Happy 70th Anniversary of Hiroshima Massacre

[Big Guy]

On Thursday August 6, it will be 70 years since the USA dropped an atomic bomb on an unsuspecting civilian population in Hiroshima. With a second massacre of Nagasaki a few days later, the final death toll was about one quarter of a million innocent Japanese civilians were dead.

The USA had started the nuclear age and released the radioactive genie.

There have been thousands of books written on the reasons for this massacre trying to explain, rationalize, excuse and minimize this outrage on humanity.

My personal feeling is that this was the most stunning example of the rationalization of "the end justifies the means".

This action and theory has led to "defensive invasions", "anticipatory massacres", "murdering to save lives" and "acceptable collateral damage" - leading to the American invasion of Iraq, the Holocaust, Canadian war in Afghanistan and Israeli "excursions" into Gaza.

On November 11th each year we remind each other "Lest We Forget".

We already forgot!

Happy 70th Anniversary.

[jbg]

On Thursday August 6, it will be 70 years since the USA dropped an atomic bomb on an unsuspecting civilian population in Hiroshima. With a second massacre of Nagasaki a few days later, the final death toll was about one quarter of a million innocent Japanese civilians were dead.

************

There have been thousands of books written on the reasons for this massacre trying to explain, rationalize, excuse and minimize this outrage on humanity.

I have strong views on the subject of not prosecuting wars to the finish. This especially includes Hiroshima where the 250,000 casualties was far lower than the likely death toll of an amphibious invasion or the ultimate cost of a negotiated surrender to Japan as Obama just accomplished with Iran.

The civilized world has always tried to limit the bloodshed of war initially. During the Civil War, Union forces took no steps to occupy Virginia or North Carolina prior to their long-delayed secession from the Union. During World War II, much time was spent in both the European and Atlantic theatres on peripheral engagements with enemy troops, some at great cost of Allied life. In the Pacific theatre of WW II, how many Americans died at Guadalcanal, Midway, and Iwo Jima that could have been saved had the atom bomb been available for use earlier?

Both the Civil War and WW II ended when the victors became serious about fighting. General Sherman's "March to the Sea", which devastated large swaths of Georgia, convinced the remaining Confederates that their cause was hopelss. The Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, in my view, for the first time convinced the German and Japanese people, respectively, that their "leadership" was taking them one place; to the grave.

For war to end, the ultimate victors must prosecute it to the maximum extent possible. I am not advocating attacking supermarkets and skyscrapers deliberately. Those kinds of attacks accomplish little. If fanatics seek war, they should be given what they ask for. In spades. Attempts to daintily avoid civilian casualties and negotiate prematurely lead only to prolonged and greater grief.

WW I was ended with an armistice. The result was the lack of a clear winner. Thus, the rapid resumption of rearmament and warfare. Lots of death, little accomplished. World not "safe for democracy."

Japan i now a strong ally of the U.S. We did not fight that war with hands tied behind our back. Nor should we have.

Edited August 5, 2015 by jbg

[Big Guy]

Sorry TimG - You speak in enigmatic examples. Please expand. Thank you for your attempt at adding your expertise to the OP rather than insulting the messenger. I always enjoy thoughtful responses.

[bush_cheney2004]

The U.S. did not develop nuclear weapons alone...Canada and the United Kingdom also had significant roles, without which the atom bomb would not have been possible in 1945.

[Big Guy]

To jbg - Thank you for a thoughtful contribution.

I suggest that your theory is based on the "likely" result of an alternative. My problem with "likely" is that is a very subjective term that aggressive nations use to rationalize aggression.

It was LIKELY that if we did not go into Vietnam that the communists would take over the world. Sop w...

It was "likely" that Saddam has chemical weapons. If we did not take out Saddam then it is LIKELY that ....

If we do not attack ISIS then it is LIKELY that ...

If the twin towers were not knocked down by Bin Laden then it is LIKELY that ...

Also - I certainly do not agree that attempts to daintily avoid civilian casualties and negotiate prematurely lead only to prolonged and greater grief. I suggest that philosophy could have been used by Bin Laden in rationalizing sending his suicide bombers into New York.

Once you believe that the end justifies the means then you lose all sense or proportionality or restraint.

[bush_cheney2004]

During WW2, more civilians were "massacred" with conventional bombs than with nuclear weapons.

I guess that was OK....God Save the Queen.

[Shady]

I personally don't see a problem with it. Japan started the war, and were given a chance to surrender. But they refused. Twice. Actions have consequences.

