombed out factories and renew the bloodshed? Or would you keep bombing them with conventional weapons until a couple million were dead and millions more living in rubble. Try rebuilding from that. Actually, trying invading that, then rebuilding.

The problem is that the Japanese used the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to mourn themselves and take on the role of victim. The people who suffered in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were victims, for sure, but the rest of Japan wasn't.

Finally, people can stop whining about 9/11, then.

[naomiglover]

I explained to her what I had been taught in school: that the reason for the bombing was to end the war quickly and thus save lives, both Japanese and American. Her response was outrage.

She looked at me and asked, “How can there be a reason to kill thousands and thousands of people, men, women, and children, in an instant?” I didn’t know how to answer that.

We may have our reasons to kill an individual, or even a group of individuals, whom we perceive to be a threat to ourselves. But were the people in Hiroshima a threat to the United States at that time? The Japanese Air Force had been destroyed, and there was already talk of surrender. And then another nuclear bomb was dropped three days later on Nagasaki. How could the Japanese government have had time to surrender in three days?

NYT

[bush_cheney2004]

How could the Japanese government have had time to surrender in three days? [/b]

Like this....using the same Western Union service that declared war on America after the fact....."Japan accepts terms for unconditional surrender proposed many weeks ago."

[DogOnPorch]

I explained to her what I had been taught in school: that the reason for the bombing was to end the war quickly and thus save lives, both Japanese and American. Her response was outrage.

She looked at me and asked, “How can there be a reason to kill thousands and thousands of people, men, women, and children, in an instant?” I didn’t know how to answer that.

We may have our reasons to kill an individual, or even a group of individuals, whom we perceive to be a threat to ourselves. But were the people in Hiroshima a threat to the United States at that time? The Japanese Air Force had been destroyed, and there was already talk of surrender. And then another nuclear bomb was dropped three days later on Nagasaki. How could the Japanese government have had time to surrender in three days?

NYT

I'm sure you would have been the first out of the landing craft during Operation Olympic/Coronet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

BTW: 7 Fat Man type plutonium bombs were in the works for tactical use during the Invasion of Japan.

[DogOnPorch]

Like this....using the same Western Union service that declared war on America after the fact....."Japan accepts terms for unconditional surrender proposed many weeks ago."

Keep in mind, naiomi is not only the resident expert on the Israelis, but she's also the last word re: the events of WW2.

[ToadBrother]

I explained to her what I had been taught in school: that the reason for the bombing was to end the war quickly and thus save lives, both Japanese and American. Her response was outrage.

She looked at me and asked, “How can there be a reason to kill thousands and thousands of people, men, women, and children, in an instant?” I didn’t know how to answer that.

We may have our reasons to kill an individual, or even a group of individuals, whom we perceive to be a threat to ourselves. But were the people in Hiroshima a threat to the United States at that time? The Japanese Air Force had been destroyed, and there was already talk of surrender. And then another nuclear bomb was dropped three days later on Nagasaki. How could the Japanese government have had time to surrender in three days?

NYT

It is almost certain that a land-based invasion and/or a massive air campaign would have lead to far more casualties. What's more, if the US hadn't beaten and occupied Japan, the Soviets would have.

I know you're knowledge of history and geopolitics is about on the same level as a slime mold, but imagine being a Japanese kid in say, 1960. Which would you have preferred, the Japanese state bequeathed to the Japanese people by the Americans, or the Peoples Republic of Japan, or even better the, Japanese SSR.

Here's a tip for, Naomi. Go look up Port Arthur. The Russkis had a mighty big chip on their shoulder.

Edited August 10, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Bonam]

I explained to her what I had been taught in school: that the reason for the bombing was to end the war quickly and thus save lives, both Japanese and American. Her response was outrage.

She looked at me and asked, “How can there be a reason to kill thousands and thousands of people, men, women, and children, in an instant?” I didn’t know how to answer that.

We may have our reasons to kill an individual, or even a group of individuals, whom we perceive to be a threat to ourselves. But were the people in Hiroshima a threat to the United States at that time? The Japanese Air Force had been destroyed, and there was already talk of surrender. And then another nuclear bomb was dropped three days later on Nagasaki. How could the Japanese government have had time to surrender in three days?

NYT

It is relieving to see your non-understanding of military matters and blind emotionalism extends to other conflicts besides your pet issue.

[naomiglover]

I still have not been able to form a personal conclusion on these incidents. Part of me understands that there seemed to be no other solution to end the bloodshed, but the other part cannot accept it as justification for vapourizing hundreds of thousand of people.

[PIK]

I tend to go with three explanations.