[TimG]

Sorry TimG - You speak in enigmatic examples. Please expand. Thank you for your attempt at adding your expertise to the OP rather than insulting the messenger. I always enjoy thoughtful responses.

Well, your post does not exactly set the tone for a constructive debate about the choices facing the US at the time.

First, the fact is a war was going on and the US wanted complete victory. It did not want some half baked, face saving compromise that simply set the stage for the next war. Given this context the only options were a multi-year effort to invade Japan or try the bomb and see what happens. We can debate about how many US soldiers would have died in such an invasion but since you are concerned about Japanese civilians you need to ask what would have happened to them if the war dragged on for a couple more years with the US blockade. Mass starvation would have been the likely consequence and it would have killed more people across Japan than died in the two bombs.

Second, the US would not have invaded the alone and would have sought Russian help which would have left Japan split in two like Germany and Korea. How many innocent civilians would have been killed as a result of the subsequent imposition of communism on northern Japan?

Lastly, when the major powers got nukes it would be only a matter of time before they would be used. It may not have been Japanese cities or a US bomb but some city some where was destined to be turned in a pile of radioactive ash. The example of Hiroshima/Nagasaki is what ensured the major powers understood the consequences of nuclear weapons for the duration of the cold war.

The bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki was a tragedy but in the long term fewer people died as a result of those bombs than would have under any plausible alternate scenario. That makes the bombing the most humane way to end the war and bring the peace that has greatly benefited the people of Japan.

Edited August 5, 2015 by TimG

[overthere]

I am waiting to celebrate the Invasion of Japan anniversary, which marks the beginning of millions of civilian and military deaths as the Japanese fought the Allies for every inch of soil.

Remind me what day that happens.....

[Big Guy]

Fewer people died as to the scenario which you propose.

The end result was that the war against Japan ended. I guess it was just a coincidence that it was mostly Japanese civilians of the 250,000 who were killed and very few allied troops. So therefore by killing a quarter million of those civilians we saved a lot more. Maybe if we killed 500,000 then we would have saved even more. That is the kind of logic that winners of wars use to excuse their savage victories. You have fallen for that Koolaid so I guess it satisfies your reasoning for killing a quarter of a million civilians.

You further reason that you know what would have happened if those bombs had not been dropped. I salute your vision into the future. You still think Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and Libya is far better off now than under Gaddafi?

The victors write the short term history of a war. History rewrites that history through the prism of revelations and facts. After 70 years the action in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is being viewed far more critically and it would be interesting to see what the attitude will be 50 years from now.

The Battle of Little Big Horn was a courageous battle to the death of the good General Custer over the evil and savage Indians. To-day, it is a pay back to an egotistical and arrogant army man who was inept and treated the Indians so badly that they rebelled. I wonder what it will be in another 50 years.

Well "defensive offensives" are OK. Iran will probably eventually get the bomb so why don't we drop a few nuclear devices to save them from more casualties in the eventual war. Putin is a danger to our democracies and probably would nuke us if he had a chance - unless of course we nuke him first and wipe them out. Think of the Russian lives that we would save that would be lost in a conventional war.

And the Palestinians in the Middle East have sworn to wipe out Israel so the Israelis should steal all their land and push them all into the sea - Oh - you say they are already doing that? Well, the end justifies the means and we have God on our side.

[WWWTT]

I have strong views on the subject of not prosecuting wars to the finish. This especially includes Hiroshima where the 250,000 casualties was far lower than the likely death toll of an amphibious invasion or the ultimate cost of a negotiated surrender to Japan as Obama just accomplished with Iran.

False! But also true.

Japan was already in talks with a surrender.

But it was also with then Soviet Union and may have looked like the Soviets would occupy some Japanese islands.

This was unacceptable to the Americans, not the Soviets, Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese French etc etc etc Most of all the Japanese!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

I am waiting to celebrate the Invasion of Japan anniversary, which marks the beginning of millions of civilian and military deaths as the Japanese fought the Allies for every inch of soil.

Remind me what day that happens.....

That day happened when you believed the US side of the what they wanted.

Unconditional surrender to the US only.

I even heard that, theoretically, the Japanese and Soviets were still at war until the Soviet Union dissolved. And may even still be at war with Russia!

Some authors believe that the success of the Soviets in Manchuria and the inability of the Japanese army to resist them, had more of an impact on the Japanese military than the two American atomic bombs. One factor that we are not yet sure about is why Japanese resistance in Manchuria collapsed so quickly and why the Japanese military commanders were willing to surrender to the Soviets, but unwilling to surrender to the Americans in Okinawa or the Philippines.