1. As the invasion of Okinawa demonstrated, even when all reasonable hope of military success, the Japanese soldiers, and even civilians fought hard. To the Allied planners this was a clear signal that an invasion of the Japanese main islands would be an enormously bloody affair.

2. Stalin was pushing hard to gain the same sort of Russian involvement in post-war Japan that it had gained in East and Central Europe. The other Allies felt it absolutely necessary to end the War in the Pacific before the Russians could make good on their declaration of war of Japan.

3. This is intertwined with point 2, but even before Victory in Europe, the Brits and Americans knew that some sort of major conflict with the USSR was inevitable once the Axis had been dealt with. As harsh as it sounds, Hiroshima and Nagasaki sent a clear message to the Soviets that any attempt on their part to utilize the stunningly massive number of Soviet troops in Europe would be met with terrifying force. Maybe it's overstated, but in my opinion the bombing of those two cities prevented WWIII.

In the balance of things, there were in fact worse options than the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes, lots of civilians died, but it's almost certain that an invasion of the main islands would have lead to far higher casualties. What's more, preventing the USSR from seizing more of Japan than it already ultimately did (the Kuril Islands for instance) ultimately delivered a united Japan which became a staunch Western ally. One can envision the terrors of the heavily industrialized Japan split down the middle like the Koreas.

Well said.

[ToadBrother]

I still have not been able to form a personal conclusion on these incidents. Part of me understands that there seemed to be no other solution to end the bloodshed, but the other part cannot accept it as justification for vapourizing hundreds of thousand of people.

First of all, hundreds of thousands weren't vaporized (most people died from burns, with the radiation leaving a longer-term mortality rate). The first step to a proper historical analysis is accuracy. Immediate casualties for both cities was around 200,000

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml

Yes it was horrifying, but imagine a conventional bombing campaign. Imagine a ground based invasion (particularly in light of the treatment the US got when taking Okinawa). As bad as the bombs were, they were most certainly far less destructive than a conventional invasion would have been. One person around here thinks that the islands should have been blockaded, and one can imagine how many people would have died in such a scenario.

The Japanese left the Allies, and in particular the US few choices. The Potsdam agreement had made clear what the Imperial government had to do if it wanted to be spared; unconditional surrender. The Japanese government thought it could negotiate its way out of the situation, minimize the extent that the Allies would be in charge. And believe me, they were better off being beaten, even with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, by the Americans than by the Soviets.

War is full of horrible choices. If I had the choice between killing a couple of hundred thousand people in the space of a few days, or killing a million, and tens of thousands of my own soldiers, over the space of months, not to mention ending up with a dangerous ally who was already clearly going to become an enemy seizing a big chunk of that territory, I would have ordered the bombs dropped to. It's not a question of morals, it's a question of the harsh and horrific calculus of war. As Isaac Asimove once said, "Never let your sense of morality prevent you from doing what's right", and I think this is as clear a demonstration of that principle as there ever was. What was very clear to everyone was that to leave the Imperial government largely intact would only invite more expansionist think, the bombs and the occupation transformed Japan from a militaristic industrialized expansionist state into a peaceful industrialized state and one of the key allies of the West during the Cold War. As awful as it was, those bombs ended up being the bedrock of probably the most successful bit of nation building in all of recorded history.

Edited August 10, 2010 by ToadBrother

[bush_cheney2004]

....War is full of horrible choices. If I had the choice between killing a couple of hundred thousand people in the space of a few days, or killing a million, and tens of thousands of my own soldiers....

Let's be very clear about this....US popular opinion (after the fact of course) was to spare the life of even one more GI at the cost of thousands of Japanese if necessary, so deep was the hatred and animosity towards Japan. I don't think this was a major determinant in the decision, but it was part of the political calculation. To this day, the popular phrase "Nuke 'em" remains....I heard a project manager (from Winnipeg) use this term in a business setting. LOL!

[Peter F]

ysee, Naomi, the killing of hundreds of thousands is easily justified and praised as a good thing.

[dre]

First of all, hundreds of thousands weren't vaporized (most people died from burns, with the radiation leaving a longer-term mortality rate). The first step to a proper historical analysis is accuracy. Immediate casualties for both cities was around 200,000

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml

Yes it was horrifying, but imagine a conventional bombing campaign. Imagine a ground based invasion (particularly in light of the treatment the US got when taking Okinawa). As bad as the bombs were, they were most certainly far less destructive than a conventional invasion would have been. One person around here thinks that the islands should have been blockaded, and one can imagine how many people would have died in such a scenario.