From here

http://histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/cou/jap/sov/w2j-sdw.html

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

This is a newbie thread for the 70th anniversary....better stuff was posted here at MLW for the 65th anniversary:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/16901-hiroshima-nagasaki-on-the-65th-anniversary-of-nagasaki/

Then as now, the U.S. had/has the means and will to use nuclear weapons after considering all options.

Edited August 5, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

This action and theory has led to "defensive invasions", "anticipatory massacres", "murdering to save lives" and "acceptable collateral damage" - leading to the American invasion of Iraq, the Holocaust, Canadian war in Afghanistan and Israeli "excursions" into Gaza.

This action led to the Holocaust? Huh? You're aware that the Holocaust was complete before the atomic bombs were dropped, right?

[bush_cheney2004]

This action led to the Holocaust? Huh? You're aware that the Holocaust was complete before the atomic bombs were dropped, right?

Yeah, but don't stop him now...he's on a roll.

[TimG]

The end result was that the war against Japan ended. I guess it was just a coincidence that it was mostly Japanese civilians of the 250,000 who were killed and very few allied troops.

Why is this a problem? It was a war.

Maybe if we killed 500,000 then we would have saved even more.

What an absurd statement. The number of deaths was the minimum necessary to end the conflict. That makes it the most humane option.

You further reason that you know what would have happened if those bombs had not been dropped.

Neither do you. By making the assertion that the bombs were wrong you ARE claiming that you can predict what would have happened if the bombs were not dropped (i.e. you believe that fewer deaths would have occurred). Why is your "vision into the future" superior to mine? .

What we are dealing with is a probability distribution. We can't know what would have happened but we can make some logical extrapolations based on our knowledge of warfare and history and I can reasonably say that my scenario is quite probable. More importantly, if the US leaders had the information we have now they would likely make the same decisions because the dropping the bombs would most likely lead to fewer deaths in the future. That does not mean that it would have necessarily played out that way but if you are going to roll a die you are better off betting 4 or less than 5 or more.

Edited August 5, 2015 by TimG

[Boges]

Enola Gay FTW.

More people were killed in the Firebombing of Tokyo than the Nuclear attacks. The Americans bombed just about every city in Japan. They (with help from the RAF) also bombed Nazi Germany into oblivious. When it comes to lives lost the two Nuclear attacks weren't especially unique, it just didn't require waves of B-29 bombers to accomplish it's goal.

The Axis powers brought the entire world in the the most bloody conflict humanity has ever seen and faced with obvious defeat they refused to surrender.

Now some arguments can be made that Japan would have surrendered if they were allowed to keep their Emperor but WGAF? Japan still posed a threat and it was a part in history that smart people knew the next conflict would be between the Western Allies and the USSR and who go what had to be determined.

The USSR had invaded Manchuria already and if they were too to invade Japan (They had no problem sacrificing 1 million more people for the good of the country) then the US would have been at a tactical disadvantage.

People who scream WAR CRIME!!! in response to the Nuclear attacks are ignoring everything that led up to that moment and what type of opponent the Japanese were. It's easy to look back after this period of decades of relative peace and see it as a War Crime, but at the time it was a reasonable way to reduce future casualties and give the Western Allies the advantage in the Cold War to come.

It can, and should, be argued that the invention of Nuclear weapons has probably stopped way more wars than it started. MAD is a real thing and we're currently in the longest period of relative peace in human history because of it.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Boges

[Hal 9000]

This action led to the Holocaust? Huh? You're aware that the Holocaust was complete before the atomic bombs were dropped, right?

Yeah, and these things "defensive invasions", "anticipatory massacres", "murdering to save lives" and "acceptable collateral damage", have all been around for centuries too.

Had Clinton been willing to accept some 20 odd casualties as "collateral damage", 9/11 would never have happened.

[Boges]

That day happened when you believed the US side of the what they wanted.

Unconditional surrender to the US only.

I even heard that, theoretically, the Japanese and Soviets were still at war until the Soviet Union dissolved. And may even still be at war with Russia!

Some authors believe that the success of the Soviets in Manchuria and the inability of the Japanese army to resist them, had more of an impact on the Japanese military than the two American atomic bombs. One factor that we are not yet sure about is why Japanese resistance in Manchuria collapsed so quickly and why the Japanese military commanders were willing to surrender to the Soviets, but unwilling to surrender to the Americans in Okinawa or the Philippines.