The Japanese left the Allies, and in particular the US few choices. The Potsdam agreement had made clear what the Imperial government had to do if it wanted to be spared; unconditional surrender. The Japanese government thought it could negotiate its way out of the situation, minimize the extent that the Allies would be in charge. And believe me, they were better off being beaten, even with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, by the Americans than by the Soviets.

War is full of horrible choices. If I had the choice between killing a couple of hundred thousand people in the space of a few days, or killing a million, and tens of thousands of my own soldiers, over the space of months, not to mention ending up with a dangerous ally who was already clearly going to become an enemy seizing a big chunk of that territory, I would have ordered the bombs dropped to. It's not a question of morals, it's a question of the harsh and horrific calculus of war. As Isaac Asimove once said, "Never let your sense of morality prevent you from doing what's right", and I think this is as clear a demonstration of that principle as there ever was. What was very clear to everyone was that to leave the Imperial government largely intact would only invite more expansionist think, the bombs and the occupation transformed Japan from a militaristic industrialized expansionist state into a peaceful industrialized state and one of the key allies of the West during the Cold War. As awful as it was, those bombs ended up being the bedrock of probably the most successful bit of nation building in all of recorded history.

I dont think any of these justifications mean jack shit.

You could make an argument from utility to attack civilians in every war, and claim that since vaporizing an entire city will make the enemy surrender faster, less of their people and yours will die.

And our enemies could make the same argument from utility to slaughter OUR civilians as well.

Your trying to make post hoc excuses and rationalizations for a dispicable act of evil, an atrocity, and crime against humanity. This entire line of reason is nothing less than evil - the cheapest lipstick available, on one of the ugliest pigs in history, and its been rejected by almost the entire world.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Your trying to make post hoc excuses and rationalizations for a dispicable act of evil, an atrocity, and crime against humanity. This entire line of reason is nothing less than evil - the cheapest lipstick available, on one of the ugliest pigs in history, and its been rejected by almost the entire world.

...still waiting for that Canadian "naval blockade" to starve the perps to death.

[ToadBrother]

I dont think any of these justifications mean jack shit.

You could make an argument from utility to attack civilians in every war, and claim that since vaporizing an entire city will make the enemy surrender faster, less of their people and yours will die.

And our enemies could make the same argument from utility to slaughter OUR civilians as well.

Your trying to make post hoc excuses and rationalizations for a dispicable act of evil, an atrocity, and crime against humanity. This entire line of reason is nothing less than evil - the cheapest lipstick available, on one of the ugliest pigs in history, and its been rejected by almost the entire world.

Blah blah blah.

Most of what I wrote wasn't post hoc at all. It was part of the debate. There was at least a few people in the War Cabinet who thought the Japanese were an incurably hostile race who should be wiped out. As it was, it was either win the war fast or have Japan, or some substantial part of it, end up in the Soviet sphere.

And as I recall, my historically naive friend, the Allies weren't the ones who picked the damn fight, the Japs were. The Japs were the ones rolling into Manchuria and China in the 1930s, making puppet states, committing every manner of atrocity even as they sang the song of Asia for the Asians. They were the ones that attacked the British Empire, attacked the United States. They were given an ultimatum at Potsdam, surrender unconditionally or else. Even after Hiroshima the Emperor dithered, he and his government still vainly believing they could negotiate a deal. The blood of those people is on men like Hirohito and Tojo, and they're bloody lucky that it ended with the two atomic attacks, because every other possibility would have lead to millions of casualties and the very likely balkanization of Japan (and we all know how well countries like East Germany and Hungary fared under their kindly Soviet masters).

I'm telling it like it was. If you seriously think that any of your idiotic solutions, whose end results would have been vastly more casualties, were morally superior, then you are beyond contempt, sir.

[TimG]

You could make an argument from utility to attack civilians in every war, and claim that since vaporizing an entire city will make the enemy surrender faster, less of their people and yours will die.

Whatever brings the war to an end quickly and sets the stage for a lasting peace is the most moral choice. For decades, war between major powers has been avoid because of the promise to vapourize civilians in the event of an attack.

[DogOnPorch]

As mentioned a few times, Japan was already under a severe blockade starting 'round about June 1942.

[ToadBrother]

ysee, Naomi, the killing of hundreds of thousands is easily justified and praised as a good thing.

How dishonest of you. I never said it was good, it was just the best of a horrible set of choices. Why would the United States (who by now was pretty much conducting the War in the Pacific by itself) sacrifice tens or hundreds of thousands of soldiers? If there was a fast way to force Japan's capitulation, even if the casualties had been twice what they ended up being, it was better than any alternative, as much, if not more so for the Japanese than for the United States.

If I were Truman, and once it became clear that Japan wasn't going to unconditionally surrender, and I knew ol' Uncle Joe was getting ready for his own push, I would have, without hesitation, ordered the atomic attacks. I wouldn't have been glad, I wouldn't have been proud, but I would have known that I was doing was the best with a bad sack of apples as I could manage.

I haven't exactly seen you Yankee-bashers come up with a single solution that it any way would have recognized the realities of the situation. You're all worse than arm chair generals, your ignoramuses judging hard choices by some bizarre inflexible code of conduct designed more for your own sanctimonious self-gratification than as a rational exploration of the situation in the summer of 1945.

Edited August 10, 2010 by ToadBrother

[DogOnPorch]

100% agreement with ToadBrother's fine assessment of the situation.

[ToadBrother]

100% agreement with ToadBrother's fine assessment of the situation.

And with your reminding us that a naval blockade hadn't exactly prevented the Japs for continuing to prosecute the war, continuing to pump troops into Asia. A full blockade would have been outrageously difficult, potentially impossible, and if you managed it, how many millions would have died. This is supposed to be the moral choice?

[dre]

Blah blah blah.

Most of what I wrote wasn't post hoc at all. It was part of the debate. There was at least a few people in the War Cabinet who thought the Japanese were an incurably hostile race who should be wiped out. As it was, it was either win the war fast or have Japan, or some substantial part of it, end up in the Soviet sphere.

And as I recall, my historically naive friend, the Allies weren't the ones who picked the damn fight, the Japs were. The Japs were the ones rolling into Manchuria and China in the 1930s, making puppet states, committing every manner of atrocity even as they sang the song of Asia for the Asians. They were the ones that attacked the British Empire, attacked the United States. They were given an ultimatum at Potsdam, surrender unconditionally or else. Even after Hiroshima the Emperor dithered, he and his government still vainly believing they could negotiate a deal. The blood of those people is on men like Hirohito and Tojo, and they're bloody lucky that it ended with the two atomic attacks, because every other possibility would have lead to millions of casualties and the very likely balkanization of Japan (and we all know how well countries like East Germany and Hungary fared under their kindly Soviet masters).

I'm telling it like it was. If you seriously think that any of your idiotic solutions, whose end results would have been vastly more casualties, were morally superior, then you are beyond contempt, sir.

I'm telling it like it was. If you seriously think that any of your idiotic solutions, whose end results would have been vastly more casualties, were morally superior, then you are beyond contempt, sir.

Youre making assumptions about what other options were available. Nothing more.

And as I recall, my historically naive friend

History is written by the winners, and all your doing is parroting well rehearsed post hoc excuses, and propoganda made to excuse one of the most abhorant acts in human history.

If you seriously think that any of your idiotic solutions, whose end results would have been vastly more casualties, were morally superior, then you are beyond contempt, sir.

No its YOU thats beyond contempt. Youre an ADVOCATE of targeting civilians during war, and Im an OPPONENT. Youre willing to play god with other peoples lives based on predictions and assumptions. Youre nothing but a lapdog sycophant thats swallowed your own sides propoganda.

Edited August 10, 2010 by dre

[DogOnPorch]

And with your reminding us that a naval blockade hadn't exactly prevented the Japs for continuing to prosecute the war, continuing to pump troops into Asia. A full blockade would have been outrageously difficult, potentially impossible, and if you managed it, how many millions would have died. This is supposed to be the moral choice?

The US sub fleet eventually tore the bottom right out of the Japanese merchant fleet which often went without escort and out of convoy. It was thought punishment in the IJN to be a destroyer, (etc) on convoy duty. Shipments of oil from Borneo and such were essential to the Japanese offensive as they only had 6 months in reserve as of Dec 7th, 1941. Such was the strange way the Japanese conducted the war. But they had gambled on a short sharp war where they got to keep their massive gains. Then Midway happened and all bets were now off re: victory.

[DogOnPorch]

dre: History is written by the winners, and all your doing is parroting well rehearsed post hoc excuses, and propoganda made to excuse one of the most abhorant acts in human history.

There are many fine histories of the War from the Japanese viewpoint.

[dre]

And with your reminding us that a naval blockade hadn't exactly prevented the Japs for continuing to prosecute the war, continuing to pump troops into Asia. A full blockade would have been outrageously difficult, potentially impossible, and if you managed it, how many millions would have died. This is supposed to be the moral choice?

If targetting civilians is the moral way to fight wars then lets nix all the treaties weve signed since WW2. And remember all your assumptions, and post hoc rationalization when an ENEMY using those same rationalizations chooses YOUR city to make an example of. You can applaud their moral superiority the last moment before youre vaporized.