From here

http://histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/cou/jap/sov/w2j-sdw.html

WWWTT

So you're saying Japan would rather have surrendered to the USSR than the US. It's possible but then why surrender at all, let the Soviets all the way in. Join forces and immediately start WW3 of the option of being run by the US was so displeasing to them?

It was clear that the Western Allies and Stalin didn't get along, they only co-operated to beat Hitler.

If that was the case than dropping the nukes and surrendering to the US was an even smarter decision by the US.

[WWWTT]

It was clear that the Western Allies and Stalin didn't get along, they only co-operated to beat Hitler.

You have revisionist history.

The Soviets and the Allies teamed up to defeat the Japanese, Germans and Italians.

After Germany was defeated, the Soviets turned their focus back to the east, but the US wanted all the marbles and didn't give negotiations any opportunity. Sound familiar?

Fact remains that the Japanese unconditionally surrendered to the US, not the Allies.

WWWTT

[Boges]

You have revisionist history.

The Soviets and the Allies teamed up to defeat the Japanese, Germans and Italians.

After Germany was defeated, the Soviets turned their focus back to the east, but the US wanted all the marbles and didn't give negotiations any opportunity. Sound familiar?

Fact remains that the Japanese unconditionally surrendered to the US, not the Allies.

WWWTT

The USSR really weren't part of the allies.

Just like the USSR wanted Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe, the US wanted Japan who they sacrificed the most to fight. They weren't going to allow the USSR to swoop in at the end. Japan actually helped Russia by attacking the US at Pearl Harbour (See the Battle of Moscow)

It would have been like if the Western Allies kept going into Eastern Europe after Germany surrendered.

So is doing what they did to make Japan surrender ASAP immoral? It's possible but so much was immoral in that war. It was the most reasonable option at the time.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Boges

[Big Guy]

To Bonam - the theory of "the end justifies the means" was the excuse for the Holocaust. Hitler wanted to rid Germany of the Jews, believed that the end (eradication) would justify the mass murders. So he did what he did.

Please read my post a little more closely.

[Boges]

To Bonam - the theory of "the end justifies the means" was the excuse for the Holocaust. Hitler wanted to rid Germany of the Jews, believed that the end (eradication) would justify the mass murders. So he did what he did.

Please read my post a little more closely.

Talk about false equivalents.

[Big Guy]

I find the idea that we wipe out a quarter million Japanese civilians because we are doing them a favour as ludicrous. So we kill 250,000 of them because if we did not then we would have to kill more than 250,000 of them? This is a rational argument?

What a wonderful precedent. There are about one and a half million Palestinians that Israel has squeezed into Gaza. There is no peace plan and no looming resolution to the constant problem. Netanyahu has already stated that there will be no peaceful solution.

So somebody in the Israeli military figures that war is inevitable with Hamas in Gaza and it will be bloody with thousands or casualties to both sides. It is inevitable that Hamas will lose because they have no weapons so why wait?

Israel drops a nuclear bomb on Gaza to prevent the loss of all those lives that would be lost through a war. So Hamas "made us do it" and we are dropping this bomb to "save Palestinian lives."

And as a bonus - all those lives lost will be Palestinian, not Israeli, so that gives the argument more credence.

I would have thought that after Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen we would have learned something.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Big Guy

[Boges]

I find the idea that we wipe out a quarter million Japanese civilians because we are doing them a favour as ludicrous. So we kill 250,000 of them because if we did not then we would have to kill more than 250,000 of them? This is a rational argument?

What a wonderful precedent. There are about one and a half million Palestinians that Israel has squeezed into Gaza. There is no peace plan and no looming resolution to the constant problem. Netanyahu has already stated that there will be no peaceful solution.

So somebody in the Israeli military figures that war is inevitable with Hamas in Gaza and it will be bloody with thousands or casualties to both sides. It is inevitable that Hamas will loose because they have no weapons so why wait?

Israel drops a nuclear bomb on Gaza to prevent the loss of all those lives that would be lost through a war. So Hamas "made us do it" and we are dropping this bomb to "save Palestinian lives."

And as a bonus - all those lives lost will be Palestinian, not Israeli, so that gives the argument more credence.

I would have thought that after Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen we would have learned something.

Dude! How would you have gotten Japan to surrender? Hugs and Kisses?

These guys were getting guys to agree to fly planes into Battleships.

Stop it with the comparisons to modern day conflicts. Nothing in history compares to the brutality of WW2.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Boges